Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-112. 3. 4. $. 6. .9. I0. II. I2. I I \.\ '.,u; p 'xl. I~.(~)\I..: .< (), N!", (,Ill( I. ~,~..lll)l\(. Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance Moment of Silence. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Consent Agenda (on next sheet ~ Public Hearing on art Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 8, FinmXce and Taxation, Artide VII. of the Code of Albemarle entitled "Real Estate Tax Exemption for Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons" to revise the filing deadline for elderly and handi- capped property tax exemptions to be no earlier than January first and no later than April fir. st of each taxable year. Public Hearing on an Ordinance toAmend and Reordair~ Chapter 8; l~'inance and Taxation by repealing section 8-70. Volunteer rescue squad and:fire company workers, to eliminate the separate class of personal property for one auromobile owned by volunteer rescue squad and fire company members. Public Hearing on an Ordinance toAmend and Reordain Chapter 12~(Motor Vehides and Traffic, Article V, County Vehicle Licenses of the Code of Albemarle, lcy repealing section I2-23 to remove the vehicle license fee exemption for one vehicle for voinnteer fire company or rescue squad members, to amend section I2-24 to amend the application and billing procedure for the issuance of vehicle licenses, and to amend section 12-27 ro amend the refund procedure for vehicle licenses. SP-94-28. Mt. Amos Baptist Church. Public Heoring on a request to extend the approval period of a request to add a fellowship hall to an existing building. Property of I. 12 ac zoned RA is located on E sd of Rt 60I about I/2 mis of l~ree Union. TM29.P46. White Hall Dist. ~This site is not located in a designated growth area. ~ ZMA-96-18. William A. Marshall, Jr (Sign # 19). Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 1.63 ac from R-I to HC on N sd of Rt649 approx 0.2 mi W of Rt 29. TM32.P20DS~20E. (Site is recommended for Regional Service in Community of Hollymead by the Compre- hensive Plan.~ Rivanna Dist ZMA-96-20. Kenneth J. N~well (applicant CCAT2/Urfiversity Limited Liability Company ~Owner) (Sign #2). Public Hearing on a request to amend proffers for University Village Development (ZMA-87-08, to allow dvlop of assisted living facility on portion of property immediately E of main residential bldg which was previously designated as townhouse- style residences & open space. Property on N sd of Rt 601 (Old Iw)r Rd) just E of Rts 29/250 Bypass. Property, zoned R-10 with proffers, is designated as High Density Residential in Neighborhood 7 by the Comprehensive Plan. TM60B2~P1. Jack Joueu Dist. SP-96-42. Kenneth I. Newell (applicant), CCAT2FUlfiversity Limited lJability Company (Owner) (Sign #2). Public Hearing on a request to establish assisted living facility (nursing home or similar institution'l on portion of University Village property described under ZMA-96-20 above. SP-96-04. Albemarle County Service Authority by 360° Communications Company of Char- lottesville, d/b/a 360° Communications Company. Public Hearing on a request to allow I00 ft tower Sc equip bldg on portion of a 9.536 ac parcel zoned R-1 located on E sd of Avon St Ext (Rt 742) N of Cale Elem Sch on property dvlp with wtr storage tank. TM9 I.P I. Scottsville Dist. , This site is not located in a designated growth area.) 14. SP-96-48. Terry Dean's Dance Studio (Signs ~68 & #69 ,. Public Hearing on a request to establish schooI of special instruction on approx. 0.525 ac zoned CO on W sd of Common- wealth Drive at Westfield Road. TM61W, Secl.BlkB.Lot2. Rio Dist. I5. Approval of Minutes: October 4. 1995 and November 13 1996. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. 17. Adjourn FOR INFORMATION: 5.I Letter dated November 27. 1996. from the Honorable George Allen, Governor. to the Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris, regarding proposed Virginia Public School Authority financing initiative. 5.2 Letter dated November 22, [996. from Ruth DePiro, President. Our Lady of Peace, ro the Hbnorable Charlotte Humphris. Chairman, providing a report on the assisted living fadlity · residents.requirements of the agreement with the County. 5.3 Notice of application filed ~vith the State Corporation Commission by Central Virginia Electric Cooperative for approval of a demand-side management program. 5.4 Arbor Crest Apartments Hydraulic Road Apts, I Monthly Bond and Program Report for the month of October. 1996. 5.5 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for November I2. November I9 and November 26. 1996 and December 3, 1996. 5.6 Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority, Board for October 10. I996. FOP,- APPROVAL: 5.7 Vohmtary Early Retirement Request for Senior Deputy Clerk. - 5.8 Set public hearing for January 8.1997. on expenditttre of Law Enforcement Block Grant Award. