The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-08-20 FINAL 7:00 P.M. AUGUST 20, 1997 ROOM 241, SECOND FI,OOR, cOUNTY OFFICE BUILI)ING 2. 3. 4 5 6. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Ca21 to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on next sheetl. PUBLIC HEARING to receive ~nput on ~vhether d~e Board should by resolution initiate a referendum on a meals tax. SP-97-27. ARC Natural History Day Camp (Signs #67&68 ~. PUBLIC HEARING on a request for environmental day camp on 840 ac farm in Earlys'dlle. Access to the property from Route 661 tReas Ford Lane,. Znd RA. TM45.P1. Rio Dist. SP-97-1.7. CFW Wireless. CV117. Boyd Tavern (Sign #96L PUBLIC HF~RING on a request to construct 150' telecommunication tower & assoc facilities on portion of 79 acs. Znd RA & EC. TM94.P41A. Located onN side of Richmond Rd Rt 250), approx ~/2 mile W of Rt 616. Rivanna Dist. SP-97-18. C]~V Wireless. CV110, Covesville (Signs #90&91 I. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct 150' telecommtmication tower & assoc facilities on portion of 56 acs. Znd IL& TM109.P9C. Located on E side of Monacan Trail Rd (Rt 2%. it inter w/Cove School Ln (Rt 837). Scottsville Dist, SP-97-20. CFW Wireless. CV113. Toms Mm. (Sign #93). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct 160' telecommunication tower & assoc facilities on portion of 79 acs. Znd RA & EC. TM87.P9. Located on W side of Monacan Trail Rd (Rt 29L approx I/2 mile N of Plank Rd Rt 692). Samuel Miller Dist. SP-97-21. CFW Wireless. CV102. Joshua Run (Signs #61&62). PUBLIC HEARING on a request tc construct 150' telecommunication tower & assoc facilities on portion of 79 acs. Znd RA. TM32.P41. Located on S side of Airport Rd (Rt 6493. approx 0,3 miles W of Seminole Tfl (Rt 29). Rivanna Dist. SP-97-22. CFW Wireless. CVi08, Piney Mtn. (Sign #55L PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct 150' telecommunication tower & assoc facilities on portion of 79 acs. Znd RA & EC. TM21.P10. Located on W side of Seminole Trail (Rt 29). on eastern slopes of Piney Mtn. White Hall Dist. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Adjourn. CONSE'NT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 5.1 Appropriation: Police Record System Improvements. S17.954 ,'Form #96081 ). 5.2 Appropriation: Development Areas Initiative Study, $150.000, Form #97009~. 5.3 Resolution ro take Pmvell Creek in Forest Lakes South Subdivision SUB-92-087 ~ into the State Secondary System of Highways. FOR INFORMATION: 5.4 Letter dated August 5. 1997. from James S. Givens. State Secondary Roads Engtneer, Department of Transportation. re: ISTEA Reauthorizarion Not/ce. 5.5 Memorandum dated August 11. 1997. from Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering and Public Works. re: Bulky Waste Drop-off Program. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Cottpty Executive V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Plarming and Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk August 25, 1997 . Board Actions of August 2£ At its meeting on August 20, 1997 Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. Chairman. (All Board members were pres Agenda Item No~ 4. Other Matter~ There were none. Item No. 5. I. Appropriation: PolJ #96081). APPROVED. Original signed f¢ 1997 Community Development the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the ~nt.) Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. ce Record System Improvements, $17,954 (Form rm forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Development Areas Initiative Study, $150,000 (Form #97009). APPROVED. Original signed form forwarded to Melvin Breeden. Item No. 5.3. Resolution to take Powell Creek in Forest Lakes South Subdivision (SUB-92-087) into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED the attached Resolution. Agenda Item No. 6. PUBLIC HEARING to receive input on whether the Board should by resolution initiate a referendum on a meals tax. ADOPTED the attached Resolution. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-97-27. ARC Natural History Day Camp (Signs #67&68). PUBLIC HEARING on a request for environmental day camp on 840 ac farm in Earlysville. Access to the property from Route 661 (Reas Ford Lane). Znd IRA. TM45,P1. Rio Dist. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: August 25, 1997 Page 2 APPROVED SP-97-27 subject to the following three conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance: Provisions for outdoor cooldng, campfires, cooldng pits, etc., shall be subject to Albemarle County fire official approval whether or not a site development plan is required; and ALI such uses shall conform to the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation and other applicable requirements; A.R.C. and E.E.C. Camps are to be operated in accord with the project descrip- tion dated May 19, 1997, and representations made to staff as described herein (copies attached). Maximum enrollment of the E.E.C. Camp shall not exceed thirty (30) campers per session for two, two-week sessions during the months of June, July and/or August. Ma.ximum enrollment of the A.R.C. Camp shall not exceed thirty-five (35) campers per session, for one, one-week session and one, · two-week session during the months of June, July and/or August. Structures on Panorama Farms to be used under this special use permit are to be limited to the existing structures on the property; and A sign ("Road Narrows") shall be posted on Reas Ford Lane in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation letter of July 3, 1997, unless the road is improved under SP-97-11. The Board asked staff to work with the applicant regarding his request to waive the application fee for this special use permit. Item No. 8. SP-97-17. CFWWireless, CVll7, Boyd Tavern (Sign #96). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct 150' telecommunication tower & assoc facilities on portion of 79 acs. Znd RA & EC. TM94,P41A. Rivanna Dist. APPROVED SP-97-17 subject to the following eleven conditions: Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet. The tower shall be designed to allow an increase in height up to 199 feet. Any increase in height above 150 feet shall require amendment of this permit; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground; Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for, or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section; Memo To: Robert W. Tud*er, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: August 25, 1997 Page 3 The tower must be designed a~nd adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes; The tower shall be located as shown on attached plan titled "Tower site for CFW Wireless" and initialed WDF 7/1/97; Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit constrnction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities; Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall use colors such as gray, blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts, except as may be modified by the ARB; 10. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate on the tower and site and shall provide the County, upon request, vetifiable evidence of having made a good faith effort to allow such location. Vetifiable 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 permittee's tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by such other provider within Albemarle County. The permittee also agrees to execute a letter of intent prior to final site plan approval stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with any other wireless telecommunications provider requesting to locate on the tower or site; and A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than July 1. This report shall state current user status of the tower. Specifically, the report shall state if the tower is being used for wirdess telecommunication service. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-97-18. CFW Wireless, CV110, Covesville (Signs #90&91). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct 150' telecommunication tower Sc assoc facilities on portion of 56 acs. Znd RA. TMI09,P9C. Scottsville Dist. WITHDRAWN by the applicant. Agenda Item 10. SP-97-20. CFW Wireless, CV113, Toms Mtn. (Sign #93). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct 160' telecommunication tower Sc assoc facilities on portion of 79 acs. Znd RA Sc EC. TM87,Pg. Samuel Miller Dist. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: August 25, 1997 Page 4 WITHDRAWN by the applicant. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-97-21. CFW Wireless, CV102, Joshua Run (Signs #61&62). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct 150' telecommunication tower & assoc facilities on portion of 79 acs. Znd RA. TM32,P41. Rivanna Dist. APPROVED SP-97-21 subject to the following eleven conditions: Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet. The tower shall be designed to allow an increase in height up to 199 feet. Any increase in height above 150 feet shall require amendment of this permit; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground; Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for, or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section; The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components with remain within the lease area; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes; The tower shall be located as shovm on attached plan rifled "Tower site for CFW Wireless" and initialed WDF 7/1/97; Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities; Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall use colors such as gray, blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts, except as may be modified by ARB; I0. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate on the to,vet and site and shall provide the County, upon request, verifiable evidence of having made a good faith effort to allow such location. Vetifiable 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 permittee's tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: August 25, 1997 Page 5 controlled by such other provider within Albemarle County. The permittee also agrees to execute a letter of intent prior to final site plan approval stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with any other wireless telecommunications provider requesting to locate on the tower or site; and 11. A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than July I. This report shall state current user status of the tower. Specifically, the report shall state if the tower is being used for wireless telecommunication service, Item No. 12. SP-97-22. CFW Wireless, CVI08, Piney Mtn. (Sign #55): PUBLIC HEARING on a request to construct 150' telecommunication tower &- assoc facilities on portion of 79 acs. Znd RA Sc EC. TM21,PIO. White Hall Dist. APPROVED SP-97-22 subject to the following fifteen conditions: Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet. The tower shall be designed to allow an increase in height up to 199 feet. Any increase in height above 150 feet shall require amenchnent of this permit; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground; Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No achninistrative approval shall constitute or imply support for, or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section; The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components with remain within the lease area; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes; The tower shall be located as shown on attached plan titled "Tower site for CFW Wireless" and initialed WDF 7/1/97; Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities; 9. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40 feet; Memo To: Robert W. Tudcer, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: August 25, 1997 Page 6 10. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper thmr 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; Il. The access road above the 800 foot elevation shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2: I or flatter; 12. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section; 13. Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall use colors such as gray, blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts, except as may be modified by ARB; 14. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate on the tower and site and shall provide the County, upon request, verifiable evidence of having 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 permittee's tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by such other provider within Albemarle County. The permittee also agrees to execute a letter of intent prior to final site plan approval stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with any other wirdess telecommunications provider requesting to locate on the tower or site; and 15. A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than July 1. This report shall state current user status of the tower. SpecifiCally, the report shall state if the tower is being used for wireless telecommunication service. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mrs. Thomas said she received a letter from the U.S. Postal Service indicating they wish to move the North Garden Post Office. She would like for the Planning staff to have some input in that decision. The Post Office, located at the Crossroads, is a part of the community. The North Garden Fire Department apparently wauts the property for its use. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that before staff proceed Mr. Huff find out why the fire department wants the space. Mr. Bowerman stressed the need for the consultm~t on the telecommunication towers to move forward quickly. He suggested CFW work with the consultant. Mr. Bowerman mentioned a letter Mr. Heischman wrote to residents concerning his proposed housing project (ZMA-96-24 N&S L.L.C.). Mr. Bowerman noted that several of the statements in the letter were not accttrate. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: August 25, 1997 Page 7 Agenda Item No. 14. Adjottrn. The meeting was adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m. EWCAbh Attachments: (7) cc: Richard E. Huff, II Roxanne White Kevin C. Castner Larry Davis Amelia McCulley Bill Mawyer Bruce Woodzell Richard Wood Jan Sprinlde Yadira Amari File RESOLUTION TO INITIATE FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX REFERENDUM WHEREAS, Section 58.1-3833 of the Code of Virginia enables a board of supervisors to initiate a referendum on whether a county food and beverage tax may be levied; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has determined that revenue from a food and beverage tax is preferable to revenue generated from an increase in the real estate tax rate; and WHEREAS, a referendum on a County food and beverage tax provides County voters an opportunity to determine if a food and beverage tax is an acceptable tax to generate additional necessary revenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby requests the County Attorney to file a petition with the Cimuit Court of Albemarle County to request a Writ of Election for a referendum to be held on November 4, 1997 on the following: Shall Albemarle County be authorized to levy a food and beverage tax of no more than four percent on food and beverages sold for human consumption by restaurants and on prepared sandwiches and single-meal platters sold by grocery stores and convenience stores at delicatessen counters, provided such tax, in no event, shall exceed eight and one-half percent when added to the state and local general sales and use tax? I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of five to one on August 20, 1997, C~er'l~o~'~'r~l ~f Co~}~pervisors I:\GEN ERAL\SHARE-~CLERKtMEALSTAX,WPD VA J~IQ S J.h'VflJ. S DlqI'd~RNIDlq~ N-Y~I .-L66I '8[ ~ ,00I = ,,[ ~"IVDS VIbIIO~IlA '03 ~ITdV~t~t'IV J~SI(l VNNVA~ ~deo ~u!uuetd III No. 865-B ~'/~, z 1997 RECEIVED ,JUN 1 2 1997 Planning Dept. proposed Tower COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin A. Breeden. Director of Finance Ella W. Carey, Clerk. CMC ~ August 27, 1997 Board Actions of August 20, 1997 At its meeting on August 20, 1997, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Item No. 5.1. A~propriation: Police Record System Improvements. $17.954 (Form #96081 ). APPROVED. Attached is the signed form. Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Development Areas Initiative Study, $150.000 (Form #97009). APPROVED. Attached is the signed form. ewc Attachments (2) cc: Roxanne White Richard E. Huff, II Robert Walters John Miller V. Wayne Cilimberg APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 97/98 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DEVELOPMENT AREA' S INITIATIVE STUDY. EXPENDITURE NUMBER 97009 ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW X YES NO X GENEP,~L COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100081010312342 DEVELOPMENT AREA STUDY $150,000.00 TOTAL S150,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100051000510100 GENER3~L FUtYD BALANCE $150,000.00 TOTAL $150,000.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: PLAA!NING APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR S I GNATURE ? DATE APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR 96/97 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED o YES NO FUND GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATI$N: CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES GRANT LOCAL MATCH. EXPENDITURE 96081 X X COST CTR/CATEGORY- DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1152029408312000 OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES S17,954.00 TOTAL $17,954.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2152019000190207 CPLARLOTTESVILLE $7,181.60 2152019000190219 UVA 3,590.80 2152051000512004 ALBEM2~_RLE 7,181.60 TOTAL $17,954.00 REQUESTING COST CENTER: POLICE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE COUNTY OF ALBEMAI L EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BOARD 0iP SU?ERVir$oR$ AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Police Record System Improvements SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #96081 in the amount of $17,954.00 STAFF CONTACT{S): Messrs. TuckeL Breeden, Waltem, Miller, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: August 20, 1997 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: RENEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville, and University of Virginia Police Departments have been trying to develop a common or shared data base of crime incidents. The County Board of Supervisors and City Council have approved appropriations to pumhase new computer systems in the County and City Police Departments. The University Police Department has a current and usable system already in place. The Emergency Operations Center is rebuilding its entire computer system with E911 surcharge funds. The requested grant, 96-A9068 funding will be used to purchase software and training to connect the three police departments and the Emergency Operations Center. DISCUSSION: An appropriation for a $75,000 Department of Criminal Justice Services grant was previously approved July 22, 1996. This appropriation requests approval of the local share of $17,954.00. The local share is allocated $7,181.60 to the County of Albemarle, $7,181.60 to the City of Charlottesville, and $3,590.80 to the University of Virginia. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #96081 in the amount of $17,954.00. 96.148 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Development Areas In~ative Study SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of Appropriation #97009 for a total of $150,000 STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Breeden Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: August 20, 1997 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: In January of this year the Board of Supe~sors appointed the Development Areas Initiative Steedng Committee to oversee the development of guidelines for growth in the urban neighborhoods. The Steering Comm~ee developed a Scope of Work for the project and appointed a Selection Committee to oversee the consultant selection process. An RFP was distributed in February; eleven proposals were received; four firms were interviewed in April: and the top two firms were selected for negofiations. The Selection Committee has recommended that CHK Architects and Planners be awarded the contract for the project. The Steering Committee will lead the project and CHK will provide the advice and technical expertise necessary to facilitate decisions by the Committee. CHK's detailed work plan (see Attachment} involves a significant citizen involvement process, including surveys, focus groups, eight citizen meetings, ten work sessions with the Staedng Committee. and an all-day charrette to develop the citizens' preferred method of buildout for the urban neighborhoods. From this process, the firm plans to create a model "master plan" or template to be used in developing future master plans for the urban neighborhoods. The firm will also provide des'~n guidelines and recommendations on regulatory changes needed for implementation. The project is expected to take ten months and a final report will be provided with camera ready artwork for reproduction by the County. The consultant cost for the study has been negofiated at $147,104.50. An additional $2895.50 will be used for mailings, copies of the final report, and public meeting expenses. Atyour August 6th meeting, you authorized the County Executive to sign the contract with CHK Architects and Planners. DISCUSSION: Adequate funding is available in the County's Fund Balance to cover this appropriation of $150.000. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Appropriation fl97009 be approved in the amount of $150,000 ($147,104.50 for the consultant study and $2,895.50 for staff needs in mailings, reproduction of the report, and public meeting expenses). 97.153 To: From: Subject: Date: Mark B. Henry, Senior Planner Department of Engineer Ella Washin~on Carey, Clerk, C~ Road Resolution August 27, 1997 At its meeting on August 20, 1997. the Board of Supervisors adopted the following resolution: (1) to take Powell Creek in Forest Lakes South Subdivision (SUB-92-087) into the State Secondary System of Highways. Attached are the orignnal and four copies of the adopted resolution. ~EWC Attachments The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle Count, Virginza, in regular meshing on the 20TH day of Augusg, 1997, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS the snreecs in Forest Lakes South Subdivision {SUB-92-087 described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated Augus¢ 20, 1997, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virglnza Department of Transporua- tion has advised the Board that the streets meeu the rec/ulremenus established by the SBbdivision Street Recuiremenns of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors recfaests the Virginia Deparmmen5 of Transportation 5o add the road in Forest Lakes South Subdivision as described on the attached Additions FomnSR- 5(A) dated AUguSE 20 1997, ~o the secondary sys5em of state highways, pursuanu ~o §33.1-229~ Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Reculrements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guaranuees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easemenss for cu~s, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLIrED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Deparsmenn of Transportation, Recorded voEe: Moved by: Mr. Marshall. Seconded by: Mrs. Thomas Yeas: Mrs. Hu~phris, Mr Mr. Bowerman. Nays: None. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins. Mrs. Thomas and A Copy Tesue: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Super~i~fs Mark B. Henry, Senior Engineering3 August 12, 1997 Forest Lakes South Subdivision, Powell Creek (SUB-92-087) The road serving the referenced subdivision is substantially complete and ready for VDO T acceptance. At the next opportunity, / request the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution for the road specified in the attached VDOT SR-5(A) form. After the adoption of the resolution, p/ease provide me with the original and four copies of the signed and dated resolution and SR-5A. Thanks for your assistance. P/ease contact me if you have any questions. MBH/ctj Attachment The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, mn regular meesing on the 20TH day of August, 1997, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Forest Lakes South Subdivision described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated August 20, incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded mn Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and (SUB-92-087; 1997, fully the Clerk's WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginma Departmenn of Transporta- tion has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportatmon. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervzsors requests the Virginma Department of Transportation to add the road in Forest Lake~ South Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR- 5(A) dated August 20, 1997, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded the Resident Engmneer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Seconded by: Yeas: Nays: A Copy Teste: E1Ta W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Board of County Supervisors The roads described on Additions Form SR-5 iA) are: 1) Powell Creek Drive from Station 0+35, left edge of pavemen5 of Ashwood Boulevard ~State Route 167G. mo Station 10+00, edge of pavemenu of Powell Creek Drive (State Route t521), 965 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 7/5,94 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, yirglnia, in Deed Book 1416, pages 117-128, with a right-of-way width of 65 feet, with addi- mlonal plat recorded 10/16/96 in Deed Book 1570, pages 349-356, for a length of 0.18 mile. Total length - 0.18 mile. DAVID R. GEHR COMMISS ONEF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1401 EAST BROAD STREE1 RICHMOND 23219-1939 August 5, 1997 JAMES S. GIVENS STATE SECONDARY ROADS ENGINEER ISTEA Reauthorization Notice A Letter no: Selected Counties I am writing co make you aware of certain language proposed in the ISTEA reauthorization bill now being considered by Congress. The enclosed is a sumzaary of Virginia Deparsmenr of Transportation's staff interpresaEion of the proposed change zn procedure for designating National Scenic Byways and Ail- American Roads, which could impact the areas traversed by those roads. This involves the Colonial Parkway, Blue Ridge Parkway, Skyline Drive, George Washingson Memorial Parkway and the roads through the George Washington, Shenandoah and Jefferson national Foresss. Inasmuch as this may impacn your jurisdiction, I am submitting this information to you for any actions you may deem appropriate. Sincerely, State Secondary Roads Engineer Enclosure WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING LOCALITIES CONTAINING NATIONAL SCENIC BYWAYS AND ANY STATE MAINTAINED ROADS WTTHIN NATIONAL PARK OR FOREST BOUNDARIER _COLC rqlAL PARKWAY -James City County -York County -City of W~lliamsburg GEORGE WASHINGTON MEMORIAL PARKWAY -Arlington County -Fairfax County -City of Atexandda SKYLINE DRIVE (SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK) -AJbemade County -Augusta County -Greene County -Madison County -Page County -Rappahannock County -Rockingham County -Warren County -Town of Front Royal (borders National Park and Northern terminus of Skyline Drive) SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK [other roads throuqh the park) -Albemarle County (Route 614 forms park boundary) -Augusta County -Greene County -Madison County -Page County -Rappahannock County -Rockingham County -Warren County BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY -Amherst County -Albemarle County -Augusta County -Bedford County -Botetourt County -Carroll County -Floyd County -Franklin County -Grayson County -Nelson County -Patrick County -Roanoke County -Rockbridge County -City of Roanoke (contains and borders short segments of Parkway) JEFFERSON NATIONAL FOREST -Bedford County -Bland County -Botetourt County -Carroll County -Craig County -Dickenson County -Giles County -Grayson County -Lee County -Montgomery County -Pulaski County -Rockbridge County -Russell County -Scott County -Smyth County -Tazewell County -Washington County -W'~se County -Wythe County -Town of Bluefield (town streets South of Route 720 appear to be within Natienal Forest Boundary) -Town of Buchanan -Town of Madon -Town of Newcastle GEORGE WASHINGTON NATIONAL FOREST -Alleghany County -Amherst County -Augusta County -Bath County -Bedford County -Botetourt County -Frederick County -Highland County -Nelson County -Page County -Rockbridge County -Rockingham County -Shenandoah County -Warren County -City of Clifton Forge -City of Covington -Town of Goshen -Town of Iron Gate ISTEA Reauthodzation Legislation The Federal Highway Administration oroposes to amend the National Scenic Byway rules. As we '~terpret the language ~n Sec. 1023 § 163 (a)"Designation of Roads" any federal land management agency will be authorized to designate roads on federal land as National Scenic Byways. Those roads could then be nominated for All- Amer: can Roads designation. Current regulations require that the federal agencies first obtain State Scenic Byway designation and State support for the nomination of a facility for Ali-American Road designation. The (~es~gnation process requires implementation of a comprehensive corridor management plan. One of the many purposes for the corridor management plan is to ennance and control corridor view sheds and other factors to [~rotect the designation. The Virginia Department of Transportation requires that federal agencies offer to conduct public hearings on the corridor management plan and obtain local government endorsement before the matter is placed before the Commonwealth Transportation Board for State designation. The proposed legislation appears to circumvent State and local government, 1 2 3 4 6 7 9 lO 11 2 13 14 I$ 16 17 15 19 2O 21 22 "162. State infi'~structure bank program". SEC. 1023. NATIONAL SCENIC BYWAYS PROGRAM. (a) IN GENERAL.-oChapter 1, of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section: "§ 1~3. National Scenic Byways Program "(a) DESIGNATION OF ROADS.--The Secretary shal~ carry out a National Scenic Byways Program that recognizes roads having outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and archeological qualities by designating them as National Scenic Byways or All- American Roads. The Secretary shall designate roads to be recognized under the National Scenic Byways Program in accordance with criteria developed by the Secretary. To be considered for such designation, a road must be nominated by a State or Federal land management agency and must first be designated as a State scenic byway or, for roads on Federal lands, as a Federal land management agency byway. "(b) GRANTS AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.-(1) The Secretary shall make grants and provide technical assistance to States "(A) implement projects on highways designated as National Scenic Byways or All-American Roads, or as State scenic byways; and "(B) plan, design, and develop a State scenic byways program. "(2) In making grants, the Secretary shall give priority "(A) eligible projects that are associated with highways that have been designated as National Scenic Byways or All-American Roads; "(13) eligible projects along State-designated scenic byways that are 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 undertaken to make them eligible for designation as National Scenic Byways or All-American Roads; and "(C) eligible projects associated with the development of State scenic byways programs. "(c) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.--The following are projects that are eligible for Federal assistance under this section: "(1) activities related to planning, design, or development of State scenic byway programs; "(2) development of corridor management plans; "(3) safety improvements to a State scenic byway, to the extent such improvements are necessary to accommodate increased traffic and changes in the types of vehicles using the highway, due to such designation; "(4) construction along a scenic byway of facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists, rest areas, turnouts, highway shoulder improvements, passing lanes, overlooks, and interpretive facilities; "(5) improvements to a scenic byway that will enhance access to an area for the purpose of recreation, including water-related recreation; "(6) protection of historical, archeological, and cultural resources in areas adjacent to scenic byways; "(7) development and provision of tourist information to the public, including interpretive information about scenic byways; and "(8) development and implementation of scenic byways marketing programs. 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 "(d) FEDERAL SHARE.--The Federal share payable on account of any project carried out under this section shall be de~ermined in accordance with section 120(o) of this title, except that, for any scenic byways project along a public road that provides access to or within Federal or Indian lands, a Federal land management agency may use funds authorized for its use as the non-Federal share. "(e) FUNDING.--There shall be available to the Secretary for carrying out this section, out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit Account), $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003. "(f) LIMITATION.--The Secretary sh~ not make a grant under this section for any project that would not protect the scenic, historic, recreational, cultural, natural, and archeological integrity of a highway and adjacent areas.". (o) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.-The analysis for chapter 1 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following new item: "163. National Scenic Byways Program.". SEC. 1024. INFRASTRUCTURE SAFETY PROGRAM. (a) IN GENERAL.--Chapter I of title 23, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking sections 130 and 152; (2) by adding at the end the following new sections: "§ 164. Infrastructure Safety Program "(a) RAN~WAY-HIGHWAY CROSSINGS.-- "(1) ELIGIBLE USES OF FUNDS APPORTIONED UNDER SECTION 104 OF TI-HS TITLE.--Except as provided in subsection 120(c) of this title and paragraph (a)(8) 83 TO: VIA: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Board of Supervisors Bob Tucker, County Executive Rick Huff, Deputy Cotmty Executive Bill Mawyer, Director ~ August 11, 1997 ~/ Bulky Waste Drop-offProgram The Spring 1997 Bulky Waste Drop-offProgram was a tremendous success. Over 700 vehicles delivered 123 tons of white goods, water heaters, furniture, fires and various other bulky items during the four day collection period. The program cost approximately $9,000, including Rivanna Solid Waste Authurity's equipment and labor charges, tip fees and advertising. The cost of support provided by County employees is not included since that expense is funded by the department's operafmg budget. ro continue this service, the Fall 1997 Bulky Waste Drop-off Program ~s planned for the following Saturdays and locations from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.: September 27 October 4 October 11 October I 8 East Rivanna Fire Station Earlysville Fire Station Henley Middle School Walton Middle School A cost of $12,000 is anticipated to complete the Fall 1997 program. The cost increase is due to the additional containers and manpower needed to get vehicles unloaded more quickly and reduce the sometimes lengthy waiting lines experienced in the Spring program. Thank you for your continued support of this program. BM/ctj Copy: Joe Letteri, Chief of Staff Services File: bill~oosbw RESOLUTt'ON TO I'NTTZATE FOOD AND BEVERAGE TAX REFERENDUM WHEREAS, Section 58.1-3833 of the Code of Virginia enables a board of supervisors to initiate a referendum on whether a county food and beverage tax may be levied; and WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has determined that revenue from a food and beverage tax is preferable to revenue generated from an increase in the real estate tax rate; and WHEREAS, a referendum on a County food and beverage tax provides County voters an opportunity to determine if a food and beverage tax is an acceptable tax to generate additional necessary revenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby requests the County Attorney to file a petition with the Circuit Court of Albemarle to request a Writ of Election for a referendum to be held on November 4, 1997 on the following: Shall Albemarle County be authorized to levy a food and beverage tax of no more than four percent on food and beverages sold for human consumption by restaurants and on prepared sandwiches and single-meal platters sold by grocery stores and convenience stores at delicatessen counters, provided such tax, in no event, shall exceed eight and one-half percent when added to the state and local general sales and use tax? I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of __ to __ on August 20, 1997. Clerk, Board of County Supervisors ALBEMARLE COUNTY RETAIL DISPLAY ADVERTISEMENT, P. O. #A-1385 PUBLIC NOTICE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS Notice is hereby given that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County Virginia will solicit public comments at a meeting on August 20, 1997 at 7:00 p.m., or whether the Board of Sueerwsors should initiate by resolution a referendum on a meals ta(. The meeting will be held in Room 241 on the second floor of the County Office Building, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virgi ma. By order of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. Reasonable accommodations will be provided to persons with disabilities, if requested. Please call 296-5827. Ella W. Carey, Clerk Today's Date: August 11, 1997 Dates to run~ August t3~,,1~997 Please size: 3" x 3" Bil to: Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902-4596 Name of uerson to contact about advertisement: Ella Carey Telephone #: 296-5843 Fax #: 296-5800 · Wednesda~,.~.ugust 13,1 g97 NOtice is hc,~reby gi,v. en th~ Ih~; Board o[ SUl)ervisor~ .~lb(~mar!~C,(~unty. ~ir~inia:wit sot cit [}t ~ ( ( )mine ~ts at' a [~m(~ti*,~.o. AuRq~t 2(). 199; a[ 7:()1) p.i~l., oii whether the;' 13~)ar(I '(~(~ 5~)erv ~ors .s d[J ( initiate by re~olutioil a':' rc'fereh~.hJm on.~t mdals' t~x. The mce~linR Will be held iii · Eo~)m 2~1 ,on'th(: .S(:'[~o~ld [Io()r ()f lh(~ I~efs(ms with'tlJ~abJlities; ii r(~cl~Je~te(I. PJe~ C> To: DMULLINS (~ ACVA (DMULLINS) Subject: Support fi:~r ra~fls lax THOMAS F. KELSEY CHICKADEE HILL P. O. BOX 93. IVY. VIRGINIA. 22945-0093 Telephone: 804-293-7002 e-mall: ~celsoy~osinetnet My wife Kath~n and I had planned to at.md the Albemarle County Board of Supcrvisom meeting tonight f~r the dlscussion of a County m~als t~x and to show support, in pm for you County Supervisors in hol~s that you will place a County meals tax proposal on the November voting ballot Due to ~imums~mces quite unforeseen, neither of us will ba able to attend the m~eting. This does not raea~ that we do no~ support the placing ora meals ~ax on the ballot. The purpose of this eonmmnicmion is to ask that ~s our County Sup*cvisor, you will vote in favor cf placing the proposal on the ballot We also hope that you will encourage your fellow Supervisors to also vote for this proposaI to be placed on the ballot. You ~rta~y have represented the S~nuel Miller District responsibly and ~ empathy for those of us who are natives and longtime residenls of Albemarle County, We hope that your vote in favor of placing the meals hax on the ballot will be in the majority as we believe the Albemarle County cilizens will understand the nece~ity of such a~ax and vote fork. Thank you very much. Your support will ensure our continued supporL nfyou and your work as our Supervisor. Thomas F. & Kathryn W. Kelsey Chickadee Hill Ivy ~FROM : J E Cro~b9 PHONE NO. : 884 823 ~277 ~g~t 20, l ~97 22~596 not ~to~ y~r '~S t~" m~g ~r~ly. I ~t~ ~o b~ ~ere ~ I warn to ~przss, ~y~ ~oiher poim of ~ew, t~t I ~ not wri~ m criticize or cond~ ~one. i Mve MeMs of~s i~o ~d I r~ iheir ri~ to ~ve i di~em poim ofview no ~dge it to ~. a l~Md~nt of ~be~le Cou~ b~ i ~ ~wa~ felt we g~ more in ~ ~ja~t j~i~on, I ~ve ~rk~ clo~ly with ~on~ ~d ~1 ~r~y ~at we ~v~ tho best in our ~u~ ex~utive and ~S. I ~ow ~t ~ one of ~m ~m ~ do the v~ ~st job t~ ~ I ~'t blamo t~ for w~tin$ mor~ ~power, ~ ~t~Is ~h ~ m~e a ~ ~ for th~ ~s I ~ly appraise the t~e time away ~om ~ ~ ~ o~r ~p~biliti~s to s~o us m ~ ~lly ~p~i~ y~ fm~on at ~g to do ~ mu~h With ~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 08-21-97P02 :OC ;-,' C \/D "l:'ROi~---- ': J E C'r'osb~ PHOI",E NO, ; 8~.,4 82~ 22'77 P02 This is t~e same fms~ratlon ~ by the head of~y household, What household t~der~14,~ k~_~ not fished bavin~ to ~ to a ~t ~e for ~e ex~ngit~e o~ ~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~a ~t th~- ~ ~u~old l~ip has ~t ~ pr~i~io~ Yo~ ~ ~ s~m~ ~ ~ h~d ofth~ co~ ~o~sehold ~ ~lc I i A m~s ~ ~ i re~, ~, a~ ~es ~, A ~ add~ to t~ ~x ~ ~dy pay ~ ~ ~ ~ ~hofl~, ~ctgcity, auto~b~e~ hou~o~ g~, ~ dot~ as ~ ~ ~ m~s ~ ~ ~t. How ~ch is ~ou~? I ~y ~ough ~r~y. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y fo~, A ~ t~ puts ~ ~ burden on the ~r ~s ~ ~8~ no m~er ~t ~ m~s. ~e coa, ~d ~e ~ on s Io~o~ ~ ~-- ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~e ~nt, ~e r~ ~ta~ t~ is ~er on ~e more ~ ~ ~e you don't ~d ~e ~or ~d the dder~. ~ i ~s ~t o~, t~ ~inly s~ a m~ d~l~n~ aM should ~ a ~y ~ ~ ~ of ~ own. ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ m~ i~ in Alb~]~ Co~ty is ~ound $~0,~. ffyou live ~e ~ ~ a 3 or 4 ~ ~ ~ t~ c~ of ~s, ea~ out, w~l~'t ~t ~P'RO~ : J E Cro~b~ PHOebE NO. : 884 82~ 2277 one w~7 or~h~ other, Maybe thltl's why I hav~'t met anyone sup~n~ ~e m~s t~ who ~y~ ~ve to ~ ~*h ~iow t~t m~ ~me 1~] (ns ~y ofo~ ~ior cities ~), a 3 ~ 4 ~ ~ on ~ ~s ~u ~t out ~ b~me ve~ ~po~a~. ~ time ~ om, I ~ ~t I ~ ~oy a d~u~ by eafi~ m ~ ~e County e~hli~ent ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t~ ~ ~ doll~ imo ~ ~ua~ co~, while I'm ~ it. Y~ ~y ~d ~ig~tc ~d ~*~si~ m rs~d ~plm {n ~erjud~icti~ t~t g~fully, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Communit~ Development 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 92902-45% (80~) 295-5823 July 23, 1997 Steven Murray 300 Panorama Road Earlysville, VA 22936 RE: SP-97-27 ARC Natural History Day Camp/E.E.C. Day Camp Dear Mr. Murray: The Albemarle County planning Commission, at its meeting on July 22, 1997, by a vote of 5~1 (Mr. Finley abstained) recommetided approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance: Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfires, cooking pits, etc., shall be subject to Albemarle County fire official approval whether or not a site development plan is required; All such uses shall conform to the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation and other applicable requirements. A.R.C. and E.E.C. camps are to be operated in accord with the project description dated May 19, 1997 and representations made to staff as described herein. Maximum enrollment of the E.E.C. Camp shall not exceed thirty (30) campers per session, for two two-week sessions during the months of June, July, and/or August. Maximum enrollment of the A.R.C. Camp shall not exceed thirty-five (35) campers per session, for one one- week session and one two-week session during the months of June, July and/or August. Structures on Panorama Farms to be used under this special use permit are to be limited to the existing structures on the property. Page 2 July 23, 1997 A sign ("Road Narrows") shall be posted on Reas Ford Lane in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation letter of July 3, 1997, unless the road is improved under AP 97~11. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting onAugust 20,1997. 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. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Susan E. Thomas Senior Planner SET/]cf cc: ~a C~ey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey A:ISP972ZRPT STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SUSAN E. THOMAS JULY 22, 1997 AUGUST 20, 1997 SP 97-27 A.R.C. NATURAL HISTORY DAY CAMP/PANORAMA ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CAMP Applicant's Proposal: Panorama Farms, Inc. is requesting a special use permit for two summer day camps which use its property on a seasonal basis. The applicant does not anticipate any change to the agricultural activities currently occurring on the farm as a result of this special use permit. The A.R.C. Natural I-Iisto~y Day Camp (A.R~C. Camp) is a three week environmental education camp senang rising first and second graders in a one-week session (first session), and rising third, fourth, and fifth graders in a successive two-week session (second session), during late June and early July. The camp was started by the Albemarle, Rivanna and Charlottesville garden clubs several years ago, thus the name. Pfinmry activities are hiking and natural history studies throughout the farm. Maximum enrollment is projected to be about 35 children. Hours of operation are 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., Monday through Friday. Campers arrive at the farm in private vehicles, and many car pool. Vehicles enter and exit through two farm gates located on Reas Ford Lane (State Route 661). A.R.C. Camp headquarters is a nearby barn (existing) on the property. Campers bring their own lunches; the only additional facilities provided for the camp are portable toilets rented for the summer sessions. There is one overnight at the end of the second session. Maps of Panorama Farm are included as Attachments A and B. The A.R.C. Camp description is included as Attachment C. The Panorama Environmental Education Camp (E.E.C. Camp) moved to Panorama Farms from the Miller School in 1996. It operates two two-week sessions for rising sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth graders, and currently serves fourteen campers per session, during the months of June and July. Future maximum enrollment is estimated at thirty campers per session, for two sessions only. Hours of operation are 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. Although the camp currently operates during the early part of the summer, camp management indicates that the two two-week sessions could be scheduled at various times during June, July, or August. The camp uses a second barn (existing) located near the family residences as a headquarters, accessed from Panorama Road (State Route 844). Campers arrive at the camp in private vehicles, and many car pool. Primary activities involve environmental field study and measurement, with the majority of the day spent out on the farm. At least half of the curriculum takes place away from the farm, on the reservoir, in Shenandoah National Park and other area locations. For these activities, students are transported in rented 15-passenger vans from the farm. There is one overnight at the farm per session. The E.E.C. camp brochure and description are included as Attachment B. Petition: Petition to allow operation of two summer day'~mi3s [10.2.2.20] ofthree,?nd~four ~eeks, approx~maIeiy~n~u ae~s zonea ~;. ~m ~ '~u~ject propcrt5 ~s loc ted betwee ~E~lysmlle Road~(R~g~E,743)~ Re~ Ford Road (Roum 660)m l.:arlysvfllc. IIns she. Magisteri~ District. The prope~, is zoned R.-~; Rural ~..5¥~fig~ffi~d i~ de~i~i~hl0d Rfiral ~ain ~C~prehensivo Plmrh lies within the Panormna Agr cu turalqr( 'esu ) st' ~loeated ~mO Dev0[opment ~ea~ Planning and Zoning staffmembers on several occasions in the past have spoken to the property owner about the need for a special use permit for the camp activity. Because the property owner has allowed the two camps, organized as non-profit corporations, to use the farm free of charge, he was reluctant toincur the $780 cos? involved with submitting this application. When the special use permit application was submitted for the mountain bike club on the same property, staffindicated tO h'~nn that the review of the club could not proceed without the submittal for the camp use, since both occupy the same parcels and require separate special use permits. The 'camp applicant has indicated that he will request relief from the application fee from the Board of Supervisors. Character of the Area: ~y~a~F,,~,..~a~n. in~ ogri~ultural use for a'number of years. There are threeTresidOnces~5 located on the farm, two owned and occupied by family members and one tenant residence. Additionally, theLe are two large barns and other associated agricultural structures and equipmem used for agriculture. Access is fi'om the Earlysville Road (State Route 743) via Panorama Road (State Route 844) and from Reas Ford Road (State Route 660) via Reas Ford Lane (State Route 661). Panorama Road currently is nnproved to approximately a 3-R standard (18 feet pavement, 4 foot shoulder, and a 3 foot ditch). Reas Ford Lane has a gravel surface, and narrows to about a 10 foot width near Graemont West subdivision. The entrance to the A.R.C. Camp is from the lower, narrow portion of the road. l~d us~ l~.th{~ ~eaJs.~la!'gely msldenttal and agricultural; although the former Cooper Industries'..~ ~ ,i¢,!~a't~ed~pprg~irfiately 1~4 ?mile~beyond the'intersecti0n of Reas Ford Road and Reas Ford. ~ ~; ~l ~e ~ar!ys¥i[l~ fire and rescue station is also located nearby ~ Page 2 of 8 Planning and Zoning History_: Development activity occurring on Panorama Farms is summarized below: SP 81-30 Cleveland/Davis, approved 7/15/81 - granted one additional development right on TM 45 Parcel 1. Plat approved 7/15/81- created TM 30 Parcel lgG (14.51 acres), 5 development rights remaining on residue. Plat approved 12/16/83 - added 21.5 acres from TM 31 Parcel 21 to TM 45 Parcel 1, no development rights affected. SP 85-16; withdrawn 8/20/87 -request to locate 80 lots on a 189.10 acre parcel on TM 31 Parcel 21. SP 87-06, approved 5/20/87 with conditions . allowing additional development on TM 3t Parcel 21 and limiting development on TM 45 Parcel 1; 24 residential lots created on 189.10 acres. SUB 87-172 Graemont Subdivision Final Plat, approved 12/17/87 - created a subdivision of 24 tots on TM 31 Parcel 21. Plat approved 4/26/93 - created TM 45 Parcel lA. The Zoning Department has determined that, on the basis of the above-described development activity, Panorama Farms could fitrther develop a total o f 57 lots. An analysis of remaining development rights is included as Attachment E. SP 97-11, a proposal for a private mountain bike club of 100 - 300 members, has been submitted to Albemarle County and is undergoing separate and concurrent review. A_m-iculturalfForestal Districts Advisory Committee At its June 23~ 1997 meeting, the Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee (A/F Committee) reviewed this proposal under the Albemarle County Agricultural and Forestal Districts Ordinance (A/F Ordinance). Byunanim0us?te~with one abstention, th¢~A/F, ~.: Committe~e reqo ~mm~n~ed to the Board of Supervisors (Board) in favor of the day camp use as *~' appropnate:~thm a'i~ismct, noting that the purpose o~both camps and the nature~0~camp -~:ac~t~vities ar~ ~ k¢~eping with the intent of the state statute and county ordinance're~ardin~ agnc~ltura! andf6mS.t~d,, d%smcts.: ~.distncts are not zomng &stncts, they are a separate ~ Pa~e 3 of 8 ~,provi,sion under the Code'ofV!rg~ aia:' State laxiFreqnires that local govcrnmentE'~c9n~sidcr~the~? ,existence ora d~stnct ......... mid he purposes o1' the A:I~ dmtncts act m h.' ud~use plannmgdeclslons;~.~~'o' ~;~' '~ ' ' (Board) has hot reviewed the A/F Committee's recommendation at this ~All do so at its meeting of August 20. Staff has prepared this report under the assumption tha! the Board agrees with the A/F Committee's recommendation, thus allowing the special use permit to go forward. The Planning Commission should review the proposed camps under the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance) and: 1) recommend approval (with conditions); or, 2) recommend denial of the special use permit to the Board of SUPervisors. The Board should consider the recommendation of the A/F Committee under the AJF Ordinance and the recommendation of the Planning Commission under the Zoning Ordinance, and: 1) approve (with Conditions); or 2) deny the special use permit. A list of requests for more intensive uses within A/F districts is included as Attachment F. The minutes of the meeting are included as Attachment G. G[veg this bagg~,o, ug!.d~ staff has prepared this report under, the assumpfion;that:the Board Sgpe.~!sor~ (~o0xd)~agrees ~th:the recommendation of the A/F Committee, thus allowing the'~ - sp.e¢!al CSCp~i~t~t0~go' forv~ard:~ Comprehensive Plan: Panorama Farms is located within the designated Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan, and also lies within the Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District; the. term'0f this'district will come up ~.~o~?e~e~i~;~p~;~,~,9_.~8,~ As described above, the A/F Com~'~x lex, ed SP 97-27 at ts meeting of June 23,1997. 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. STAFF COMMENT: ,~ site, p!a~o~wotfld ~ Lequ~ed for th~,day camps,.~smce they use existing barns and no additlonul: ~,. faoi!ifie~ arq r~uestg~d,i The A/F Committee has reviewed this proposal under the Albemarle County Agricultural and Forestal Districts Ordinance (A/F Ordinance), and made a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors in favor of the camp use as compatible with the intent of an A/F District. The Board has not reviewed the A/F Committee's recommendation at this time but will do so at its meeting Page 4 of 8 of August 20. Staff has prepared thisreport under the assumption that the Board agrees with the A/F Committee's recommendation, thUS allowing the special use permit to go forward. The Planning Commission should consider the recommendation of the A/F Committee and: 1) recommend approval (with conditions) or recommend denial of the special use permit to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors should consider the recommendation of the A/F Committee under the PdF Ordinance and the recommendation of the Planning Commission under the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance), and: 1) approve (with conditions) or deny the special use permit. 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, T~e~,~_W~r~o~ c. amps} ~ctivities commence are located sufficiently.far from the farm ~9.un~dary ~ljatA/i .no!s~ nnpa.cts are nummal.~ MO~ of the camps~ ..dai'ly~rout~ne occurs ~n~ scattercd Iocat,bhs fl, reii0hoUt the farm. thas ~r red~li~ ih{i~/s ~d.~Y one area ' arouad thc farm ~s pnmanly by I'oot, since Nking ~s a major P0~lon of~{currmulmn.. Much of~ th~ s,¢con4~week~of the~:E E C,. curriculum takes place at locations removed from the farm Staff ~s or me op~mon that the s~ze of the property, location of the hams, and nature of the activities combine to minimize conflicts between this recreational/educational use and the adjacent residential and agricultural area. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, As mentioned above, Panorama Farms lies within the designated Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan, and also within an A/F district Although the camm are not ~tra&ti0nal ~g~u~l~al or ~qres~. 1. Os~, the ~ ~0mmlttee found and st.aflconcurs that their f0i:us on ~ '~;~! ~':~6~ii~}:~t~ S, e95i9~ !¢)1715~? 0fthe Purpose ofthe Agricultural,~ ig}ia~lthral and fores~la~ai ~s valued natural and ecological resources which provide essential open space for clean air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for aesthetic proposes." and that such use will be in harmony with the purnose and intent of this ordinance, Page 5 of 8 Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6. Stafffinds no conflict with these provisions of the ordinance. Staffnotes that the natural history/environmental camps as proposed forward the intent of the ordinance as stated in the following Sections: 1.4.8 "To provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment;" 1.6 "...and development is n. ot to be encouraged in the Rural Areas which are to be devoted to preservation of agricultural and fomstal lands and activities, water supply protection, and conservation of natural, scenic and historic resources and where only limited delivery of public services is intended." with the uses permitted bv right in the district. with additional regulations nrovid~d in Section 5.0 of this ordinance. This use requires approval of the Albemarle County fire official and the Virginia Department of H~alth Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation, as set forth in Supplementary Regulations, Section 5.1.5(a)and (b) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, provided below: 5.1.5 a. Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfires, cooking pits, etc., shall be subject to Albemarle County fire official approval whether or not a site development plan is required; All such uses shall conform to the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation and other applicable requirements. and with the public h6alth, safe _ty and general welfare. The primary public health, safety and general welfare issues associated with this application re~l~t~ to ffaffi~,'~ Pfin~ipal!y the use of Reas Ford Lane by the A.R.C, camp.:.~ ~cc~ss to the farm is frtm~thd'lo~ti:h~lf'tftlaeroad, whichhaSagraveitravelWayofabom 10feet As proposed, with a maximum enrollment of approximately 35 campers and 12 staff members per session, if Page 6 of 8 each camper and non-family staffmember is transported to the site individually, a maximum Of 164 vehicle trips per day (vrpd) can be anticipated [35 campers x 4 trips per day + 12 staff members x 2 trips per day = 164 trips per day]. Based on operations during previous years, camp management estimates that 50 percent of campers and outside staffmembers rideshare. Campers enter at an existing farm entrance at the northern property line, and leave through a separate farm entrance farther to the south, both on Reas Ford Lane. The one-way circulation was instituted to help alleviate congestion at the entrance/exit points. Should SP 97-11 (mountain bike club) be approved (being reviewed separately), under the applicant's proposal Reas Ford Lane would be improved to a 3-R standard and the current exit would be upgraded to a commercial entrance. By right subdivision on the farm would allow creation of 57 residential lots. The Trip Generation Manual, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, uses a trip generation figure of 10 vtpd for residential development, with a total of 570 vtpd if all lots were accessed from Reus Ford Lane. Staffopinion is thatalthougb, the A.r~;~;!camp use does~creale Imffic mf}ii~Venienee for adjace~ ]es~dent~, ~t ~ ol br~efduranon (three.weeks) ~d ~e mconvenmnce could be allevmted to so~o~~ &gree b) lhc 111. t,dlation ol c,mtion,t~s]~age-on Ke~ ~ord L~e,a VDOT ~s co~ented ~at - the crop use Would not cream a major ~mpact to ~e road. ~ose co~ents ~e ~cluded as A~c~ent H. The E.E,C,' earo.~ g,gSe.~ P~anor.~ama_~oad for access:~ This road presently meets the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) 3-R standard: 18 foot paved surface, 4 foot shoulder, 3 foot ditch. This camp has a maximum enrollment of 30 campers and 2 staff members (who stay all day) for two two-week sessions, fora total of four weeks. If each camper and staff member arrives in a separate vehicle, a maximum of 124 vtpd can be anticipated. Like the other camp, E.E.C. strongly encourages the campers to car pool and estimates that 50 percent rideshare. SUMMARY: Although not specifically agricultural or fomstal in use, the day camps represent an appropriate use within an A/F district and the Rural Areas due to their minimal disturbance to the farm, co- existence with the on-going agricultural activities, utilization of existing farm sWactures, brief duration, small enrollment, and emphasis on natural history/environmental education. Traffic safety on Reas Ford Lane appears to be the area of ~eatest impact. Staff suggests that the applicant work with VDOT to install cautionary signs on the length of Reas Ford Lane. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Pa~e 7 of 8 Staff recommends approval of SP 97-27, subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Compliance with Section 5.1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance: ao Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfires, cook'mg pits, etc., shall be subject to Albemarle County fire official approval whether or not a site development plan is required; bo All such uses shall conform to the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation and other applicable requirements. A.R.C. and E.E.C. camps are to be operated in accord with the project description dated May 19, 1997 and representations made to staff as described herein. Maximum enrollment of the E.E.C. Camp shall not exceed thirty (30) campers per session, for two two-week sessions dnr'mg the months of June, July, and/or August. Maximum enrollment of the A.R.C. Camp shall not exceed thkty-five (35) campers per session, for one one-week session and one two-week session dur'mg the months of June; July and/or August. Structures on Panorama Farms to be used under this special use permit are to be limited to the existing structures on the property.. A sign ("Road Narrows") shall be posted on Reas Ford Lane in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation letter of July 3, 1997, unless the road is improved under &P 97-11. ATTACHMENTS: A - Tax Map B - Map of Panorama Farms C - A.R.C. Camp Description D - E.E.C. Camp Brochure and Description E - Analysis of Development Rights F - List of Requests for More Intensive Uses within Agricultural/Forestal Districts G - Minutes of 6/23/97 AgriculturalfForestal Districts Advisory Committee Meeting H - 7/3/97 Letter from VDOT I - Letters from Adjacent Property Owners J - Letters in Support of the Camps A: lSP972 7. RPT Pa~e 8 of 8 AR(.' .ATURAL HISTORY DAY CAMP ., i ~TTACHMENT BJ ~ILLO~I BROQ~ RD ARD/¢OOD f 8RIDLEPATH DR CLOVER HILL Bike Trails ACCESS from RL. 661 Trail head, parking and proposed Offi:-: Proposed Sheller PANORAMA FARMS May 19, 1997 To: Albemarle County From: Panorama Farms Re: SP - ARC Natural History Day Camp Description of Request The ARC Natural History Day Camp was the brainchild of the Albemarle, Rivanna and Charlottesville garden clubs; thus the name ARC. The garden dubs approached the Murray family to request the use of Panorama Farms due to its pristine environment~ This was the spring of 1982 and the ARC camp was born. ARC, a non profit organization, is a three week environmental education camp. The first weeks enrollment involves ,rising first and second graders, with an enrollment of approximately thirty campers. The next two weeks enrollment is also approximately thirty campers of rising forth and fifth graders. The ARC camp has access to the entire eight hundred plus acres of Panorama Farms for their programming. This programming includes stream and pond studies, educational games in the woods, wildlife and aquatic studies on the Rivanna Reservoir, grassland insect studies, arts and crafts, and Other related activities. With a total enrollment of around sixty campers including both sessions, this allows for numerous hours of personalized attention from camp personnel. ARC uses as its headquarters, an existing ham on Panorama Farms. In 1989 we did some structural renovations on this building in order to make it safer and more weather resistant. No further renovations are planned. Bathroom facilities are provided by a porta-john and campers carry their own drinking water and lunches. Access to the ARC camp is off SR661, a northern border of Panorama Farms. Entering vehicles pass through one gate and exit through another as to have one way traffic over the narrowest portion of SR661. Although this traffic pattern has worked well over the years, Panorama Farms proposes to upgrade SR661 through another SP for Panorama Trails, a mountain bike trails business. If Panorama Trails is approved, ARC and Panorama Trails would use a common commercial entrance. 300 Panorama Road · EarlYsville, Virginia 22936 · (804) 973-8547 PANORAMA FARMS ~ATTACH MENT C~ May19,1997 Justification of the Request Panorama Farms is one of the most pristine natural habitats in Albemarle County. With its abundance of unpolluted streams, mature hardwoods, open meadows, and Rivanna reservoir access, it has become over the years, an ideal environment to teach local children the value of habitat protection, la the fifteen years of operation, ARC has taught literally hundreds of children to respect this dwindling resource. At every oppermnity, the Murray family has given of their resourse, allowing ARC to become a model for environmental education camps. 300 Panorama Road * Earlvsville, Virginia 22936 · (804) 973-8547 To: Albemarle County Board Of Supervisors From: Kev]n P. Murphy Date; May 19, 1997 Re:A,R,C. Summer Nature Camp This summer marks the tSth year for A,R,C. camp. Initiated in 1982 by The Piedmont Environmental Council's Wildlife Education Committee, it is one of seven Natural History Day Camps in Virginia. The camp is locally sponsored by the Garden Clubs of Albemarle, Rivanna, and Charlottesville, thus the name A,R.C, The purpose of the camp is to teach young people how to be observant, inquisitive, and resourceful. Natural History is studied through observation, field experiments, tracking, and games. A,R.C. Camp is a non.profit organization that caters to all levels of learners, All children are welcome and tuition is priced to be affordable by a broad spectrum Of people. Scholarships are offered every year, The camp Is located on the back acres of Panorama Farms. Its many fields, diverse forests, and abundant creeks and ponds provide an Ideal setting for exploring the 'natural hiStOry of the area. The Murrays have always Welcomed the ~ampers to their farm and provide much needed assistance with mowing, moving of hvestock and maintenance of buildings and roads, All of this help and hospitality has been provided free of charge. I Regards, Kevi,q Murphy AT~CHHENT El PANORAMA FARMS REMAINING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS Tract References from "Panorama Farms Subdivision, Land Use Alternative 1" by Robert B. McKee & Associates dated February 1985 TAX TRACT # OF 21 -AC. # OF 2-AC. TOTAL MAP/PARCEL REFERENCE ACRES MINIMUM MINIMUM LOTS I-1 271.58 12 5 17 I-2 19.00 0 5 5 45-1 I-3 107,89~ 4 5 9 (and 45-1A) I-4 ~ 193.05~ 7 0 7 I-5 93.8{3 3 5 111 21.5 0 0 0 = 31-23A I-6 , 131.10 5 5 10 THIS PARCEL S DEVELOPED AS 'GRAEMONT' WITH 24 LOTS . TOTALS 849.04' I, 31 I 26 I 57 No official determination of pamels of record has ever been requested by an applicant or made by the county attorney or zoning adminL~trator. The numbers here are compiled from the information received during the review of SP 87-6, the development rights information kept in the planning department andthe chain of title received from the applicant during the current review for the current special use permit, SP 97- 27. This is notto be considered an official determination, but is provided for yourinformation as a method of estimating the probable by*right development of the various parcels known as Panorama Farms. INCLUDES 4.43 ACRES AND 1 DEVELOPMENT RIGHT FOR PARCEL lA CREATED IN 1993 RESTRICTED BY SP 876 ITSELF, CANNOT BE FURTHER DIVIDED REQUESTS FOR WITHDRAWALS FROM AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICTS The Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-1513 allows aproperty owner m request withdrawal of land from a district "for good and reasonable cause." The local governing body must refer requests for withdrawals to the planning commission and the advisory, committee for their recommendations prior to a public hearing. A petition for withdrawal must meet withdrawal criteria. December 19, !984. Hatton District - Harvey Tapscott Board of Supervisors approved request to withdraw 40 acres ('TM 136-P8) for subdivision and sale to adjacent owners. The withdrawal criteria was established as a result of that request. September 15, ~987 ~ Hatton District - Guenther Hawranke Advisory Committee recommended denial of request to withdraw 10-25 acres for 5 building lots from center of Mt. Warren Farm (TM 135~P30) because it would set a precedent. Applicant then withdr ~cw request. March 21,1989 - Hutton District - Guenther Hawranke Advisory Committee recommended denial of a request to withdraw 8 acres for 4 building lots along Rt. 625 on Hatton Orange F~ (TM 136-P10 part and 19 part). ~pplicant then withdrew requesT. February 4, 1993 - Totier District - Christopher Cook Applicant requested to withdraw 77.65 acres from Totier District (TM 121-P85 part). Request was then withdrawn by applicant prior to Advisory Committee meeting. April 4, 1993 - Ivy Creek District. David Kalergis Board of Supervisors approved request to withdraw 55.17 acres (TM 60~P77 part). Because the proposed Rt. 29 Bypass route was aligned to avoid the Kalergis property, it had a more adverse effect on Montvue Subdivision. The Advisory Committee recommended approval of the request, and noted that no precedent would be set. The Planning Commission recommended approval, and noted the unique aspects of the request. January 24, 1994 ~ Hatton District - Stephan Hawranke The applicant requested either 1) approval Of the more imensive use to remain in the district, or 2) withdrawal from the disVrict.The Advisory Committee agreed with staff that the request for a private campgroundfooa~ launch on 224 acres (TM 136-P19 part and 13C) was a more intensive, commercial use which ~vas not consistent with the purposes of an agricultural/forestal district. The applicant then withdrew his request. January 24, 1994 - Hatton District - Stephan Hawranke The applicant reqnested either 1) approval of the more intensive use to remain in the district, or 2) withdrawal from the district. The Advisory Committee agreed with staffthat the request for improvements to the river access/parking area on 5 acres from Mount Warren Farm (TM 135- P30 part) should be permitted within the Hatton District, because this area had previously been used as a boat lanneh and parking area, and beeanse the improvements promoted public safety and welfare. REQUESTS FOR MORE INTENSIVE USES WITHIN AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICTS The Code of Virginia, Section 15.1-151 I.D. allows the governing body to require that any parcel in a district shall not be developed to a more intensive use (other than more intensive agricultural or forestal production) without prior approval of the governing body. On March6, 1995 the Advisory Committee established a policy that they would begin to review every request for a more intensive use (as they now rewew requests for withdrawals) in order to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. Albemarle County's Agricultural/Forestal District Ordinance includes a definition of "more intensive use." March 23, 1988 -Hardware District. Albemarle County Fair The Board of Supervisors approved SP-87-109 for a 50 acre County fair site (TM 87-P3). Staff report noted the fair is consistent with agricultural support objectives and will not detract from the existing agrieultural/forestal district. April 13, 1988 -Totier Creek District -John H. Layne The Board of Supervisors approved subdivision ofune 2-10 acre lot with an existing farmhouse (TM 130-P5part). The owner had purchased another farm and moved across the road. He did not want to subdivide the farmhouse on 21 acres of his farm]and. Since no new dwellings would - - be constructed, the Board determined the subdivision would not interfere with agricultural uses. April 17, 1991 - Blue Run District - Columbia Gas Transmission CorpOration The Board of Supervisors approved SP-90-111 for 20 feet additional width easement for an existing gas pipeline (TM 35-P31). The Advisory Committee had recommended denial (5-0-1) on February 20, 1991. June 3, 1992 - Panorama District - Stephen Murray The Board of Supervisors approved subdivision of 4.43 acres with an existing dwelling (TM 45- PI part). Because the property is owned by a corporation, a family division was not permitted. May 12, 1993. Moorman's River District - Gloria Fennell Board of Supervisors approved subdivision of one 6 acre parcel for a new dwelling for the farm manager (TM 42-P42B 1). November 3, 1993 - Sugar Hollow District ~ Sherry Joseph The Board of Supervisqr~ approved the division of 17 acres to be added to the adjacent parcel, leaving 11 acres residue (TM 26~P10B). The request needed approval because the residue would be under 21 acres. 0qote: This property was sold, and the division was never accomplished.) January 24, 1994 - Hatton District. Stephan Hawranke See two requests listed under withdrawals. October 12, 1994 - Keswiek District - Tall Oaks The Board of Supervisors approved the subdivision of 5.25 acres, leaving 92.56 acres with the farm parcel, both parcels to remain in the district (TM 80~P176). The Advisory Committee on {ATTACHMENT September 12, 1994 recommended that the subdivision be permitted within the district, noting that no change in land use was proposed. February, 1995 - Moorman's River District - Louise McConnell The Board of Supervisors approved SP-94-36 for a home occupation Class B for a ceramic croft work space on 52.2 acres (TM 44-P26A ). The Advisory Committee did not review. April 19, 1995 - Sugar Hollow District - Anthony E. Champ The Board of Supervisors approved SP-95-05 for a winery exceeding 600 square feet (TM 26- P52). The Advisory Committee on March 6, 1995, recommended approval of the request because it was not taking land out of agricultural use. May 8, 1995 - Totier Creek District - Scottsville Rescue Squad The Advisory Committee recommended against a rescue squad in the Totier District, but said it would recommend approval of the removal of 8 acres from the district for that purpose. They recommended against the use because it would set a precedent, it is not an agriculturaltforestal use, it was not compatible with the district act, it is not enhancing the ag district, and it would convert farmland use. (The property was late~ withdrawn from the district upon the owner's death.) May 8, 1995 - Yellow Mountain District - Scott Peyton · :' '- The Advisory Committee discussed and recommended in favor of locating in Yellow Mountain pDistrict a garden center/greenhouse fadlity with sales, of related products not grown on.the remises. This was later brought back to the Committee in the form of a ZTA for farm sales. JUly 24, 1995. ZTA 95-03 Farm Salea, ZTA 95-04 Farmers Market, and ZTA 95-05 Commercial Stables The Advisory Coinmittee discussed and commented on the three ZTA's, not specifically within Ag/for districts. The Board of Supervisors later approved all three. January 22, 1996 - Commercial Alternatives in AfF Districts - Stephen Murray The Advisory Committee discussed and commented on a list of twenty possible uses. June 23, 1997 - Panorama District, Drew Murray COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. o! Plannir'~j & Community Developmen! 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 IATTACHMENT GJ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Agricu!turalfForesta! Districts Advisory Committee Mary Joy Scala, Semor Planner f~,0~ July 2, 1997 Minutes from June 23, 1997 Attached find minutes from your last meeting, Let me know if you have additions or corrections. Thank you for your time spent on this important topic. ATTACHMENT DRAFT AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT JUNE 23,1997 Addition to Moorman's River Agricuitural/Forestal District Addition to Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District Discussion: Special Use Permit to allow environmental day camps within Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District Discussion: Special Use Permit to allow mountain bike trails within Panorama AgriculturaFForestal District Committee members present were: Joseph Jones, vice-chair; Rosemary Dent, Waiter Perkins, Sherry Buttriek, Brace Hogue, Brace Woodzell, Jacquelyne Huckle, and Gordon Yager. Stephen Murray, chair, arrived late. Also present were: Mary Joy Scala and Susan Thomas, Department of Planning and Community Development staff; Drew Murray, applicant; and abutting property owners~ Eddie Cleveland, Katie Cleveland, Sharon Davis, and Kervin Ridgley. Addition to Moorman's River AgrieulturaFForestal District Jones: Asked everYone to introduce themselves. Asked for staff report on Addition to Moorman' s River District. Scala and Yager presented the report. Yager: Noted the large amouar of Class II and II1 soils - the best capability classes in the County. Buttrick: Was familiar with the area and said the parcels look suitable. She made a motion to recommend approval. Huckle: Made a second to the motion. The committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Addition to Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District dones: Asked for staff report on Addition to Moorman's River District. Scala and Yager presented the report. Yager: Said soils on west side of Rt. 22 are Davidson red clay, much different from those on east side, which tend to be on the shallow side. 72% of the soils are in classes Il and II - suitable for crops, hay and pasture. This is a good area to be in a district. Jones: Said he thought new owners refurbished the place recently. Hogue: Made a motion to recommend approval. Woodzell: Made a second to the motion. The committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. Discussion: Special Use Permit to allow environmental day camps within Panorama AgriculturalfForestal District Note: The chair, Stephen Murray, arrived before the following items were discussed. He said he intended to stepdown as chair for the meeting since he had an interest in the items being discussed. Joseph Jones continued to act as chair for the remainder of the meeting. Jones: Asked for s[aff report, Scala presented the report for the camps and the bike trails. Buttrick: Asked why the camps were now being considered if they had been going on for years. S. Murray: ARC camp is 15 years old: EEC camp started last year. Said when eorrimittee discussed commercial alternatives a year ago, staff noted the need for a special use permit for the existing camp. He was also approached by zoning personnel. Since he had donated land for the camp, he delayed applying for the special use permit due to the $800 cost. When Drew came up with the mountain bike idea he was told it wouldn't be considered until he took care of the camps. Jones: Asked the difference between Rural Area and agricultural/forestal considerations? Scala: Many of the same issues: commercial use, traffic. Need to consider the specific effect on agdcultural/forestai activities. S. Murray: Not a precedent issue on either request - a policy issue instead. District comes up for review in April, 1998, if turned down, will get out of district. Buttrick: Asked if traffic is a concern of ours? Scala: Only as it impacts the agricultural/forestal district. Jones: How long must a use be there before it is non-conforming? Scala: Prior to zoning. $. Murray: Trank and Hermsmier had camp at Miller School. This is second year EEC has been at Panorama. Last year -two sessions/4wks. This year ~ 14 students, 2 weeks. Farm is home base. Buttrick: Camp encourages education. All long range entities (sustainability council) always suggesting edncational components. Huckle: The short duration differentiates the camp. Buttriclt: Has 10w impact and emphasis on nature, Yager: No £acilities, or new roads needed. $. Murray: What is to prevent another ag/forestal district owner from doing larger camp? Huckle: Planning Commission puts a cap on it; have to come back for approval. Jones; Leaning toward Gordon Yager's comment. If expand have to put in more facilities - need to change special use permit - we will cross that bridge when we come to it. No more detriment than having 15 relatives stay at the farm. l~oodzell: No more that County fair. No one has ever complained in 15 years7 $. Murray: Have dealt with neighbors informally - access to drinking water, etc. Buttrick: Possible to differentiate between types of camps. Doesn't seem like this camp would give ag/forestal district a problem - but could conceive o£a camp that would. Low impact, short term, temporary, educational camps which didn't require additional structures - best thing would be to add such a use to the by-right column. S. Murray: Planning and Zoning have suggested that Board of Supervisors waive fee beeanse of these issues. Buttrick: That kind of eare£ully defined enterprise could be a by-right activity in RA, or at least we can differentiate here. l~oodzell: Would like them to be able to charge a fee to maintain the property. Huckle: Would like to see them continuing use at same scale as ail these years. Mrs. Davis: Letter of May 19 last paragraph, access to ARC camp: questioned ~'Route 661 ATTACHMENT G) (Reas Ford Lane) would be upgraded if bike trails not improved? S. Murray: We could not improve road only for camp. Woo&ell: How has camp matured? S, Murray: 28-35 students as along as can remember. We have little connection with camp. Buttrick: Recommend that the existing natural history day camp/environmental education camp seem appropriate uses in agIforestal district based on low intensity, short duration, nature education/awareness No facilities, no new roads needed - continuing at present scale. No infrastructure nature camp - allow as permitted use for educational purposes. Yager: We should consider camps one at a time, as they are requested. HucMe: Recommend fee reduced or eliminated if low profit or no prOfit. Think the use should stay by special use permit. Jones: FarmBureau trying to educate people - tour this fall. Educational aspect should be tied in to ag/forestal district - nature/agriculture camps OK. Buttrick: Recommend approval of special use permit for camps for Panorama in consideration of agricultural/educational/nature/environmental and low impact, temporary nature. Appropriate use in district. Woo&ell: Moved to second the motion. The Committee 'voted unanimously to approve the motion, except Stephen Murray abstained. · ~ Discussion: Special Use Permit to allow mountain bike trails within Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District Jones: }las been reduced in scale. S. Murray: Drew will talk aborn trails. I will talk aborn issues. Agriculture is in trouble, especially small family fame, no farms that are not subsidized. Spouses have to work- main objective to break even. Two years ago - siblings came to consensus that lifestyle had to end. Needed to find compatible, low impact companion uses in Rural Area, Did not want to grow houses. One year ago came to committee, looked at 100 different opportunities all low impact commemial. Mind set is agriculture and commercial are two different things. If bike idea doesn't fly, then (I) haye20 miles of horse trails - can tide and leave. Purely commercial operation. Nothing changes on farm. Could do hay, tempesting, etc. (2) Could rent farm to guests to use equipment, etc. Numerable examples could allow entrepreneurial spirit. D. Murray: Road would have to be improved, have to accommodate parking, potential for OVOHts. Buttrick: How are trails constructed? D. Murray: Compacted, no surface added. Dent: Cross streams? D. Murray: Existing or stone reinforced. Techniques recommended by Mountain Bike Association. Huckle: In wet weather have to groom trails? D. Murray: Can shut down during wet weather. Dent: Response of local bikers? 3 [ATTACHMENT D. Murray: Very enthusiastic. Walnut Creek, Preddy Creek only two alternatives other than National Forest lands. Ski resorts have developed mountain bike programs. Buttrick: Wouldtrails be compatible with cattle? S. Murray: Yes, compatible to agriculture, Jones': Planned as club membership? D. Murray: Yes, about 300- driven by improvements to road he has to build, Route 661. $. Murray: Route 661 is a border of farm, very narrow road, Would have to be upgraded. Perkins: What is upgrade? D. Murray: "Pave in place" - improve existing r/w to best possible. Minimum width - 18'. Only 25 mph speed limit so can get by with minimum improvement, 750 trips/day 300 is a safe number to shoot for. Dent: Do you hope to attract amateurs or pros? D. Murray: With terrain and length, hope to attract both, The chair asked for public comment. Crawford: No problem with anything but access. Perkins: Should get hard figures on improving road. $. Murray: Looked at soccer complex - had engineer draw road plans at that time- have figures. Jones: Road is not this committee's concern. Go back to staff' s criteria, what does it do to enhance agriculturai/forestal district? We previously denied permit for campground - wasn't compatible. May want to consider 4 acres of land and its use. Huckle: Area for parking not available for farming, more flian just the trail surface. D. Murray: Compost toilets at trail head. Want to provide ~showers - gray water to use in creative way - create wetlands. Could take a piece of land - make it educational. Habitat survey - could Offer Panorama farms as schoolhouse. $. Murray: The Bay Foundation has been using 10-15 times a year with school groups. I asked Wayne Cilimberg," What do you want to see happen on Panorama Farm in next 20 years?" - no response from Planning. Commitment to open space. Woodzell: Can't qualify if for profit under open space category. S. Murray: What if horses? Would only take out 4 acres or whatever. Woodzell: Compost? $. Murray: Permit from DEQ for farm composting - considered by state to be agricultural enterprise. D. Murray: Lose more habitat/biodiversity through agriculture. We would like to see an increase in biodiversity - lost due to agriculture operation. That is our goal if we can generate revenue to do that. Jones: Any other comments? Need recommendation? S. Murray: This is a policy issue, could argue both sides. Woodzell: Hawranke application we struggled with it and then denied it. Seven Oaks - major discussion - no retail. What do we want to allow in district? Have kept integrity. What are we doing on policy issue in ag/forestal district, something starting to snowball? Huclde: Very concerned about setting a precedent. We keep hearing there are a lot of farms needing uses. May be tip of iceberg, Letter from Murrays ~ propose races with as many as 600- 1000 riders and as many spectators on a weekend. 4 Jones: To keep within ¢ontext- like Scottsville rescue squad, recommended that they withdraw from district for building, Buildings/Ixail may be taken out of district. ~II~e applicant could request to be taken out during the review. The chair asked for public comment. Crawford: Lived in Great Falls - was horse farms, now houses - need to look for ways to keep farm together. Alternatives - where to draw line between commercial/ag. This is 90's not 60's. Scala: Difficult to take out just trails/trail head building, state requires a plat. Buttrick: Set precedent by taking out incompatible use. Walmart? Jones: Have to come back to ask to take out trails area. S. Murray: Intend to renew district. As a County you are looking at it from wrong angle, Ask, "Why are farms being sold?': D. Murray: What can you do to empower a land owner? No options right now but sell it. Buttrick: Two part purpose of ag/forestal districts, Bike trails will not improve agriculture use, but if the entire farm enterprise as a whole improves the use - 800 acres of ag land out there. If not for nature of enterprise - possible for bike trails to exist within web of enterprise, Need to determine ifdeleterions effect on ag enterprise? Would no one rent farm for agricultural use due to pain of dealing with bike trails? Huckle: Continue to hay? S. Murray: Yes: one of strengths. Buttrick: Do you have to follow BMP's like forestry operation? $. Murray: Take care of what you have. Buttrick: More content if BMP's would be followed. Thomas: IMBA manual says nothing about what resources exist that are valuable. That's why we talked about doing an inventory. Trails are flexible could avoid areas ofvahe because under special use permit We have more latitude. Staffhas discussed (Think of it as BMP's for habitat.) Buttrick: Protection of entire agricultural enterprise deserves consideration: Don't a~ee that is not a compatible use - can see withdrawing acreage se'don't set a precedent (4-5 acres). Benefit to whole does outweigh impacts for rest of district. But need guarantees or indications to keep in apen space in district - a trade off. Possibly an easement to run with speeialuse permit use. Perkins: Think farm operation/bike trails are compatible. Problem to accommodate weekend events, Concern is aeeess road - financially feasible? Not a problem with bikes on farm. Dent: Big chunk of land on water supply. Butt'rick' Share concern- pass back to Walter. Traffic an issue but not for this committee. Make clear that a positive recommendation Would not ratify traffic. Not within province of our ability. Board of Supervisors can put any conditions. Would love to see forestry BMP's as condition. Crawford: Problem with traffic not your problem. Davis: Concemedwith road. Buttrick: Rest of it (not 1000 person weekends) does not have negative impact on ag use, that would make the ~se less viable. Should recommend against a use that adversely afters ~n ag use. 8o long as BMP'sin effect - keep trails from reservoir. Jones: No problem with management. Need to decide to keep in ag/forestal district or not. Enterprise would benefit district as whole. To protect it, have to keep it in operation. Woodzell: Have to remove trails - in conflict with State standards for open space - how can we t ATTACHPIENT G I say we want it in ag/forestal district? Buttrick: Two different things. Doesn't get land use tax, but still could be in district. Jones: Recommend that trails be withdrawn from district because they are not a compatible use. Babs: Seconded the motion. The Committee voted 6-1-1 in favor of the motion, with Buttrick voting no and Murray abstaining. DAVID R. GEHR COMMfSSIONER COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 7Ol VDOT WAY CHARLO't-I'ESViLLE, 22911 July 3, 1997 IATT--A( M ENT HI A, G. TUCKER RESIDENT FJ',IGINEt= R ARC Natural History Day Camp SP-97-27 MS. Susan Thomas Dept~ o~ Planning & community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Dear MS. Thomas: My previous comments were related uo the use of the Murray Tract of land that w~s also interested in a dirt bike trail. In a somewhat stand alone use, the three week Environmental Camp would not be a major impact to Route 661. Route 661 ~s a very narrow gravel road and we would perhaps recommend a sign of "Road Narrows" au a point where the road narrows, since it will be used by others that ars not familiar with the road. Th~s land usage along with the bike trail usage leads us back to our commen=s of May 16, 1997. We recommend that Route 661 be improved from Route 660 to the commercial entrance with a minimum of the current 3-R standard. If you have any questions, please advise before discussing with the developer. Assistant Resident Engineer HWM/ldw cc: J. H. Kesterson TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ~HMENT II BUILDING CODE & ZONING SERVICES ' d B~TACHMENT I[ 1997 BUILDING CODE & ZONING SERVICES 9_.6 June 17, 1997 /~lgricultural/Forestal District Committee, c/o Mary loy Scala, Senior Planner bemarte County Planning commission, c/o Susan Thomas, Senior Planner Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, c/o Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning Department of Planning and Community, Developmem 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: SP # 97 - 27: ARC Natural History Day Camp on Panorama Farm (Reference also SP # 97-11: Panorama Trails also on Panorama Farm) DearMembem, As a nearby property owner and as a taxpayer in Albemarle County I request that you deny the use of the Day Camp on a parcel designated as receiving Land Use tax benefits. I have no problem with the Day Camp, and in fact support the use, but the area ufflized for the camp should be taken out of the land use category. tithe Day Camp is approved it should be only with dearly stated restrictions and a limit on the number of Special Use Permits. This is because I question the sincerity of the request letter for the following reilgons. - First, although tke justification is based on this being a "pristine natural habitat" a Special Use Permit was just submitted in April 1997 for bike trails'to nm throughout the same farm. - Second, the Environmental Education Camp brochure included in the information packet states the camp runs from lune 30 to Iuly I I. This appears to be the same camp advertised for later this month in the May 1997 "Aspects" publication put out by PEC. Would this camp take place without the Special Use Permit? - Third, is this an application for one or two camps? The whole Camp(s) should be reviewed. It is not dear on the application, but according to the "Aspects" newsletter, there are two camps that nm concurrently, (the Environmental Education Camp lune 30 to July 11 and the Natural History Camp from June 23 to July 4). The brochure also states the EE camp is located adjacent to the NH camp. - Fourth, as of June 16, 1997, the Zoning Departmem could not find a letter authorizing a compost processing and retail business for this same farm. There appears to be a business being mn which has expanded beyond the incidental use which composting material found or grown on the farm might be considered. Other issues for your consideration include: - Take the Camp area out of the Land Use category. I believe you denied a similar request made a few years ago by FLawranke for a recreational camp on a farm in land use on the James River. - Consider the cumulative effect of the Special Uses allowed, There must be a limit at which the rural character changes to that of a business park. Ifthe composting continues (which would require a Special Use Permit and removal from the Land Use Category), and the Day Camp and the Trails are approved, then that is all. No mom Special Use Permits (particularly for any more business uses) unless one is given up. Agricultural Forestai Committee: I respectfully request that you deny this special use in the agricultural forestal district. At a minimum remove it from the land use category next year~ Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors: I respectfully request that you approve this Special Use Permit with the following conditions: 1) Take the land area used for the camp out of Land Use; 2) Do not approve the camp on a pristine habitat if you have approved bike trails for the same farm; 3) If you should approve both Special Use Permits for the Camp and the Trails, then require road improvements to 18 foot width from the commercial entrance to Route 660 for safe passing; 4) Impose a limit on the number of Special Use Permits allowed on a parcel zoned RA to truly preserve the rural character of the area~ Sincerely, Lisa Glass 120 Forest View Drive Earlysville, Virginia 22936 26 J~ne 1997 3828 Rea's Ford Earlysville,Va. 229~6. JuN 2 7 1997 ?t nning Dept. 8oard oF Supervisors 401Mclntire Rd. Charlottesville,Va,22902 ~ttention: Mr O~vid Bo~ermaa, Re: SP 97-11~ SP 97-27 and Compostin9 Operations st Panorama Farmz. Dear ReFerence o~r recent telephone di~cussio~ ia ~hich I expressed Ordinance mere' bein9 applied For a~d used. ~ meek period to be held on Panorama Farms. S~Pportin9 materal indicates and 'increasing the number oF campers and t~e duration o~ the camp. The camp area is said to have bee~ used ~or many years mi,thout permit, The curren~camphas been o~erating since 16 ~ne 97 , mithout a Special Special Use ReKmit and no aotice oF the~appIication has bee~ posted. These camp~, part oF the Piedmont Environmrnt&l ~atural History Day Camp .Program.,are obviously oF significant value lhe campers, but such consideration mould ~ot appear to excuse the responsible parties For Failiag to compIy the county Zonia90rdinaace. SP 97-11 applies For permission to operate mountai~ bike t~ails use Reas Ford La~e to gain access to the hike trail head recog~izi~9 that the road mould need upgradi~9 From Reas Ford Road to the access point on Fano~ama Farms. They" propose to perform these uerades It is bel~i~ed that this upgradin9 For commercial purposes have a negative eFFect o~ the p~opert¥ value a~d the quality oF life oF all o{ the property omaers involved ( except For Panorama Farms and the proposal should not be approved u~til YDOT road is a very narrow unpaved'surFace. ~ny additional commercial ~e ~ill cause this road to be ~ real maintenance co~cer~." ^c'"E"T'I The 3ustificatiou for Request ~or SP 97-11 states that mount- ai~ biking enables i~dividuals to experieuce our natural surou~dings and agricultural heritage and appreciate our ~atural resources. It The Faqt that the aFea is being polluted by trucks such as thm leaf trucks ot the City OF C~arlottesville ou Panorama Rd ~d the smaller Rems Ford Lane is being ig~oredi From the volume of tra??ic s~pporting this apparent commercial ve~t~re it would appea~ that a Special Use Fiaally. if a~y of the three (3) special uses above are approved operatio~.a~thorized a~d the parcel so used deaied Laud Use beae?its- Re~pect~l 1y, cc: Rm~lia NcC~lle¥ - Department oF Building Code and Zoning David Tice - Pla~ui~ Com~issio~ I~SUsa~ Thomas - Oept o~ Planni~g Impacted Property Omner~ Betsy Dalgliesh Post Office Box 618 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 [ TACH MEN I dI. BUILDI~NG CODE & ZON)NG SEXY'CE2/ To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (d Date: May 20, 1997 RE: A.R.C. Natural History Days Camps I am writing in support of the Special Use Permit for the A.R.C. Natural History Day Camp at Panorama Farms. This is a small camp that has taught responsible environmental practices and an appreciation for nature to hundreds of children over the past fifteen years. Panorama Farm's streams, ponds, forest and fields bordering the reservoir is an ideal setting for this important educational effort. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 97-17,18,20,21 and 22 CFW Wireless SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Proposal to construct telecommunication towers in various locations within the County. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff. Cilimberg, Fritz AGENDA DATE: August20,1997 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: N~ (~..~__..._....., REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed these requests on July 15, 1997. Based on additional review staff is recommending minor modifications of the staff's and Planning Commission's conditions. DISCUSSION: The current staff recommended condition for all of the requests listed above is; "The permit holder shall make available un~lized space for co-location of other telecommunication facilities, including space for those entities providing similar, competing services. A good-faith effort in achieving co-location shall be required of the host entity.' Based on work of the County Attorney's office a more comprehensive condition is recommended. Staff recommends that this condition be modified to read: "The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate on the tower and site and shall provide the County, upon request, verifiable evidence of having 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 permittee's tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by such other provider within Albemarle County. The permittee also agrees to execute a letter of intent prior to final site plan approval stating that itwill make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with any other wireless telecommunications provider requesting to locate on the tower or site." Following the review of the above listed items the Planning Commission reviewed an application for a telecommunication tower which had been filed by another company. In that review that review the commission recommended additional language regarding the height of the tower. The modified language would replace condition one and would read: "Tower height shall not exceed X feet. The tower shall be designed to allow an increase in height up to 199 feet. Any increase in height above X feet shall req uire amendment of this permit. [The height limit varies forthe listed applications.] Staff is working with the applicant, CFW, to determine if this condition is acceptable for any or all of their applications. RECOMMENDATION: Stsff recommends that for those applications, if any, approved by the Board the revised condition regarding collocation be used in place of the previously recommended condition. Staff will provide further information and recommendation regarding the height of tower condition at the public hearing. 97.155 Charlot~ Y. Humphfis COUNTY OF AI~EMAPJ_E Or, ce of ~ of Supenzisors 401 McI~tire Road ~o~, V~ ~2~ (~) 2~ F~ (~] J~y 9. 1997 Mr. Michael P. MacPherson CFW Wireless 401 Spring Lane. Suite 300 PO Box 1990 Waynesboro, VA 22980 Dear Mr. MacPherson: This is to acknowledge receipt of yottr letter dated June 30, 1997, requesting that the Board of Supervisors hold its public hearings on CFW's six pending applications on August 6th. As 'I explained ro you on the telephone, it is the Board's policy to not hear land use applications that could have an impact on surrounding neighbors during a day time meeting. Since land use is an ~ssue that generates a lot of public discussion, it is the desire of the Board that the public have an opportunity to participate in the discussions without taking time off from the normal work schedule. Therefore. these items have been scheduled for the next available opening which is August 20. 1997, If I can be of any additional assistance, please'do not hesitate to contact me. ewc Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, CMC, / cc: Charlotte Y. Humphris Printed on recycled paper WIRELESS 401 Spring Lane Suite 300 PO Box 1990 Waynesboro, Virginia 22980-7590 540 946-3500 -F FAX. 540 932-2210 BOARD SUPERVISe'RS 07 13 00~16-;39C~D~ June 30, t997 Ella Carey County of Albermarle Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Carey: As you know I requested that CFW Wireless six pending applications be heard and voted on during the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors next scheduled day meeting on Tuesday, August 6, 1997· CFW, was'scheduled 0u July 8, 1997 with the Planning Commission and July 16, 1997 with the Board of Supervisors. Due to a cancelled Planning Commission meeting, CFW has been pushed back more than a month. In addition to the delay, CFW had respected staff' s request to voluntarily withhold new applications, so that Staff and Members of the Board and Commission could look at amend'rog Albermarle's Tower siting Folicies. Please send me a response in writing with a brief explanation as to why file Board will not hear om' application during the August 6, 1997 day meeting. The respond by fax or mail the following address: IWmhael P. MacPherson CFW Wireless 401 Spring Lane, Suite 300 PO Box 1990 Way~esboro. VA 22980 Fax: (540) 932-2210 Thaak you for your time and consideration on this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me (540) 932-2007. s~cn;ely, Site Acquisition July 18, 1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Communiw Devetoprnen~ 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296~5823 Mike MacPherson CFW Wkeless 40t Spring Lane, Suite 300 Waynesboro, VA 22980 RE: SP 97-t7 CFW Wireless [Boyd Tavern] Tax Map 94, Parcel 4lA Dear Mr. MacPheerson: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 15, 1997, by a vote of 5-2, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet. 2 Compliance with Section 5. I. 12 of the Zoning Ordinance. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground. Staffapprovai of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the leasarea. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes. Page 2 July 18,1997 Tower shall be located as shown on Attached plan titled "Tower site for CFW Wireless" and initialed WDF 7/1/97. Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities. Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall use colors such as gray, blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts, except as may be modified by the ARB. 10. The permit holder shall make available unutilized space for co-location of other telecommunication facilities, including space for those entities providing similar, competing services. A good-faith effort in achieving co-location shall be required of the host entity. 11. A report shall be submitted m the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than July 1. This report shall state current user status of the tower. Specifically, the report shall state if the tower is being used for wireless telecommunication service. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 20, 1997. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior m 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,__ Willian~ D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcf j cc: ~-,Eq~'ala Carey Jack Kelsey Karen Johnson Amelia McCulley STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: William D. Fritz July 15, 1997 A~gust 20, 1997 SP 97-17 CFW Wireless IBoyd Tavern] Applicant's Pronosai: The applicant is proposing to construct a 150 foot monopole tower to provide PCS, Personal Communication System, coverage for eastern Albemarle County, and western Fluvanna and Louisa Counties. Currently no PCS service is provided in this area. The area proposed by this tower is shown on the attachment to the memo supplied which addresses all pending CFW request. The specific location and design ofthe proposed tower is shown on Attachment C. Staffhas indicated the location ofthe proposed tower and access to the tower on a topographic map which is included as Attachment D. Petition: Petition to construct a 150 foot telecommunication tower and associated facilities on a portion of 79 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 94, Parcel 4lA is located on the north side of Route 250,Richmond Rd., approximately ½ mile west of Route 616 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated development area. Character of the Area: The location for the proposed tower is on a slight rise which has a small cluster of trees. The majority of the parcel is open pasture. Housing in the area is located primarily on Route 616 and Route 250. The topographic map, Attachment D~ shows the location of these houses. The closest dwelling to the proposed tower, other than the dwelling located on the property on which the tower is proposed, is approximately 1,700 feet (0.3 miles) distant. Approximately 14 houses, on Route 616, are located within 2,000 feet (0.4 miles) of the proposed tower. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. Planniun and Zoning History: None Available. Comprehensive Plan: This are is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff also reviewed this request for its impact in relation to resources identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. The only identified resource impacted by this proposal is the entrance corridor designation for both 1-64 and Route 250. Currently the Comprehensive Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers. This tower is intended, primarily, to provide service to the Route 250 and t- 64 corridor. Both of these roads are designated as entrance corridor overlay districts: The intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District as stated in the Zoning Ordinance is in part '~to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources including preservation of natural ~and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose" and ~'to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accrUing to the county from tourism". As stated previously in the memo addressing all of the CFW request, the ARB has not reviewed this request so no detailed analysis on the impact of this proposal on the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is available. This tower will be visible from the Entrance Corridor District. Without additional information staff is unable to determine if the impacts created by an alternative site would have a greater or lesser impact on the Corridor. This proposal has not been revieWed by the ARB, Architectural Review Board so no detailed analysis on the impact of this proposal on the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is available. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address the issues of this request in two sections: 1. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunmatmns Act of 1996. [copy attached] Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Sunervisors hereby reserves unto itself the rieht to issue all snecial use hermits oermitted hereun-der. Snecial use Oermits for uses as orovi~led in this ordin-anee may ~e issued unon a finding by the Board of Sm)ervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to a~liacent nroo~rtv. The proposed tower is located approximately 160 feet from the Interstate right-of-way and complies with the setback requirements of the ordinance. The tower location is in a small cluster of trees. These trees will provide good screening of the equipment at the base of the tower. Based on the applicant's information these trees are approximately 80 feet tall. Therefore, the top of the tower will be substantially above the tree line. This will offer opportunities for collocation in an area which has been identified as not having substantial collocation options, but will increase the visibility of the tower. The proposed tower is located approximately 1,700 feet from the nearest dwelling. Based on staffreview this tower will be visible from some of the dwellings on Route 616. The tower will be clearly visible m a dwelling located south of Route 250 approximately 3,200 feet (0.6 miles) from the proposed tower. The tower will be visible from both 1-64 and Route 250. Lighting of the tower is unlikely as the tower is under 200 feet in height and staff has included a condition limiting lighting unless required by the FAA or other federal officials. The visibility of the tower from residential property may be considered a detriment. However, staff is not able to determine if the detriment is substantial. Additional information may be provided by the public during the public hearings on the issue of potential impacts. that the character of the district will not be chanced thereby. This rower will be a stand alone facility. This will result in a change in the appearance of the area. 2 Towers have been permitted in the Rural Areas and have not in the opinion of staffresulted in a change in the character of the Rural Areas to this point. Staff opinion is that this tower will not change the character of the Rural Areas district due to limited traffic volume, limited activity for the installation of access/electricity, and no impact on this or other property for any by-right agricultural/forestall use. Staffdoes recognize this introduces a new tower to a location at which no towers exist. Multiple stand alone tower locations could ultimately have the cumulative effect of changing the character of the Rural Areas District2 Staff does note that the applicant has provided a collocation policy which may allow for another user on this tower which would eliminate the need for a new tower in this same general area. and that such use will be in harmony 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 referance to Sections 1.4., 1.4.4, and 1.5 (Attachment E). All oftheseprovisions address, m one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones clearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use. Based on the provision of a public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community". The provision of this facility does increase the availability and convenie~ice for users of wireless phone technology. However, this proposal may not be contributing to an attractive community because of the potantial visual impact to the entrance corridor designated in the Open Space Plan. Therefore, staff opinion is that this request may 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 nublic 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 emissmns. This requirement will adequately protect the public health and safety. Section 704(al(7~(b)(B(II'~ of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any ~tate or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the nrovision of personal wireless services. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless service. Staff does not betieve that the special use permit process nor the denial ofthis 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 a tower. For this reason, staff does not believe that denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. The applicant has worked with staff in an effort to identify any suitable location for collocation which would eliminate the need for construction ora tower. Alternate sites for the construction of a new tower have not been discussed. Potential Collocation sites investigated included a tower located to the east within Fluvanna County. The Fluvanna tower would not eliminate the need for a tower in eastern Albemarle as it would leave a small gap which would not be covered by the Fluvanna Site or the existing Hansen/3WV site. In addition, sitting on the Fluvanna tower would interfere with other CFW facilities in Louisa County, No other collbcation options have been identified which would provide coverage in eastern Albemarle. SUMMARY: ' .Staff has identified the following factors whicl~ are favorable to this request: The tower will provide increased cellular capacity which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5; 2. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties. Will provide collocation oppommities in an area identified as not having substantial collocation options. Staffhas identified the following factor which is unfavorable to this request: 1. There is an existing reasonable use of the property. While staff has not identified the visual impact created by the tower as a substantial detximent to the existing nearby residential area, staff does note approval of this request will introduce a new tower ~o an area of nearby residential development from which the tower will be visible. Staff opinion is that this request generally complies with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance and therefore recommends approval. In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the follovang comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and insauction to staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff op~mon is that this request generally complies with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance and therefore recommends approval. Should the Board choose to approve this request staff offers the following recommended conditions of approval: Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground; Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section; The tower must be designed and afl~quate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes; Tower shall be located as shown on Attached plan titled "Tower site for CFW Wireless" and initialed WDF 7/1/97; Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicants Information D ~ Topographical Map E - Purpose and Intent &the Zoning Ordinance. ALBEMARLE COUNTY TAVEFN SP 97-t7 -- CFW WIRELESS, CVll7, BOYD TAVERN ...... ~T RIVANNA AND '=--° ...... :'~ SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICTS SECTION 94 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: CFW Wireless requests a special use permit to construct and operate a 150' PCS Cellular Communications Tower and associated equipment. The tower will be ora monopole type construction supporting 6 and up to 12, 75 x 9.4 x 6.3 inch panel antennas as well as 6 and up to 12 one and 5/8 inch cables runs. In addition, CFW Wireless request permission to construct a 10' x 16' eqmpment shelter for the purpose of housing u'ansmit, receive and signal processing equipment as well as batteries for backup power. Easements from the nearest utilities are also requested. JUSTIFICATION: CFW Wireless has been licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide PCS or Personal Communications System service to the residents of Albemarle County. PCS is a revolution in cellular technology. It is a phone with caller id, a pager, and an answering machine in one lightweight, hand-held unit all for less than current cellular service. It is CFW's intent to compete with the local exchange cartier giving the residents of Albemarle County the option of doing away with land line phones and having one "go-anywhere" communications unit that has all oft_he services of land-line phones and more. CFW requests this site at Kaswick to provide coverage for commutem and residents along the Route 64 corridor. This site will tie into our ex/sting co-location on the_3WV tower on Hansen's Mountain and a site in Louisa Co~unty. The pr~openy at Keswick is zoned RA and the height of the trees in the general area is around 80 feet. The growth however is fairly new. At many other locations in Albemarle County the average tree height in older growth areas is ll0'. CFW is using that as a bench mark height and estimating that the younger 80' trees will grow another 30 feet over the next 20 ye,ar~_/ With the understanding that proposed guidelines in Albemarle county allow for towers to extend 40 above the tree level in R~ zoned areas, CFW feels that a 150' foot tower will allow us to provide our service in the manner required by the FCC and alinw other service providers to co-locate on our tower to reduce tower proliferation in the County. (See attached policy statement) J I. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ~33 734 20' 57'30" ECE~VE©'-, JUN 1 2 1997 Planning De k/CF 1.4 PURPOSE AND INTENT This ordinance, insofar as is practicable, is intended to be in accord with and to implement the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County adopted pursuam to the provisions of Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 4, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has the purposes and intent set forth in Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 8. As set forth in section 15.1-427 of the Code, ttfis ordinance is intended to improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia, and to plan for the future development of communities to the end that transportation systems be carefully planned; that new ¢ommnllity centers be developed with adequate highway, utility, health educational and recreational fagilities; that the needs of agriculture, industry and business be recognized in future growth; that residential areas be provided with healthy surroundings for family life; that agricultural and forestal land be preserved; and that the growth of the cqmmunity be consonant with the efficient and economical use of public funds, (Added 9-9-92) Therefore be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the PUrposes of promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the public and of planning for the future dovelopmem of the community, that the zoning ordinance of Albemarle County, together with the off icial zoning map adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance, is designed: 1:4.1 To provider or adequate light, air, convenience ofaccess and safety from fire, flood and other dangers; 1.4.2 To reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; 1.4,3 To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; 1.4.4 To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public reqnirements; 1.4.5 To protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; 1.4.6 To protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities 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; 1.4.7 To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.8 To provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment; (Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.9 To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities; (Added t 1-1-89; Amended 9-9-92) 1,4.10 To include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with the applicable state water quality standards to protect surface water and groundwater defined in section 62,1-44.85(8) of the Code of Virginia; and (Added 11-1-891 Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.11 To promote affordable housing. (Added 9-9-92) 1.5 RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and future land and water requirements of the community for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community; and the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services~ for the conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the county. (Amended 11-1-89) 1.6 RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN In drawing the zoning ordinance and districts with reasonable consideration of the Comprehensive Plan, it is a stated and express purpose of this zoning ordinance to create land use regulations which shall encourage the realization and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. To this end: developmem is to b9 encouraged in Villages, Communities and the Urban Area; where services and utilities are available and where such ~dev¢lopm0nt 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, scenm and historic resources and where only limited delivery of public services is intended. (Amended 11-1-89) July 18, 1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept, ot Planning & Community, Deuelopment 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902,~4596 {804) 296-fi823 Mike MacPherson CFW Wireless 401 Sprin Lane, Suite 300 Waynesboro, VA 22980 RE: SP-97-18 CFW Wireless, VA 110, Covesville Tax Map 109, Parcel 9C Dear Mr. MacPh6rson: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 15, 1997, recommended denial (a motion to approve failed to pass by a vote of 2-5, resulting in denial of this request) of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that in the event this request ~s approved by the Board, a modification of Section 4.10.3.1 was approved (6-1 ). Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 20, 1997. 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 nor hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcf cc: ~II~a Carey Amelia McCuiley Jack Kelsey Mr. William Lackey & Mrs. India Cheeson STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: William D. Fritz July 15, 1997 August 20, 1997 SP 97-18 CFW Wireless ICovesvillel Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 150 foot self supporting lattice tower to provide PCS, Personal Communication System, coverage for southern Albemarle County, and nor[hem Nelson County. Currently no PCS service is provided in this area. The area proposed to be served by this tower is shown on the attachment to the memo supplied which addresses all pending CFW request. The specific location and design of the proposed tower is shown on Attachment C. Staffhas indicated the location of the proposed tower and access to the tower on a topographic map which is included as Attachment D. This tower is located on the access road to the Fan Mountain Observatory and is at a lower elevation than the observatory. Petition: Petition to construct a 150 foot telecommunication tower and associated facilities on a portion of 56 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 109, Parcel 9C, is located on the east side of Route 29, Monacan Trail Rd., at its intersection with Route 837, Cove School Lane. This site is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is not 16cated within a designated development Character of the Area: The location for the proposed tower is on the side of Fan Mountain well below the crest of the mountain. Attachment D is a topographic map that shows the location of the proposed tower, nearby houses and the observatory. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approximately 945 feet ASL, Above Sea Level, athe ObserVatory is at an elevation of 1,825 feet ASL. The closest dwelling to the proposed tower is pproximately 800 feet distant. (This dwelling is also approximately 200 feet lower in elevation.) Approximately 24 houses are located within 2,000 feet (0.6 miles) of the proposed tower. Pdt apple packing plant and a church are also within 2,000 feet of the proposed tower. The Observatory is located approximately 4,700 feet (0.9 miles) RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and is unable to recommend approval. Plannine and Zoning History: None available. ComprehensivePlan: Staff notes that in order to construct the proposed tower clearing for access and the provision of electrical service will be required. Staffnotesthati~:this instance elearing for road construction will be minimal due to the presence of an existing road. However, clearing for provision of electrical service and establishing the tower will be required. Therefore, these impacts, in addition to the impact of the tower itself, have been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. This site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan and the mountain resource area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. Currently the Comprehensive Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers. The Open Space Plan does provide some guidance for the protection of identified resources of the County. The resources identified in the plan and potentially affected by this application are: Entrance Corridor, Critical Slopes and Mountain Resoume Areas. The Entrance Corridor is currently addressed by the ARB, Architectural Review Board. Critical Slopes are addressed by the provi~ifins of the Zoning Ordinance. The methods for protection and potential allowable impacts on the mountain resource areas is currently being reviewed by the Mountain Protection Committee and the Telecommunications Task Force. Therefore, it is appropriate m consider this request pursuant to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, and the standards for the issuance of a special use permit under section 31.2.4.1 and the Telecommunications Act. Without standards for potential allowable impacts staff has determined that protection of an identified resource, the mountain areas, is appropriate. No comparison of the impacts caused by location within the identified resource areas verses location outside of resource areas is available without the submittal of a ' detailed request for siting outside of the resource areas. This level of information has not been provided bythe applicant at this time. Without such a comparison staffis unable to determine if the impa.cts.of .requiring relocation outside of the resource areas would be greater than allowing development withm the resource areas. Furthermore, without completion of additional work by the County to determine the most acceptable impacts on the mountain resource areas staff has determined that protection of an identified resource is the appropriate action. Staff is aware that the potential impacts caused by locating outside of resource areas could be significant. However, staff wilI have the opportunity to review any request for its impacts. This tower is intended, primarily, to provide service to the Route 29 corridor. Route 29 is designated as an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District as stated in the Zoning Ordinance is in part "to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources including preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose" and "to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the county from tourism". As stated previously in the memo addressing all of the CFW request, the ARB has not reviewed this request so no detailed analysis on the impact of this proposal on the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is available. This tower will be visible from the Entrance Corridor District. Without additional information staffis una~ble to determine if the impacts created by an alternative site would have a greater or lesser impact on the Corridor. Staff has visited the proposed tower site and while the entire area is designated as critical slopes in the Open Space Plan the location of the proposed tower is in an old road bed and therefore no disturbance of critical slopes will occur. The mountain resource area as identified in the Open Space Plan starts at 900 foot contour. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approximatel/, 945 feet ASL. The Open Space Plan states that, 2 "Mountains are a major open space system recommended for protection in the Rural and Growth Areas" (page 27). In addition the plan states "Resources associated with mountains include critical slopes, scenic views, wildlife habitat, extensive forests, unique soils for orchards, natural areas (including geologic features, and habitat for rare and endangered plants and animals), and headwaters." (page 5) Relocating the tower to a lower elevation may require the tower height to be increased to maintain the same height ASL for the top of the tower, or result in an additional tower request to provide coverage to the same area as would be covered by this proposed tower. The Open Space Concept Map "is intended to serve two functions: to guide open space decision-making in the County as a whole, and to provide a starting point for the ongoing identification and protection of Rural Area open space resources" (page 2). The location of a tower in the mountain resource area will permanently alter the quality of the resource and without additional guidance as to the acceptable impacts staff opinion is that locating mwers in the mountain resource area ts inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Based on the location of the tower within the mountain resource area as identified in the Open Space Plan it is the opinion of staff that this request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address the issues of this request in three sections: 1 2. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning O~linance. 3. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. [copy attached] 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 nrovided 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 84 feet from the nearest property line and does not comply with the setback requirements of the ordinance. The tower location is on the side of Fan Mountain which is entirely wooded. These trees will provide excellent screening of the equipment at the base of the tower. Based onthe applicant's information these trees are approximately 100 feet tall. Therefore, the top of tho tower will be approximately 50 feet above the tree line. This will offer opportunities for collocation in an area which has been identified a~ not having substantial collocation options. However, this height will increase the area of visibility of the tower. The impact on reduction of the tower height on the CFW network is unknown at this time. The proposed tower is located approximately 800 feet from the nearest dwelling. Based on staff review this tower will be visible from some of the dwellings located on the west side of Route 29 in the immediate area of the tower and to dwellings north of the site. Dwellings south of the site will have visibility substantially blocked by a ridge and dwellings on the east side of Route 29 will have limited vis~ility of the tower due to the vegetation and elevation difference. Lighting of the ~ower is unlikely as the tower is under 200 feet in height and staff has included a condition limiting lighting unless required by the FAA or other federal officials. The visibility of the 3 tower from residential property may be considered a detriment. However, staff is not able to determine if the delximent is substantial. Additional information may be provided by the public during the public hearings on the issue of potential impacts. Staff is unable to determine if the impact of this proposal will create a substantial detriment to adjacent property. that the character of the district will not be chanced thereby, Staff does note that the applicant has provided a collocation policy which may allow for another user on this tower which would eliminate the need for a new tower in this same general area. Staff has considered this tower as a stand alone facility. While Fan Mountain is utilized for the Observatory it is the opinion of staff that the physical separation of the two uses is such that no clustering of the impacts occurs. This will result in a change in the appearance of the area. 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. Since the adoption of the Open Space Plan no towers have been approved within the Mountain Resource Area except within the existing tower farm on Carter's Mountain. Staff opinion is that although a tower will change the appearance of the area, it will not change the character of the Rural Areas district due to limited traffic volume, limited activity for the installation of access/electricity, and no ~mpact on this or other property for any by-right agricultural/forestall use. In considering the character of the district staffhas considered that this request is within the mountain resource area which has a largely undeveloped character. This request would change the character of the district in that il permits development within the mountain resource area which is not supported by the Open Space Plan. Based on the impact to the Mountain Resource Area staff opinion is that this request does not comply with this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. and that ~uch use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections 1.4., 1.4.4, and 1.5 (Attachment E). All of these provisions address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones clearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use. Based on the provision ora public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community". The provision of this facility does increase the availability and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. However, this proposal may not be contributing to an attractive community because of the potential visual impact to the entrance corridor and mountain area designated in the Open Space Plan. Therefore, staff opinion 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 an this site or by-right uses on any other property. with additional re_eulations 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 thisprovision 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 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance Section 4.10.3.1 states: "The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments or transmission towers and cables; smokestack, water tank, radio or television antenna or tower, provided that e¥cept as otherwise permitted by the commission in a specific case, no structure shall be located~loser 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. Thls 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 150 feet from the edge of the property. The proposed tower is located approximately 84 feet from the property line. Staff opinion is that this provision is designed to prevent undue crowding of the land and to prevent safety hazards should a tower fall. Historically, towers reviewed by the County are approved subject to a condition requiring approval of a tower designed to collapse in the lease area in the event of structural failure (such a condition is proposed by staff for this request). This condition protects the public safety. Relocation of the tower is an option, and relocation would likely result in the tower being located below the contour of the Mountain Resource Area. However, if relocated it is likely that the tower height would have to be increased in order te maintain the same height ASL for the top of the tower, or result in an additional tower request on another site in the general area in order to provide coverage to the same area as would be covered by this proposed tower. A relocation would likely cause the tower to be constructed in an area which has critical slopes and which does not currently have access. An increase in the tower height would increase the visibility of the tower. Staffhas historically supported requests for modification to allow towers to be located closer to the property line than the height of the tower when no option to relocate exists. In previous applications denial of the modification request would require relocation of the tower to areas of critical slopes or to areas which would require a substantially taller tower. In this case denial of the modification would likely result in a taller tower and construction on critical slopes. Therefore, staffis able to support a reduction in the setback requirement. Section 704(a~(7)(b)(BfII'~ of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The regulation of the nlacement, construction and modification ofnersonal wireless facilities bv any state or local government or instrnmentalitv thereof shall not ~rohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of ~ersonal wireless services. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless service. Staffdoes not believe that the special use permit process nor the denial of this application has the effect of prohibiting the provision or personal wireless services. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other locations within the proposed area ct'service currently available for new tower construction. For this reason, staff does not believe that denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. The applicant has worked with staff in an effort to identify any suitable location for collocation which would eliminate the need for construction of a tower. Alternate sites for the construction afa new tower have not been discussed. Potential collocation sites investigated incinded the Observatory. The Observatory is located at the top of the mountain and initially appeared to remove the need for the construction of a tower. However, the terrain of Fan Mountain is such that a ridge running east/west creates a shadow which would not allow a facility located on the Observatory to serve a portion of Route 29 within the County. Locating on the Observatory would at a minimum require the construction cfa tower to serve the area within the shadow. This alternate site most likely could be located outside of the Mountain Resource Area. No other collocation options have been identified which would provide coverage in eastern Albemarle. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: The tower will provide increased wireless capacity which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5; 2. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties. Will provide collocation opportunities in an area identified as not having substantial collocation options. Staff has identified the following factor which is unfavorable to this request: This site is within the Mountain Resource Area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. This impact may be considered inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance. 2. There is anexistingreasonable use ofthe property. While staff has not identified the visual impact created by the tower as a substantial detrimem to the existing nearby residential area, staff does note approval of this request will introduce a new rower to an area of nearby residential development from which the tower will be visible. Staff opinion is that the impact on the mountain resource area makes this request inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance and therefore, staff is unable to recommend approval of this request. Should the Board choose to approve this request, staff has provided conditions of approval. Should the Board choose to approve the special use permit staff does support the modification of Section 4.10.3.1 and has included appropriate language for this modification. In the evem that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staffto return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staffopinion is that the impact on the Mountain Resource Area makes this request inconsistent with the pro¥~sions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance and therefore staff is unable to recommend approval of this request. Should the Board choose to approve this request staff offers the following recommended conditions of approval. Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. Tower height shall not exceed 1511 feet; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance: There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground; Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section; The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes; Tower shall be located as shown on Attached plan titled "Tower site for CFW Wireless" and initialed WDF 7/1/97; Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staffto permit construction of the tower and 7 installation of access for vehicles and utilities; 9. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40 feet; 10. 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; 11. The access road above the 900 foot elevation shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; 12. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section. The Planning Commission only must take the following action in order m permit the tower as requested by the applicant: A modification of Section 4.10.3.1 has been granted to allow location of the tower approximately 84 feet from the property line. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicants Information D - Topographical Map E - Purpose and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 8 ~_ S.? 97-18 ._~ I~l ? CFW WIRELESS, CVll0, CO~ESVILLE 6 / % ROCK TOP ALBEMARLE 98 ,,/ COUNTY S? 97-18 ' CFW WIRELESS, CVll0,COVESVILLE 46.J t6 /\ 55 / SOOTTSV LLE AND SAMUEL MILLER DISTR OTS 5O SECTION 109 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: CFW Wireless requests a special use permit to construct and operate a 150' PCS Cellular Communications Tower and associated equipmear. The tower will be of a self-supporting, tubular steal type construetian supporting 6 and up to 12, 75 x 9.4 x 6.3 inch panel antennas as ~vail as fi and up to 12 one and 5/8 inch cables runs. In addition, CFW Wireless request permission to construct a 10' x 16' equipment shelter for the propose of housing transmit, receive and signal processing equipment as well as batteries for backup power. Easements fi.om the nearas£ utilities are also requested. JUSTIFICATION: CFW Wireless has been licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide PCS or Personal Communications System service to the residents of Albemarle County. PCS is a revolution in cellular technology. It is a phone with caller id, a pager, and an answering machine in one lightweight, hand-held unit all for less than current cellular service. It is CFW's intent to compete with the local exchange carrier giving the residents of Albemarle County the option of doing away with land line phones and having one "go-anywhere" communications unit that has all of the services of land-line phones and more. CFW requests this site at Covesville to provide coverage for residents and commuters along Route 29. · This site willtie into a proposed site at Tom's Mountain and a site in Nelson County. The property at Covesville is zoned RA and the height of the trees in the general area is around 100'. The growth in this area is fairly old. At many other locations in Albemarle County the average tree height in older growth areas is 110'. CFW is using that as a bench mark height and estimating that the 100' trees will grow another 10 feet over the next 20 years. With the understanding that proposed guidelines in Albemarle county allow for towers to extend 40' above the u-ca level in RA zoned areas, CFW feels that a 150' foot tower will allow us to provide our service in the manner required by the FCC and allow other service providers to co-locate ou our tower to reduce tower proliferation in the County. (See attached policy statement). - VE© RECEi ,PJ~nning Dept. PrOposed Tower '825 1.4 PURPOSE AND INTENT This ordinance, insofar as is practicable, is intended to be in accord with and to implement the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County adopted pursuant to the provisions of Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 4, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has the purposes and intent set forth in Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 8. As set forth in section 15.1-427 of the Code, this ordinance is intended m improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia, and to plan for the furore development of communities to the end that transportation systems be carefully planned; that new community centers be developed with adequate highway, utility, health, educational and recreational facilitiesl that the needs of agrieniture, industry and business be recognized in future growth; that residential areas be provided with healthy surroundings for family life; that agricultural and forestal land ! be presewedl and that the growth of the community be consonant with the efficient and economical use i of PUblic funds (Added 9-9-92) .i Therefor0 be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, virginia, for the purPoses of promoting the h0alt~h, safety, convenience and general welfare of the public and of planning for the ; future development of the~community, that the zoning ordinance of Albemarle County, together with the ~ off icial zoning map adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance, is designed 1:4.1 To provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access and safety from fire, flood and other dangers; 1.4.2 To reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; 1.4,3 To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; 1.4.4 To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, ~ecreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; 1.4,5 To protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; 1.4.6 To protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities 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; 1.4.7 To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.8 To provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment; (Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.9 To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities; (Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.10 To include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with the applicable state water quality standards Fo protect surface water and groundwater defined in section 62.1-44.85(8) of the Code of Virginia; and (Added 11A-89; Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.11 To promote affordable housing. (Added 9-9-92) 1.5 RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and future land and water requirements of the community for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community, and the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; for the conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the county, (Amended 11-1-89) 1.6 RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN In drawing the zoning ordinance and districts with reasonable consideration of the Comprehensive Plan, it is a stated and express purpose of this zoning ordinance to create land use regulations which shall encourage the realization and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. To this end: development is to be encouraged in'Villages, Communities and the Urban Areal where services and utilities are available and where such development will not conflict with the agrieulmral/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 11-1-89) July 18, 1997 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 229024596 (804) 296-5823 BO 3 RD OF SUPERVISORS ~ ~ 2m 97A1 fi. ~ I Rrx/n Michael MacPherson CFW Wireless 401 Spring Lane, Suite 300 Waynesboro, VA 22980 SP~97-20 CFW Wireless, CV 113, Toms Mountain Tax Map 87, Parcel 9 Dear Mr. MacPherson: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 15, 1997, by a vote of 5-2, recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that in the event the request is approved by the Board, a modification of Section 4.10.3.1 was approved (6-1 ). Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 20, 1997. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk'ofthe Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcf ce: ~lla Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Shelton Land Trust STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Will~iam D. Fritz July 15, 1997 August 20, 1997 SP 97-20 CFW Wireless ITems Mountainl Applicant's Pronosal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 160 foot self supporting lattice tower to provide PCS, Personal Communication System, coverage for southern Albemarle County along Route 29. Currently no PCS service is provided in this area. The area proposed to be served by this tower is shown on the attachment to the memo supplied which addresses all pending CFW request. The spacific location and design of the proposed tower is shown on Attachment C. Staff has indicated the location of the proposed tower and access to the tower on a topographic map which is included as Attachment D. Petition Petition to construct a 160 foot t~lecommunication tower and associated facilities on a portion of 79 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 87, Parcel 9, is located on the west side of Route 29, Monacan Trail Rd., approximately ½ mile north of Route 692, Plank Rd., in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated development area. Character of the Area: The location for the proposed tower Is onthe side of Toms Mountain well below the crest of the mountain. Attachment D is a topographic, map that shows the location of the proposed tower and nearby houses. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approximately 980 feet ASL, Above Sea Level, the top of the mountain at an elevation of 1,209 feet ASL. The closest dwelling to the proposed tower is approximately 1,800 feet (0.3 miles) distant. (This dwelling is also approximately 200 feet lower in elevation.) Approximately 3 houses are located within 2,000 feet (0.6 miles) of the proposed tower. A significant number of dwellings in the Red Hill area will be able to see the proposed tower. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and is unable to recommend approval. Plannine and Zoning History: None available. Comprehensive Plan: Staff notes that in order to construct the proposed tower clearing for access and the provision of elactrieal service will be required. Therefore, these impacts, in addition to the impact of the tower itself, have been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. This site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan and the mountain resource area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. Currently the Comprehensive Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towem. The Open Space Plan does provide some guidance for the protection of identified resources of the County. The resources identified in the plan and potentially affected by this application are: Entrance Corridor, Critical Slopes and Mountain Resource Areas. The Entrance Corridor is currently addressed by the ARB, Architectural Review Board. Critical Slopes are addressed by the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The methods for protection and potential allowable impacts on the mountam resource areas is currently being reviewed by the Mountain Protection Committee and the Telecommunications Task Force. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider this request pursuant to applicable provisio~ns of the Comprehensive Plan, and the standards for the issuance ora special use permit under section 31.2.4.1 and the Telecommunications Act. Without standards for potential allowable impacts staff has determined that protection of an identified resource, the mountain areas, is appropriate. No comparison of the impacts caused by location within the identified resource areas verses location outside of resource areas is available without the submittal of a detailed request for siting outside of the resource areas. This level of information has not been provided by the applicant at this time. Without such a comparison staff is unable to determine if the impacts of requiring relocation outside of the resource areas would be greater than allowing development within the resource areas. Furthermore, without completion of additiunal Work by the County to determine the most acceptable impacts on the mountain resource areas staffhas determined that protection of an identified resource is the appropriate action. Staff is aware that the potential impacts caused by locating outside of resource areas could be significant. However, staffwill have the opportunity to review any request for its impacts. This tower is intended, primarily, to provide service to the Route 29 corridor. Route 29 is designated as an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District as stated in the Zoning Ordinance is in part "to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources including preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose" and "to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the county from tourism". As stated previously in the memo addressing all of the CFW request, the ARB has not reviewed this request so no detailed analysis on the impact of this proposal on the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is available. This tower will be visible from the Entrance Corridor District. Without additional information staff is unable to determine if the impacts created by an alternative site would have a greater or lesser impact on the Corridor. Staff has reviewed the proposed tower site and while the entire area is designated as critical slopes in the Open Space Plan the location of the proposed tower is near the crest of a ridge of Toms Mountain and that no disturbance of critical slopes will occur for the construction of the tower. The provision of access to the tower will cross areas of critical slopes. The mountain resource area as identified in the Open Space Plan starts at 900 foot contour. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approximately 980 feet ASL. The Open Space Plan states that, "Mountains are a major open space system recommended for protection in the Rural and Growth Areas" (page 27). In addition the plan states "Resources associated with mountains include critical slopes, scenic views, wildlife habitat, extensive forests, unique soils for orchards, natural areas (including geologic features, and habitat for rare and endangered plants and animals), and headwaters." (page 5) Relocating the tower to a lower elevation may require the tower height to be increased to maintain the same height ASL for the top of the tower, or result in an additional tower request to provide coverage to the same area as would be covered by this proposed tower. The Open Space Concept Map "is intended to serve two functions: to guide open space decision-making in the County as a whole, and to provide a starting point for the ongoing identification and protection of Rural Area open space resources" (page 2). The location of a tower in the mountain resource area will permanently alter the quality of the resource and without additional guidance as to the acceptable impacts staff opinion is that locating towers in the mountain resource area is inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Based on the location of the tower within the mountain resource area as identified in the Open Space Plan it is the opinion of staffthat this request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address the issues of this request in three sections: 1. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)0I) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. [copy attached] Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits l!crmilled hcl'cumlcr, qpecial u,c permil.; fi~l' m,e~, a,,..provided iii Illi, ordimuwc, nmv bc issned II[.)£1_l!j.l_l'JildJli~ bx Ihe Board 01' Sil~.~el'visol'~, thai qllch II~;e ~ ill ilOl be ol'qllb,,llilllJlil dcli'iillelll it) adjacent property, The proposed tower is located approximately 139 feet from the nearest property line and does not comply with the setback requirements of the ordinance. The tower location is on the side of Tom Mountains on a secondary ridge which is entirely wooded. These trees will provide excellent screening ofthe equipment at the base of the tower. Based on the applicant's information these trees are approximately 100 feettalt. Therefore, thetop ofthetower will be approximately60 feet above the tree line. This will offer Opportunities for collocation in an area which has been identified as not having substantial collocation options. However, this height will increase the area of visibility of the tower. The impact on reduction of the tower height on the CFW network is unknown at this time. The proposed tower is located approximately 1,800 feet from the nearest dwelling. Based on staffreview this tower will be visible to dwellings located on Route 29 in the immediate area of the tower and north of the site. Dwellings south of the site wilt have visibility substantially blocked by a ridge. Lighting of the tower is unlikely as the tower is under 200 feet in height and staff has included a condition limiting lighting unless required by the FAA or other federal officials. The visibility of the tower from residential property may be considered a detriment. However, staff is not able to determine if the detriment is substantial. Additional information may be provided by the public during the public hearings on the issue of potential impacts. Staff is unable to determine if the impact 0fthis proposal will create a substantial detriment to adjacent property. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Staff does note that the applicant has provided a collocation policy which may allow for another user on 3 this tower which would eliminate the need for a new tower in this same general area. Staff has considered this tower as a stand alone facility. This Will result in a change in the appearance of the area. 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. Since the adoption of the Open Space Plan no towers have been approved within the Mountain Resource Area except within the existing tower farm on Carter's Mountain. Staffopinion is that although a tower will change the appearance of the area, it will not change the character of the Rural Areas district due to limited traffic volume, limited activity for the installation of access/electricity, and no impact on this or other property for any by-right agricultural/forestall use. In considering the character of the district staff has considered that this request is within the mountain resource area which has a largely undeveloped character. This request would change the character of the district in that it permits development within the mountain resource area which is not supported by the Open Space Plan. Based on the impact to the Mountain Resource Area staff opinion is that this request does not comply with this provision of Section~ 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. 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 (Attachment E). All of these provisions address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones clearly provides a public service as evidenced bythe expanded and rapid increase in use. Based on the provision ora public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a conveniem, attractive and harmonious communi!y": The provision of this facility does increase the availability and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. However, this proposal may not be contributing to an attractive community because of the potential visual impact to the entrance corridor and mountain area designated in the Open Space Plan. Therefore, staff opinion 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 reeulations 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 nublic 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 governmem 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 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance~ Section4.10.3.1 states: "The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments or transmission towers and Cables; smokestack, water tank, radio or television antenna or tower, provided that except as otherwise permitted by the commission in a specific case, no structure shall be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure; and, provided further that such structure shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height in a residential district. This height 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 160 feet from the edge of the property. The proposed tower is located approximately 139 feet from the property line. Staff opinion is that this provision is design~ed 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/he event of stmcturai failure (such a condition is proposed by staff for this request). This condition protects the public safety. Relocation of the tower is an option, and relocation would likely result in the tower being located below the contour of the mountain resource area. However, if relocated it is likely that the tower height would have to be increased in order to maintain the same height ASL for the top of the tower, or result in an additional rower request on another site in the general area in order to provide coverage to the same area as would be covered by this proposed tower. A relocation would likely cause the tower to be constructed in an area which has critical slopes. An increase in the tower height would increase the visibility of the tower. Staff has historically supported requests for modification to allow towers to be located closer to the property line than the height of the tower when no option to relocate exists. In previous applications denial of the modification request would require relocation of the tower to areas of critical slopes or to areas which would require a substantially taller tower. In this case denial of the modification would likely result in ataller tower and construction an critical slopes. Therefore, staff is able to support a reduction in the setback requirement. Section 704(a~(7l(b'~(B(IB of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The regulation of the nlacemant, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentaliW thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of nrohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless service. Staffdoes not believe that the special use permit process nor the denial of this application has the effect of prohibiting the provision or personal wireless services. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other locations within the proposed area of service currently available for new tower construction. For this reason, staff does not believe that denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. The applicant has worked with staff in an effort to identify any suitable location for collocation which would eliminate the need for construction ora tower. Alternate sites for the construction ora new tower have not been discussed. Potential collocation sites investigated included the high voltage power lines approximately 1.2 miles north of this site and the Red Hill Quarry. The power lines are not located on any ridge top and would not provide coverage to any sizeable area. In addition, the design of the power line support structures is such that they are of inadequate design to accommodate additional use. The quarry would not eliminate the need for a tower in this area as it would leave a gap which would not be covered by the quarry site or the~proposedCovesville site. No other collocation options have been identified which would provide coverage in this area. SUMMARY.: Staffhas identified the following factors which a~e favorable to this request: The tower Will provide increased wireless capacity which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5; 2. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties. Will provide collocation opportunities in an area identified as not having substantial collocation options. Staff has identified the following factor which is unfavorable to this request: This site is within the Mountain Resource Area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. This impact may be considered inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance. 2. There is an existing reasonable use of the property. While staffhas not identified the visual impact created by the tower as a substantial detriment to the existing nearby residential' area, staff does note approval of this request will introduce a new tower to an. area of residential development from which the tower will be visible: Staff opinion is that the impact on the mountain resource area makes this request inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance and therefore, staff is unable to recommend approval of this request. Should the Board choose to approve this request, staff has provided conditions of approval. Should the Board choose to approve the special use permit staff does support the modification of Section 4.10.3.1 and has included appropriate language for this modification. In the event that the Board chooses to denY~is application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staffto return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff opinion is that the impact on the mountain resource area makes this request inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance and therefore recommends denial of this request, Should the Board choose to approve this request staff offers the following recommended conditions of approval. Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. Tower height shall not exceed 160 feet; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; 3 There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibilit3 from the ground; 4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section; 5. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area; 6. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes; 7. Tower shall be located as shown on Attached plan titled "Tower site for CFW Wireless" and initialed WDF 7/1/97; 8. Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities; 9. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40 feet; 10. 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; 7 11. The access road above the 900 foot elevation shall be built with side slopes on cut and flit slopes at 2:1 or flatter; 12. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section. The Planning Commission only must take the following action in order to permit the tower as requested by the applicant: A modification of Section 4.10.3.t has been granted to allow location of the tower approximately 139 feet from the property line. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicants Information D - Topographical Map E - Purpose and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 8 tip 97-20 CFW WIRELESS, TOMS MOUNTAIN ALBEMARLE COUNTY SP 97-20 CFW WIRELESS, CVll3, TOMS MOUNTAIN'- 86 Rt 760 SECTION 87 99 SAMUEL MILLER DISTRIGT DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: CFW Wireless requests a special use permit to construct and operate a 160' PCS Cellular Communications Tower and associated equipment. The tower will be ora self-supporting, tubular steel type construction supporting 6 and up to 12, 75 x 9.4 x 6.3 inch panel antennas as well as 6 and up to 12 one and 5/8 inch cables runs. In addition, CFW Wireless request permission to construct a 10' x 16' equipment shelter for the purpose of housing transmit, receive and signal processing equipment as well as batteries for bac~p power. Easements from the nearest utilities are also requested. RISTIFICATION: CFW Wireless has been licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide PCS or Personal Communications System service to the residents of Albemarle County. PCS is a revolution in cellular technology. It is a phone with caller id, a pager, and an answering machine inane lightweight, hand-held unit all for less than current cellular service. It is CFW's intent to compete with the local exchange carrier giving the residents of Albemarle County the option of doing away with land line phones and having one "go-anywhere" communications unit that has all of the services of land-line phones and more. CFW requests this site at Toms Mountain to provide coverage for residents and commuters along Route 29. This site will tie info a proposed site at Britt's Mountain and a proposed site at Covesville. The property at Tom's Mountain is zoned RAand the height of the trees in the general area is around 100'. The growth in this area is fairly old. At many other locations in Albemarle County the average tree height in older growth areas is 110'. CFW is using that as a bench mark height and estimating that the 100' trees will grow another 10 feet over the next 20 years. With the understanding that proposed guidelines in Albemarle county allow for towers to extend 40' above the tree level in RA zoned areas, CFW feels that a 150' foot tower will allow us to provide our service in the manner required by the FCC and allow other service providers to co-locate on our tower to rectuce tower proliferation in the County. (See attached policy statemen0. Proposed Tower TM-87-7 NOW or FORMALLY dAY A ATWELL Jr. TM-87-38 ERNEST ~. SHEL TON £1ev. 95~.33 TM-SX-9 ERNEST £ SHEL TON DB 906~ Pg. 48? - NOTE.' BOUNDARY SHOWN HEREON BASED ON A CURRENT FIELD SUR~EY ~ PLAT RECORDED 906/494 ZO' Access L -19, Il 7~5~"W 13&oG' L-~O 1I ~7~"M~ TOhER SITE FOR C F lY IYlRELESS CY- I IZ PROPERTY OF ERtlEST R. SHEZ TOIL eld/ Tower Site Oola T-I S G~'IS'33"E 3~00' T-~ S ~4~41 ~7"W T-3 # G~"IS'3~"~Y T'4 N ~I ~7"E 6~00' ~500 Squm~ F~t ROUTE 39 pSt TM-87-39 ERNEST t~. SHE~ TON Planning Dept. 1.4 PURPOSE AND INTENT This ordinance, insofar as is practicable, is intended to be in accord with and to implement the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle Countyadopted pursuant to the provisions of Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 4, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has the purposes and intent set forth in Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Article 8. As set forth in section 15.1427 of the Code, this ordinance is intended to improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia, and to plan for the future development of communities to the end that transportation systems be carefully planned; that new community centers be developed with adequate highway, utility, health, educational and recreational facilities; that the needs of agriculture, industry and business be recognized in future growth; that residential areas be provided with healthy surroundings for family life; that agricultural and forestal land be preserved; and that the growth of the community be consonant with the efficient and economical use of public funds. (Added 9-9-92) Therefore be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the purposes of promoting the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the public and of planning for the furore development of the community, ~at the zoning ordinance of Albemarle County, together with the off icial zoning map adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance, is designed: 1.4.1 To provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access and safety from fire, flood and other dangers; 1.4.2 To reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; 1.4,3 To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; 1.4.4 To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; 1.4.5 To protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; 1.4.6 To protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities 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; 1.4.7 To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.8 To provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of sigrdficance for the protection of the natural environment: (Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.9 To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities; (Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.10 To include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with the applicable state water quality standards to protect surface water and groundwater defined in section 62.1-44.85(8) of the Code of Virginia; and (Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.11 To promote affordable housing. (Added 9-9-92) 1.5 RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like manner with reasonable consideration for the existing use and character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of growth or change, the current and future land and water requirements of the community for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community, and the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; for the conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the county. (Amended 11-1-89) 1.6 RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN In drawing the zon'mg ordinance and districts with reasonable consideration of the Comprehensive Plan, it is a stated and express purpose of this zoning ordinance to create land use regulations which shall encourage the realization and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. To this end: development is to be encouraged in Villages, Communities 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 ts intended. (Amended 11-1-89) Gary P. Bibb P,O. Box 4 3230 Mohican Trail Charlottesville. Va. AUgust i~_ !997 22902 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors A!bemar!e County Office Building 401 Mc!ut-re Raod Charlottesville. Va. 22901 Dear County Supervisors: Several residents of the Red Hil!-Norrh Garden area respectfully request that you do not approve CFW's application for a special use permi~ to build a !60 foot communications [ewer on Tom's Mountain The reason is that the area is rural in nature and the site is in a ,.=~.ource area as identified in ~e coun~y*s Open ~ ~ Pla~. _~h= ~,:cweP is slated to be t60 feet Jn height and placed 20 feet below ~.~.e~',~,.,.,=~ of *~:xe ~ountain. I believe ~a~ ~h~. _ rower wilt protrude between 60 ~o 80 f'eer above the free ~ops,_ ~nus ~es~rot~;~,R -~ae beauty of the scenic mountain ridge true. Most of the clusters of population [n ~he area are north and east of this ridge tine and the tower will be right in the middle of their sunsets_ If you can make ~ne rower invisib{e then there will be little resistance to the introduction of PCS communications. The rower will also be visible ro those visiting the area as US 29 is a major entry corridor. When traveling south the tower wilt be visible from the intersection of US 29 and Rt760 until you pass by it a distance cf well over a mile. .~o~lzz~a~zon of the residents in the area =~fec~e~ by the tower site has left a io~ ~o be desired, I was not~f~=d by a neighbor wn~cn /ives one parcel from the site and my home is 2f00 fee[ from the ~roposed site. It seems most of the people in the area are nor aware that a network of towers are being applied for ~n Albemarle county. PCS communications require towers at intervals of 5 ro miles on flat terrain. Our county will require even more due [o the mountains in the area. Albemarle County could have a ~ower In every vista if PCS communications are ro cover the county. The fact that alternative sites had not been explored at the rime of Planning commissions public hearing on July !$, 1997 seems to indicate that the current s~tes picked by CFW have been done so based on the optimum efficiency of the communications network and the m~nimum capital expenditure for tower and transponder construction. Alternative sires may be available with less visib!e impact on county residents such as collocation of antennae on power transmission towers. One such location is on a transmission rower near the intersection of the 250 Bypass and Dairy Rd. Approval of this permit will bring about the construction of this tower not likely ro be undone in our life time. This special permit is likely to benefit only the properly owner on whose land it's ro be built. No significant number of jobs will be created, the scenic nature of our mountain ridges will not be prettier, and no significant funds will be generated for the county. The property the tower is ~o be located on is in !and use as far as county tax purposes. Mr. Shelton has a r~mbering plan to harvest the trees on his property. When he carries out his harvest and reptanting, certainly tess and smaller trees wilt hide the tower even less. The marginal enhancement in communications in the area will certainly not be worth the damage done ~o one of Atbmarle County's most precious resources, its uncluttered mountain ridges and scenery. As supervisors, you have been elected and entrusted with the duty to protec~ and approve the use ofthe county's resources. You have the Comprehensive Plan to guide you and this request goes against it. Please protect our views and do nor approve this special use permit. Sincerely, Gary P. Bibb Mr. and Mrs. Aubrey Gordon Vicki Bibb Shirley B. Toms Betty Cress Trina Bashore Roy Cress ~artin Bashore Mary Payne Jay Fox Tracy Shifflett Nena Fox Michael Oliva Susan Thomas Cynthia Oliva Joe Biskup Vernon Shifflett George Guess Jackie Shifflett R.W. Tatum John Smith Susan Tatum Tracy Smith David Plantz W. J. Hilt Rae Carroll Plantz BOARD OF SUPERVISORS August 14, 1997 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22091 Dear County Supervisors: We are writing to request that you deny CFW's application for a special use permit to build a I60-foot telecommunications tower on Tom's Mountain (SP97-20). Our reasons for requesting that you deny the special use permit are several. First, most of the residents of the Red Hill/North Garden area who will be adversely affected by the tower were not given adequate notification of CFW's request. We all live east of US 29, directly across from the proposed tower site, and none of us received official notification of CFW's proposal. We were informed of CFW's application by a homeowner living west of US 29. It is also the case that many residents on that side of US 29 are unaware of the proposed tower. Residents of the Red Hill/North Garden area deserve a community hearing regarding such an offensive intrusion into our rural setting. Second, we all moved to the Red Hill/North Garden area because of its rural character. We purchased or built houses here to enjoy the mountain views, and to avoid having industrial/commercial sights off our porches and decks. The Planning Staff report states that a "significant number of dwellings in the Red Hill area will be able to see the proposed tower." A telecommunications tower on Tom's Mountain will subject all of us, and many of our unsuspecting neighbors living on or about portions of US 29 South, Rt. 710, Rt. 711, Rt. 712, Rt. 779, Indian Lane, and Southern Hills Drive, to an imposed distasteful sight with every look or trip outside. Furthermore, the top of Tom's Mountain can be seen from just south of the intersection of US 29 and Rt. 760, and hence a tower would subject motorists through this Entrance Corridor (many whom are area residents) to an eyesore for almost a mile and a half. A 160-foot telecommunications tower on Tom's Mountain will substantially and permanently blemish the visual character of the Red Hill/North Garden area. The defacement of the mountain will only grow over time as more and more antennas are collocated on the tower. Third, a telecommunications tower on Tom's Mountain will not benefit residents of Red Hill/North Garden in any significant way, except of course for the one landowner who will reap a financial gain at the expense of hundreds of other residents. Our opinions are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Open Space Plan. We are aware that the placement of a telecommunications tower in this rural area is not in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, and that the Open Space Plan calls for protection of Mountain Resource Areas such as Tom's Mountain. We accept that telecommunications towers have a place, but a rural protected mountain resource area is not it. The construction of telecommunications towers in mountain resource areas will accelerate the already gradual demise of the County's scenic beauty. We look to the Comprehensive Plan to protect the remaining resources of the County. But, we know that only you, our supervisors, can enforce the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and keep them from becoming meaningless. Join with us to preserve the rural character of Red Hill/North Garden and the rest of Albemarle County. Sincerely, Ellen Adams Tin Breitenbach Joe Garofalo Paula Hoffman Virginia Mays Marguerite Mesinger John Mesinger Melinda Robinson Andy Spratt Debbie Spratt Kathleen Valenzi BOARD OF SUPERVISOR Gary P. Bibbn. ~_oq~n~:'i~ RCVD P.O. Box 4 3230 MOhiCan Trail Charlottesville, Va. 22902 August 14, 1997 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building 401McIntire Raod Charlottesville~ Va. 22901 Dear County Supervisors: Several residents of the Red Hill-North Garden area respectfully request that you do not approve CFW's application for a special use permit to build a 160 foot communications tower on Tom's Mountain {SP97-20). The reason is that the area is rural in nature and the site is in a mountarn resource area as identified in the county's Open Space Plan. The tower ~s slated to be 160 feet in height and placed 20 feet below the ridge of the mountain. I believe that the rower will protrude between 60 to 80 feet above the tree tops, thus destroying the beauty of the scenic mountain ridge line. Most of the clusters of population ~n the area are north and east of this ridge line and the rower will be rlght in the middle of their sunsets. If you can make the tower ~nvisibte then there will be little resistance to the introduction of PCS communications. The tower will also be vzsible To those visiting the area as US 29 is a major entry corridor. When traveling south the tower will be visible from the intersection of US 29 and Rt760 until you pass by it a distance of well over a mile. Notification of the residents ~n the area affected by the tower site has left a lot to be desired. I was notified by a neighbor which lives one parcel from the site and my home is 2500 feet from the proposed site. It seems most of the people in the area are not aware that a network of towers are being applied for ~n Albemarle county. PCS communications require towers at intervals of 5 to 7 miles on flat terrain. Our county will require even more due the mountains in the area. Albemarle County could have a tower in every vista if PCS communications are to cover the county. The fact that alternative sites had not been explored at the time of Planning commissions public hearing on July 15, !997 seems to indicate that the current sites picked by CFW have been done so based on the optimum efficiency of the communications network and the minimum capital expenditure for tower and transponder construction. Alternative sites may be available with less visible impact on county residents such as collocation of antennae on power transmission towers. One such location is on a transmission tower near the intersection of the 250 Bypass and Dairy Rd. Approval of this permit will bring about the construction of this tower not likely to be undone in our life time. This special permit is likely to benefit only the property owner on whose land it's to be built. No significant number of jobs will be created, the scenic nature of our mountain ridges will not be prettier, and no significant funds will be generated for the county. The property the tower is to be located on is in land use as far as county tax purposes. Mr. Shelton has a timbering plan ro harvest the trees on his property. When he carries out his harvest and replanting, certainly less and smaller trees will hide the tower even less. The marginal enhancement in communications in the area will certainly nor be worth the damage done to one of Albmarle County's most precious resources, its uncluttered mountain ridges and scenery. As supervisors, you have been elected and entrusted with the duty to protect and approve the use ofthe county's resources. You have the Comprehensive Plan to guide you and this request goes against it. Please protect our veiws and do not approve this special use permit. Sincerely, Gary P. Bibb Vicki Bibb Betty Cress Roy Cress Mary Payne Tracy shifflett Michael Oliva Cynthia Oliva Vernon Shifflett Jackie Shifflett John Smith Tracy Smith Piedmont Environmental Council Statement to the Board of Supervisors on Special Use Permit Applications Submitted by CFW Wireless August 20, 1997 You have before you this evening a sign of things m come: a batch of applications for new telecommunications towers in the rural areas. According to UinSite, Inc.. a master builder which erects towers for the industry, ctties and counties can expect to deal with as many as 88 different carriers, each one demanding multiple sites (Wireless Guidance Package prepared for the Mid- America Regional Council by Kreines and Kreines. Inc.). While the Federal Telecommunications Act preserves local authority over siting decisions, it does require that any decision to deny be in writing and be supported by substantial evidence. During a recent work session on this policy, you raised the following issues which we believe should be addressed before any new rowers are approved. Answering these questions should provide fnma legal grounding should the County find itself compelled to deny an application. I. what constitutes an "adequate" level of service. This defi~fition will eventually determine how many rowers are built in the County. The Federal Communications Commission mandates that coverage be "adequate." The County's Comprehensive Plan sets the stage for varying levels of service for other public utilities with the statement that "Those living in the Rural Areas should not anticipate an equal level of service delivery as that provided within the Growth Areas." While it seems clear from the Federal Telecommunications Act that localities may not prohibit altogether the provision of personal wireless service in the rural areas, rural customers and travelers along rural roadways may expect more blocked calls during peak times in exchange for the construction of fewer rowers. 2. how many opportunities exist for co-location within the County. 3. whether a technical consultanl should be hired to review tower applications and advise the County on other sites which may provide the same coverage while protecting the resources the County deems important. The cost of hiring the consultant may be offset by increasing the fee for tower applications. 4. how tall towers should be with regard to the tree line. During the Board's discussion, staff mentioned that some localities require rowers to be less than 40 feet above the treeline. While shorter towers may offer fewer opportunities for co-location, the tradeoff may be acceptable in areas which may be served by more towers sited unobtrusively. According to telecommunications consultant Kreines & Kreines Inc., towers need not be above the tree line at all. While foliage does weaken the signal, the signal will work. Again, more towers may be requiredi but those towers may be shorter and less visible. Because the number of potential towers far exceeds those before you this evening, we believe it is incumbent upon the County to encourage towers to be located as unobtrusively as possible to reduce the impacts on the County's neighborhoods and scenic resources. Addressing the issues outlined above could represent a big step in the fight direction. P.O. Box 460 · warrenton. Virginia · 20188 · 540-347-2334 · Fax E,40-349-9003 111 I Rose Hilt Drive · Suite One * Charlottesville Virginia · 22903 · 804-977-2033 · Fax 804-077~G306 July 18, 1997 O?-2q-c~?p02:5~ RCV~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 Michael MacPherson CFW Wireless 401 Spring Lane, Suite 300 Waynesboro, VA 22980 RE: SP 97-21 CFW Wireless, CV 102, Joshua Run Tax Map 32, Parcel 41 ~" -Dear Mr. MacPherson: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 15, 1997, by a vote of 5-2, recommended recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. ' Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet. 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground. Staff approval of additional antennae installation, No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they _may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively ~approved under this section. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless t. elecommunieation purposes. Page 2 July 18, 1997 Tower shall be located as shown on Attached plan titled "Tower site for CFW Wireless" and initialed WDF 7/1/97; Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without amendment of this specialuse permit except as may be authorized by staff to permit construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities. Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall use colors such as gray, blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts. 10. The permit holder shall make available unutilized space for co-location of other telecommunication facilities, including space for those entities providing similar, competing services. A good-faith effort in achieving co-location shall be required of the host entity. 11. A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than July 1. This report shall state current user status of the tower. Specifically, the report shall state if the tower is being used for wireless telecommunication service. In the event the request is approved by ~iie Board, a modification of Section 4.10.3.1 was approved (6-1 ). Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 20, 1997. Any new or additional information regard'rog your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, / William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jef cc: ~la Carey Amelia MeCulley Jack Kelsey Mr. Joe Wright & Mr. David Turner BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: William D. Fritz Iuly 15, 1997 August 20, 1997 07-21-9~92:56 SP 97-21 CFW Wireless [Joshua Run] Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 150 foot self supporting lattice tower to provide PCS, Personal Communication System~ coverage for northern Albemarle County in the Hollymead area. Currently no PCS service is provided in this area. The area proposed by this tower is shown on the attachment to the memo supplied which addresses all pending CFW request. The specific location and design of the proposed tower is shown on Attachment C. staff has indicated the location of the proposed tower and access to the tower on a topographic map which is included as Attachment D. Petition: Petition to construct a 150 foot telecommunication tower and associated facilities on a portion of 79 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 41, is located on the south side of Ronte 649, Airport Rd., approximately 0.3 miles west of Route 29, Seminole Trail, in the Rivauna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Office Service in the Communities of Hollymead and Piney Mountain. Character of the Area; The location for the proposed tower is on a slight rise directly behind two existing houses in a wooded area. Housing in the area is located primarily in the Forest Lakes, Deerwood and Airport Acres subdivisions. Some dwellings are located on Route 649. The topographic map, Attachment D, shows the location of these houses. The closest dwelling to the proposed tower, other than the dwelling located on the property on which the tower is proposed, is approximately 800 feet distant. Approximately 59 houses, are located within 2,000 feet (0.4 miles) of the proposed tower. A number of commercial uses and industrial uses are also located within 2,000 feet of the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the previsions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. Planning and Zoning History: None Available. Comprehensive Plan: This are is recommended for Office Service use in the Comprehensive Plan. Currently the Comprehensive Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers. Staff also reviewed this request for its impact in relation to resources identified in the Comprehensive Plan Open Space Plan. The only identified resource impacted by this proposal is the entrance corridor designation for Route 29. This site is not located within the EC district but willbe visible from the EC district. This tower is intended, primarily, m provide service to the Route 29 corridor and general residential/commercial development in the Hollymead area. This tower will be visible from Route 29. Route 29 is designated as an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District as stated in the Zoning Ordinance is in part "to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources including preservation of natural and scenic resourCes as the same may serve this purpose" and"to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; m sustain and enhance the economic benefits aecrnmg to the county from tourism". As stated previously in the memo addressing all of the CFW request, the ARB has not reviewed this request so no detailed analysis on the impact of this proposal on the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is available. This tower will be visible from the Entrance Corridor District. Without additional information staff is unable to determine if the impacts created by an alternative site would have a greater or lesser impact on the Corridor. This proposal has not been reviewed by the ARB, Architecti~ral Review Board so no detailed analysis on the impact of this proposal on the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is available. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address the issues of this request in three sections: 1. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Section 4.10.3.1 ofthe Zoning Ordinance. 3. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. [copy attached] 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 per~laitted 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 m adiacent property_. The proposed tower is located approximately 138 feet from the closest property line (to the west) and 145 feet from the property line to the south and does not comply with the setback requirements of the ordinance. The tower location is in a cluster of trees. These trees will provide good screening of the equipment at the base of the tower. Based on the applicant's information these trees vary from 30 to 100 feet tall. Therefore, the top of the tower will be well above the tree line. This will offer opportunities for collocation in an area which has been identified as not having substantial collocation options, but will increase the visibility of the tower. The proposed tower is located approximately 800 feet from the nearest dwelling. Based on staffreview this tower will be visible from all dwellings in the area and from Route 29. Lighting of the tower is unlikely as the tower is under 200 feet in high and staff has included a condition limiting lighting unless required by the FAA or other federal officials. The visibility of the tower from residential property may be considered a detriment. However, staff is not able to determine if the detriment is substantial. that the character of the district will not be chan~ed thereby. This tower will be a stand alone facility. This will result in a change in the appearance of the area. Staff does recognize this introduces a new tower to a location at which no towers exist. Staff does note that the applicant has provided a collocation policy which may allow for another user on this tower which would eliminate the need for a new tower in this same general area. This area and the adjacent properties are recommended for Office Service/Regional Service and Industrial Service in the Comprehensive Plan. Those areas recommended for residential use on the west side of Route 29 are the existing Deerwood and Airport Acres subdivisions. Only the Deerwood subdivision has residantially designated land which is not developed. This undeveloped residential land is approximately 2,000 feet distant. Most of the area designated for non-residantial use is undeveloped. Staff opinion is that while the area has a rural/suburban character currently the character is anticipated to change to a more developed employment comer. The location of a tower in this area will not hinder the development in the area. Staff opinion is that a tower is not inconsistent with an area designated as an employment center. 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 Ordina~co as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections 1.4., 1.4.4, and 1.5 (Attachment E). All ofthese provisions address, ·" -in one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones clearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use. Based on the provision ora public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community". The provision of this facility does increase the availability and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. However, this proposal may not be contributing to an attractive community because of the potential visual impact to the entrance corridor designated in the Open Space Plan. Therefore, staff opinion is that this request may not comply with this prowsion 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 retaliations 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 Ael addresses issues of enwronmantal effects with the following language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification ofpemonal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities complywith 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. Staff has reviewed this request to determine if it is impacted by the Airport Protection Overlay District. This site is below the horizontal surface of the district. No penetration of the horizontal surface is permitted. Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance Section 4.10.3.1 states: "The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments or transmission towers and cables; smokestack, water tank, radio or television antenna or tower, provided that except as otherwise permitted by the commission in a specific - case, no structure shall be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure; and, provided further th'at such sumcmre 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 160 feet from the edge of the property. The proposed tower is located approximately 138 feet from the closest property tine. Staff opinion is that this provision is designed to prevent undue crowding of the land and to prevent safety hazards should a tower fall. Historically, mwars reviewed by the County are approved subject m a eonditi0n requiring approval ora tower designed to collapse in the lease area in the event of structural failure (such a condition is proposed by staff for this request). This condition protects the public safety. Relocation of the tower is an option. If relocated the tower would make the property less suitable for Office Service use as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has historically supported requests for modification to allow towers to be located closer to the property line than the height of the tower when no option to relocate exists. In previous applications denial of the modification request would require relocation of the tower to areas of critical slopes or m areas which would require a substantially taller tower. In this ease denial of the modification would result in a relocation of the tower which would remove land from potential Office Service Use. Staff opinion is that preserving land in the Development Areas for development overcomes the requirements of the ordinance. Therefore, staff is able to support a reduction in the setback requirement. Section 704(a~(7)(bYB(lI) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The regulation ofthe 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 prohibitine the provision of personal wireless services, Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless service. Staff does not believe that the special use permit process nor the denial of this application has the effect of prohibit'rog 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 a tower. For this reason, staff does not believe that denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. The applicant has worked with staff in an effort to identify any suitable location for collocation which would eliminate the need for construction ora tower. Alternate sites for the construction ora new tower have not been discussed. Potential collocation sites investigated included the high voltage power lines located to the east within the Forest Lakes development and the proposed 360 Communications tower in the area of the existing AM antennae array across from Forest Lakes South. The proposed 360 Communications tower would interfere with other CFW facilities on the water located near Sam's. The location on the power lines in Forest Lakes would not provide coverage to the same area served by this proposed tower and therefore, is not an alternative to the construction of this tower. No other collocation options have been identified which would provide coverage in the Hollymead area. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: The tower will provide increased wireless capacity which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5; 2. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties. Will provide collocation opportunities in an area identified as not having substantial collocation options. Staff has identified the following factor which is unfavorable to this request: 1. There is an existing reasonable use of the property. While staffhas not identified the visual impact created by the tower as a substantial detriment to the existing nearby residential area, staff does note approval of this request will introduce a new tower to an area of nearby residential development from which the tower will be visible. Staff opinion is that this request generally complies with the provisions of Section 31.2.4. l of the ordinance and therefore recommends approval. Staff does support the modification Of Section 4.10.3.1 and has included appropriate language for this modification. In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staffto return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff opinion is that this request generally complies with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance and therefore reeommands approval. Should the Board choose to approve this request staff offers the following recommended conditions of approval: Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. Tower height shall not exceed 160 feet; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; 3 There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground; 4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section; 5. The tower must be designed and adequare separation provided to property lines such that in the- event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area; 6. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes; 7. Tower shall be located as shown on Attached plan titled "Tower site for CFW Wireless" and initialed WDF 7/1/97; 8, Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed withoul amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staffto permit construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities. The Planning Commission only must take the following action in order to permit the tower as requested by the applicant: A modification of Section 4.10..3 1 has been granted to allow location of the tower approxlmately 138 feet from the property line. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicants Information D - Topographical Map E - Purpose and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 7 I EARLYS SP 97-21 CFW WIRELESS, cvl02, JOSHUa"RUN ALBEMARLE COUNTY SP 97-21 CFW WiRELESS,CV102,JOSHUA RUN WHITE I-{~[~L 8, SECTION RIVANNA DISTRICTS DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: CFW Wireless requests a special use permit to construct and operate a 150' PCS Cellular Communications Tower and associated equipment. The tower will be ora monopole type construction supporting (5 and up to 12, 75 x 9.4 x 6.'~ inch panel antennas as well as 6 and up m 12 one and 5/8 inch cables runs. In addition, CFW Wireless requast permission to construct a 10' x 16' equipment shelter for the purpose of housing transmit, receive and signal processing equipment as well as batteries for backup power. Easements from the nearest utilities are also requested. · J~JSTIFICATION: CFW Wireless has been licensed by the Federal Communications Commission to provide PCS or Personal Communications System service to the residents of Albemarle County. PCS is a revolution in cellular technology. It is a phone with caller id, a pager, and an answering machine in one lightweight, hand-held unit all for less than current cellular service. It is CFW's intent to compete with the local exchange cawiar g~ving the residents of Albemarle County the option of doing away with land line phones and having one "go-anywhere" communications unit that has all of the services of land-line phones and more. CFW requests this site at Joshua Run to provide coverage for airpor~ commuters as well as to cover Route 29 and the residents that live along the corridor. This site will tie into our existing Co-locatiun on the Rivanna water tank and a proposed site on Piney Mountain. The property at Joshua Run is zoned PA. and the height of the trees in the general area varies from 30' to 100'. The growth however is fairly new. At many other locations in Albem~le County the average tree height ~ older growth areas is 110'. CFW is using that as a bench mark height and estimating that the older 100 trees will only grow another 10 to 20 feet over the next 20 years. The younger trees will grow substantiaily more. With the understanding that proposed guidelines in Albemarl~ county allow for towers to extend 40' above the ttee level in RA zoned areas, CFW feels that a 150' foot tower willallow us to provide our service in the manner required by the FCC and allow other service providers to co-locate on our tower te reduce tower proliferation in the County. (See attached policy statement) JUN 2 5 1~7 Planning Dept, 63 'x EASEMENT FOR TOWER SITE CFW WIRELESS RIVANNA DIST ALBEMARLE CO. VIRGINIA SCALE 1" = 100' JUN 18, 1997_ BRENNEMAN ENGINEERING STUARTS DRAFT VA 1884 DWG B3536 I · ! '1.4 PURPOS[ This ordinance, insofar as is practicable, is intended to be in accord with and to implement the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County adopted pursuant to the provisions of Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Articl0 4, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has the purposes and intent set forth in Title 15.1, ~ChaPter 11, Article 8. A:~ 'set'forth in section 15,1-427 of the Code, this ordinance is intended to improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of citizens of Albemarle Cou.n. ty, Virginia and to plan for the future deVeloPment 0f ~;ommunifies to the'end that transportation systems be carefully planned that new eommfimty centers be d6veloped with adequate highway, utthty, health, edueattonal and reereat,onal ~ facilities that the n~eds of agriculture, industry and business be recognized in future ~rowth that i residen, tial areas ,be'providedWith healthy surroundings for family life that agricultural and forestal land be preserved; and that the growth of the commumty be consonant wroth the efficient and economical use O ' · f pubh~ ftmds. (Added 9-9-92) Therefore be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the purposes of promoting the he.a!th, s~fe~y, convenience and general welfare of the public and of planning for the future deyelopmen(of the 6ommunity, that the zoning ordinance of Albemarle County, together with the off icial zoning map adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance, is designed: 1.4.1 To provide for adequate light, air, convenience of access and safety from fire, flood and other dangers~ 1.4.2 To reduce or prevent congest!ion in the public streets; 1.4.3 To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community; 1.4.4 To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, water, sewerage, flood protection, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; 1.4.5 To protect against destruction of or :ncroachment upon historic areas; 1.4,6 To protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities 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; 1.4.7 To encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (Amended 9-9-92) [.4.8 To provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment; (Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.9 To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities; (Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92) l0 Tn include reasonable provisions, not ir standards tO protect surface water and g Cod~e of Ykginia; and (Added 1L-[-8 . Xh the applicable state water quality defined in section 62.144.85(8) of the 9-9-92) 1 To prom. otc affordable hous~g (Adde RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT sis ordinance is designed to treat lands which are ~ .ady situated and environmentally similar in like aanner with reasonable Consideration for the existink..~ .ad character of properties, the Comprehensive Plan, the suitability of property for xTart~ /, the trends of growth or change, the current and future land and water requirements of the comm'hlnity for various purposes as determined by population and economic studies and other studies, the transportation requirements of the community, ired the requirements for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services; for the conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestai land, the conservation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the most appropriate use of land throughout the county. (Amended 11-1-89) 1.6 RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN In drawing the zoffmg ordinance and districts with reasonable consideration of the Comprehensive Plan, it is a stated and express purpose of this zoffmg ordinance to create land use regulations which shall encourage the realization and hnplementation of the Comprehensive Plan. To this end: development is to'be encouraged in Villages, Communities and the Urban Area; where services and utilities are available and where such development will not conffict 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 ~s intended. (Amended I 1-1-89) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Plannin~ & Communitg' DeVelopment 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 July 18, 1997 Michael MacPherson CFW Wireless 401 Spmg Lane, Sutie 300 Waynesbore, VA 22980 RE: - SP-97-22 cFw Wireless, CV 108, Piney Mountain Tax Map 21, Prcel 10 · Dear Mr. MacPherson: l'he Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting July 15, 1997, by a vote of 5-2, reommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground; Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antcnmae, etc., even if they may be part Of the same network or system as any an~eunae administratively approved under this section; The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes; Page 2 July !8, 1997 Tower shall be located as shown on Attached plan tiffed "Tower site for CFW Wireless" and initialed WDF 7/1/97; Existing trees within 200 feet of the tower shall not be removed without amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staffto permit construction of the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities; 9. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40 feet; 10. 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; ll. The access road above the 800 robot elevation shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; 12. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section. 13. Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall use colors such as gray, blue or green, which reduce their visual impacts. 14. The permit holder shall make available unutilized space for co-location of other telecommunication facilities, including space for those entities providing similar, competing sermces. A good-faith effort in achieving co-location shall be required of the host entity. 15. A report shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator once a year, no later than July 1. This report shall stare current user status of the tower. Specifically, the report shall state if the tower is being used for wireless telecommunication service. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on August 20, 1997. 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 3 July 18, 1997 If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcf cc: ~arey lack Kelsey Amelia McCulley R. Hamilton Haney STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: William D. Fritz July 15, 1997 August 20, 1997 SP 97-22 Clew Wireless [Piney Mountainl Applicant's Pronosai: The applicant is proposing to construct a 150 foot self supporting lattice tower to provide PCS, Personal Communication System, coverage for northern Albemarle County, and southern Greene County. Currently no PCS service is provided in this area. The area proposed to be served by this tower is Shown on the attachment to the memo supplied Which addresses all pending CFW request. The specific location and design of the proposed tower is shown on Attachment C. Staff has indicated the location of the proposed tower and access to the tower on a topographic map which is included as Attachment D. This tower is located on ridge of Piney Mountain at a lower elevation than the existing towers on the peak of Piney Mountain. Petition: Petition to construct a 150 foot telecommunication tower and associated facilities on a portion of 79 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC; Entrance Corridor Overlay District [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 10 is located on the west side of Route 29, Seminole Trail, on the eastern slopes of Piney Mountain. This site is located in the White Hall Magisterial District and is not located within a designated development area. Character of the Area: The location for the proposed tower is on a ridge of Piney Mountain which runs north/south. This ridge is lower than the peak of the mountain, Attachment D is atopographic map that shows the location of the proposed tower, nearby house struerares and the peak of the mountain. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approximately 945 feet ASL, Above Sea Level, the peak of the mountain is at an elevation of 1,116 feet ASL. The closest dwelling to the proposed tower, other than the dwelling located on the property on which the tower is proposed, is approximately 1,900 feet (0.4 miles) distant. Approximately 7 houses are located within 2,000 feet (0.6 miles) of the proposed tower. Several existing towers are located on the peak (including airport related radar) are approximately 2,100 feet (0.4 miles) to the west. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and is unable to recommend approval. Planning and Zoning Historv: None available. 3_ Comprehensive Plan: Staff notes that in order to construct the proposed tower clearing for access and the provision of electrical service will be required. Therefore, these impacts, in addition to the impact of the tower itself, 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 and the mountain resource area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. Currently the Comprehensive Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers. The Open Space Plan does provide some guidance for the protection of identified resources of the County. The resources identified in the plan and potentially affected by this application are: Entrance Corridor, Critical Slopes and Mountain Resource Areas. The Entrance Corridor is currently addressed by the ARB, Architectural Review Board. Critical Slopes are addressed by the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The methods for protection and potential allowable impacts on the mountain resource areas is currently being reviewed by the Mountain Protection Committee and the Telecommunications Task Force. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider ~this request pursuant to applicable provismns of the Comprehensive Plan, and the standards for the issuance of a special use permit under section 31.2.4.1 and the Telecommunications Act. Without standards for potential allowable impacts staff has determined that protection of an identified resource, the mountain areas, is appropriate. No comparison of the impacts caused by location within the identified resource areas verses location outside of resource areas is available without the submittal ora detailed request for siting outside of the r~.source areas. This level of information has not been provided by the applicant at this time. Without such a comparison staff is unable to determine ifthe impacts of requiring relocation outside of the resourc~ areas would be greater than allowing development within the resource areas. Furthermore, without completion of additional work by the County to determine the most acceptable impacts on the mountain resource areas staff has determined that protection of an identified resource is the appropriate action. Staff is aware that the potential impacts caused by locating outside of resource areas could be significant. However, staff will have the opportunity to review any request for its impacts. This tower is intended, primarily, to provide service to the Route 29 corridor. Route 29 is designated as an Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District as stated in the Zoning Ordinance is in part "to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources including preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose" and "to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the county from tourism". As stated previously in the memo addressing all of the CFW request, the ARB has not reviewed this request so no detailed analysis on the impact of this proposal on the Entrance Corridor Overlay District is available. This tower will be visible from the Entrance Corridor District. Without additional information staff is unable to determine if the impacts created by an alternative site would have a greater or lesser impact on the Corridor. Staff has reviewed the proposed tower site and while the entire area is designated as critical slopes in the Open Space Plan the location of the proposed tower is near the crest of a ridge of Piney Mountain and it is possible that no disturbance of critical slopes will occur for the construction of the tower. Additional information will be required at the time of plan approval to determine if critical slopes will be impacted. The provision of access to the tower will cross areas of critical slopes. The mountain resource area as identified in the Open Space Plan starts at the 800 foot contour. The proposed tower is at an elevation of approximately 945 feet ASL. The Open Space Plan states that~ "Mountains are a major open space system recommended for protection in the Rural and Growth Areas" (page 27). In addition the plan states "Resources associated with mountains include critical slopes, scenic views, wildlife habitat, extensive forests, unique soils for orchards, natural areas (including geologic features, and habitat for rare and endangered plants and animals), and headwaters." (page 5) Relocating the tower to a lower elevation may require the tower height to be increased to maintain the same height ASL for the top of the tower, or result in an additional tower request to provide coverage to the same area as would be covered by this proposed tower. The Open Space Concept Map "is intended to serve two functions: to guide open space decision-making in the County as a whole, and to provide a starting noint for the ongoing identification and protection of Rural Area open space resources" (page 2). The location of a tower in the mountain resource area will permanently alter the quality of the resource and without additional guidance as to the acceptable impacts staff opinion is that locating towers in the mountain resource area is inconsistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Based on the location of the tower within the mountain resource area as identified in the Open Space Plan it is the opinion of staff that this request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address the issues of this request in two sections: 1. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. [copy attached] Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a findine by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. The proposed tower is located approximately 186 feet from the nearest property line and does comply with the setback requirements of the ordinance. The tower location is on a north/south ridge of Piney Mountain which is entirely wooded. These trees will provide excellent screening of the equipment at the base of the tower. Based on the applicant's information these trees are approximately 75 feet tall. Therefore, the top of the tower will be approximately 75 feet above the tree line. This will offer opportunities for collocation in an area which has been identified as not having substantial collocation options. However, this height will increase the area of visibility of the tower. The impact on reduction of the tower height on the CFW network is unknown at this time. The proposed tower is located approximately 1,900 feet from the nearest dwelling on adjacent property. Based on staff review this tower will be visible from some of the dwellings located on the west side of Route 29. Dwellings to the east which currently have a view of the mountain will also be able to see this tower. Dwellings to the west and south of Piney Mountain will have visibility substantially blocked by the peak of the mountain and the existing vegetation. Lighting of the tower is unlikely as the tower is under 200 feet in height and staffhas included a condition limiting lighting unless required by the FAA or other federal officials. This tower does not penetrate the Airport Dverlay District. The visibility of the tower from residential property may be considered a detriment. However, staff is not able to determine if the detriment is substantial. Staffhas received one letter of opposition to this request, attached, which states that the proximity of the tower to the property line does create an adverse impact. Additional information may be provided by the public during the public hearings on the issue of potential impacts. Staffis unable to determine if the impact of this proposal will create a substantial detriment to adjacent property. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby. Staff does note that the applicant has provided a collocation policy which may allow for another user on this tower which would eliminate the need for a new tower in this same general area. The allowance of other users on this tower would serve to reduce the total number of towers in the area and may alleviate the need for the construction of additional towers, beyond this request, on Piney Mountain. Staff has considered this tower as a stand alone facility. While Pine)' Mountain is utilized for a Radar installation and other towers, it is the opinion of staffthat the physical separation of the two uses is such that no clustering of the impacts occurs. This will result in a change in the appearance of the area. 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. Since the adoption of the Open Space Plan no towers have been approved within the mountain resource area except within the existing tower farm on Carter's Mountain. Staffopinion is that although a tower will change the appearance of the area, it will not change the character of the Rural Areas district due to limited traffic volume, limited activity for the installation of access/electricity, and no impact on this or other property for any by-right agricultural/forestall use. In considering the character of the district staffhas considered that this request is within the moUntain resource area which has a largely undeveloped character. This request would change the character of the district in that it permits development within the mountain resoume area which is not supported by the Open Space Plan. Based on the impact to the mounta'm resource area staff opinion is that this request does not comply with this provision of Section 31.2.4. I of the Ordinance. and that such use will be in harmony with the numose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections 1.4., 1.4.4, and 1.5 (Attachment E). All of these provisions address, in one form or another, the prowsion of public services. The use of mobile telephones clearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase ~n use. Based on the provision of a public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community". The provision of this facility does increase the availability and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. However, this proposal may not be contributing to an attractive community because of the potential visual impact to the entrance corridor and mountain area designated in the Open Space Plan. Therefore, staff opinion 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 cuffent 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 inthe 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 704(al(7~(b~(B(lI'~ of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The reeulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentali'tV 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. Staffdoes not believe that the special use permit process nor the denial of this application has the effect of prohibiting the provision or personal wireless services. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other locations within the proposed area of service currently available for new tower construction. For this reason, staffdoes not believe that denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. The applicant has worked with staff in an effort to identify any suitable location for collocation which would eliminate the need for construction ora tower. Alternate sites for the construction of a new tower have not been discussed. Potential collocation sites investigated included the existing towers on Piney Mountain, a power line approximately 0.5 miles south and an existing tower approximately 1 mile northeast of this site. The existing structures on Piney Mountain may not be used for PCS or Cellular due to the presence of the Radar installation which, due to its high power output, would interfere with any wireless communications. The power lines south of this site are not located on any ridge and would not provide coverage to any sizeable area. In addition, the design of the power line support structures is such that they are of inadequate design m accommodate additional use. Siting on the tower to the northeast may not provide covarage and may not be possible due to loading limits of the tower. Staff op~mon is that this collocation option on the tower to the northeast has not been exhausted. No other collocation options have been identified which would provide coverage in northern Albemarle. SUMMARY: Staff has 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 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5; 2. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties. 3. Will provide collocation opportunities in an area identified as not having substantial collocation options. Staff has identified the following factor which is unfavorable to this request: 1. This site is within the mountain resource area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan. This impact may be considered inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance and the provisions of Section 21.2.4.1 of the ordinance. 2. Options for collocation have not be~n exhausted. 3. There is an existing reasonable use &the property. While staffhas not identified the visual impact created by the tower as a substantial detriment to the existing nearby residential area, staff does note approval of this request will introduce a new tower to an area of nearby residential development from which the tower will be visible. Staff opinion is that the impact on the mountain resource area makes this request inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance and therefore, staff is unable to recommend approval of this request. Should the Board 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 Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff opinion is that the impact on the mountain resource area makes this request inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance and therefore staff is unable to recommend approval of this request. Should the Board choose to approve this request staff offers the following recommended conditions of approval. Recommended Conditions of Approval, 1. Tower height shall not exceed 150 feet; 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; 3 There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as tc minimize visibility from the ground; Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section; The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes; Tower shall be located as shown on Attached plan titled "Tower site for CFW Wireless" and initialed WDF 7/1/97; Existing trees within 200 feet oftha tower shall not be removed without amendment of this special use permit except as may be authorized by staffto permit constmctionof the tower and installation of access for vehicles and utilities; 9. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40 feet; 10. 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; 11 The access road above the 800 foot elevation shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter; 12. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section. ATTACI~MENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicants Information D - Topographical Map E ~ Purpose and Intent of the Zoning Ordinance. SP 97-2~ CFW WIRELESS, CV108, PINEY MNT. ALBEMARLE COUNTY sP 97-21.- -- CFW, WIRELESS, CV108, PINEY MNT. 5 14C WHITE 3~ALL &ND. RIVANNA DISTRICTS 4O SECTION 21 DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: CFW Wireless requests a special use permit to construct and operate a 150' PCS Cellular Communications Tower and associated equipmem. The tower will be cfa self-supporting, tubular steel type consu'uctinn supporting 6 and up to 12, 75 x 9.4 x 6.3 inch panel antennas as well as 6 and up to 12 One and 5/8 inch cables runs. In addition, CFW Wireless request permission to construct a 10' x 16' equipment shelter for the purpose of housing transmit, receive and signal processing equipment as well as batteries for backup power. Easements from the nearest utilities are also requested. rdST1FICATION: CFW Wireless has been licensed b/~ the Federal Communications Commission tO provide PCS or Personal Communications System service to the residents of Albemarle County. PCS is a revolution in cellular technology. It is a phone with caller id, a pager, and an answering machine in one lightweight, hand-held unit all for tess than current cellular service. It is CFW's intent to compete with the local exchange emriar iving the residents of Albemarle County the option of doing away with land line phones and having one go-anYWhere~" communications unit that has all of the services ofland-line phonas and more. CFW requests this site at Piney M~mntain to provide coverage for residents and commuters along Route 29. This site will tie into a proposed site al Joshua Run and a site in Green County. The property at Piney Mountain is zoned RA and the height of the trees in the general area is around 75'. The growth however Is fairly new. At many other locations in Albemarle County the average tree height in older growth areas is 110'. CFW is using that as a bench mark height and estimating that the 75' trees will grow another 35 feet over the next 20 years. With the understanding that proposed guidelines in Alb,e~,~!e county allow for towers to extend 40' above the tree level in RA zoned areas, CFW feels that a 150 foot tower will allow us to provide our service in the manner required by the FCC and allow other service providers to co-locate on oar tower to reduce tower proliferation in the County. (See attached policystatement). 0V-1~8 PINEY MOUNTIAN 1~1l' 88 TOWER 10' ~25 HARRIS No, 865-B ~,b,/~ ~ JUN I 2 1997 ' ~_% ~,//-/~',¢~, Planning D~Jpt. ~d/~' /"=~' ~ /~ /~ Proposed Tower 1.4 PURPOSE AND INTENT This ordinance, insofar as is practtea lc, is intended to be in accord with and to implement the Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County adopted pursuant to the provisions of Title 15.1, Chapter 11, Artiel0 4, Code 0f Virginia, 1950, as amended, and has the purposes and intent set forth in Title 15.1, Chapter !1 Article 8. i As set forth in section 15, !-42.7 of the Code, this ordinance is intended to improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare'of citizens :of Albemarle County, Virginia, and to plan for the future development of ¢ommnnities to the end that transportation systems be carefully planned; that new community c~nters be developed with adequate highway, utility, health, educational and recreational ihat th~ needs of agriculture, industry an.d. business be recognized in future growth; that . ! with healthy surrotm, dmgs for family life that agricultural and forestal land rowth of the c0mmunity be consonant with the efficient and economical use ~ 1.4.1 .4.2 .4.3 · 4.4 1.4.5 1.4.6 1.4.7 1.4.8 1.4.9 Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the the public and of planning for'the Ordinance of Albemarle County, together With the ~tBP' ~ a tnd declared to be a part of this ordinance, is designed: To pro¥id~ fo,r adequate light, air, convenience of access and safety from fire, flood and other dangers, ' To reduce or prevent oongestion in the public streets; To facilitate the creation of a conveniem, attractive and harmonious community; To facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportations water, sewerage, flood protection schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, atrports and other public requiremems; 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 facilities 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 economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (Amended 9-9-92) To provide for the preservation of agrienitural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment; (Amended 9-9-92) To protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities; (Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92) 1.4.10. To include reasonable prowslons, not inconsistent with the applicable state water quality ~tandalrds tO protect aUff~ee Water and groundwater defined in section 62.144,85(8) of the ode of Virginia;~ and (Added 11-1-89; Amended 9-9-92) 1,4,11 To promote affordable housing, (Added 9-9-92) 1.5 RELATION TO ENVIRONMENT This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated and environmentally similar in like Inanne~: with !:eaao~l,abl~o ~01aside. r.?ion for ,he existing use and character of properties, the Compr.ehenaiye Hah, the ~uitabflity of property for various uses, the trends of growth Or change, the cur~,ent and fututc~ 1/md ~nd water requirements of the community for various purposes as determined by ~opUla~i0n and e~o~6nli~' ~di~s'and'other'atudies, the transportation requirements Of the community, and tho requlrem.enta for airport; housing, 'schools, parka, playgrounds, reereationareas and other public se~iees; ,for the .conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood plains the preservation of aglcicMtural and forestal land, the conservation of properties and their values and the ~neouragement~ of the moat appropriate use of land throughout the county. (Amended 11-1-89) 1.6 RELATION TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN In drawing the zoning ordinance and districts with reasonable consideration of the Comprehensive Plan, it is a stated and express purpose of this zoning ordinance to create land use regulations which shall encourage the realization and implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. To this end: development is 'to'be encouraged in Villages, Communities and the Urban Area; where services and utilities are available and where such development will not conflict with the agricultural/forestal or other rural objecUves: 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 11-1-89) PATRICIA L. HEARN 2641 FRAYS MILL ROAD RUCKERSVILLE, VA 22968 R .C5!VED 1997 DepL June 26, 1997 William2D. Fritz Dept. of ~lanning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Fritz: Following our phone conversation last week I reviewed the site plan for the proposed CFW wireless tower on Piney Mountain. It will clearly devalue my adjacent land since the tower Will be so close to my property line. However, my main concern is the visual impact of the tower from Rt. 29N. Piney Mountain is still a wooded oasis on a rapidly (not for the better) landscape on 29N. I deplore the loss of the mature traes that would be required to site the tower and its access ~oad. I realize that there are towers on the top of Piney Mountain, some have been there for forty plus years, and it is unfortunate, that due to the radar unit, this tower can't be placed there rather than as proposed on the side of the mountain. I strongly oppose, and hope you will deny, this rezoning. Sincerely yours, Patricla L. Hearn