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive V~ Wayne Cilimberg, Director, Department of Planning and Commanity Development EHa W. Carey, CMC, Cler~_~ December 17, 1996 Board Actions of December 11, 1996 At its meeting on December 11, 1996 (rdght), the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m., by the Ch. airman. (All Board members were presenro Agenda ltem No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC Mr. Pkil Walgand of Charlottesville Fathering Initiative invited Board members to attend one of thek monthly meetings and parfi(~pate in the group. The group's goal is to promote positive role models for children. Ms. Samatha Masone introduced"The Brats," a nearly formed women's rugby football teem in the Charlottesville/ Albemarle area. She thod~ed City and County ot55cials who helped them to find space to practice. She invited Board members to come out and support the team. Mr. Dave Klug, Ms. Barbara Strain and Ms. Case3, Burke spoke concem/ng closure of the Ivy Landfill, and asked the Board to support Option 2 of the consultant's report. Agenda I[em No. 5.1. Letter dated November 27, 1996, from the Honorable George Allen, Governor, to the Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris, regarding proposed Virginia Public School Authority financing initiative. Board members asked that staff provide hnformafion to the County's legislators, including Butch Davies and Earl Dickinson, on the County's pohcy regarding the Governor's proposal concerning long term fman(mg of school needs. [tam No. 5.7 Voluntary Early Retirement Request for Senior Deputy Clerk. Approved. ItemNo. 5.8. Set public hearing for Jenuary 8, 1997, onexpen~tureofLawEnforcernentBlockCca'antAward. Public tea/rog set for January 8, 1997, 7:00 p.m. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation. Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: December 17, 1996 Page2 Article VII, of the Code of Albemarle antitled "Real Estate Tax Exemption for Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons" to revise the filing dead[me for elderly and handicapped proper~y tax exemptions to be no earlier than January first and no later than April first of each taxable year. ADOPTED the attached Ordinance. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation by repealing section 8-70, Volunteer rescue squad and fire company workers, to eliminate the separate class of personal property for one automobile owned by volunteer rescue squad and fire company members. ADOPTED the attached Ordinance. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article V, County Vehicle Licenses of the Code of Albemarle, by repealing section 12-23 to remove the vehicle license fee exemption for one vehicle for volunteer fire company or rescue squad members, to amend section 12- 24 to amand the application and billing procedure for the issuance of vehicle licenses, and to amend section 12-27 to amend the refund procedure for vehicle licenses. ADOPTED the attached Ordinance. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-94-28. Mt. Amos Baptist Church. Publ/c Hearing on a request to extend the approval period of a request to add a fellowship hail to an existing building. Property of 1.12 ac zoned RA is located on E sd of Rt 601 about ~/2 mi S of Free Union. TM29,P46. White Hall Dist. (This site is not located in a designated growth area.) APPROVED SP-94-28 subject to the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. Church expansion limited to not more than 1,200 square feet; Usage of the church to be limited to worship and related service only. Use of the church for noncongregational acli~Afies shall warrant amendment of tiffs special use permit; The eastern entrance shall be used only as an entrance onto the property fi-om Route 60 I, and a sign prohibiting exits fi-om the property onto Route 601 shall be posted and maintained at the eastern entrance; This special use permit shall expire on December 14, 1998, in accordance with Section 31.2.4.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Orcrmance as it exists on Deccunber 3, 1996, (a copy of which is attached). Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-96-18. William A. Marshall, Jr (Sign #19). Public Hearing on a request to rezone approx 1.63 ac fi-om R-1 to FiC on N sd of Rt 649 approx 0.2 rui W of Rt 29. TM32,P20D&20E. (Site is recommended for Regional Service in Community of Hollymead by the Comprehensive Plan.) Rivauna Dist. APPROVED as proffered (a copy attached): PROFFER FORM Date: Dec. 11, 1996 ZMA# 96-i8 1.63 Acres to be rezoned fi-om R1 to HC Tax Map Parcel(s) # 03200-00-00-020D0 03200-00-00-020E0 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zouing Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the prepcu~y, ffrezoned. These conditions Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: December 17, I996 Page 3 are proffered as a part of the requested rezomg and it is agreed that: ( 1 ) the rezonmg itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (1) Permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the follow'mg sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on December 11, 1996, a copy of the sections being attached hereto: 24.2.1 (2) Automobile, Track Repair Shops (35) Electric, gas... (36) Public uses... (37) Temporary Construction uses (2) Access to the property for commercial use will be through the entrances on adjacent Tax Map Parcel 32-40, as shown on the attached drawing. (3) Owner reserves the right to request amendment(s) to the above proffers in the future which may be necessary or appropriate resulting from the planned improvements to Airport Road. W. A. Marshall, Jr. (Signed) Signatures of Ali Owners W. A. Marshall, Jr. Printed Names of Ail Owners 12-6-96 Date Rachel K. Marshall (Signed) Rachel K. Marshall 12-6-96 Agenda ltem No. I1. ZMA-96-20. KennethJ. Newell(applicant),CCAT2/UnlversitylJnuitedLiabilltyCompany (Owner) (Sign #2). Public Hearing on a request to amend proffers for Uinversity Village Development (ZMA-87-08) to allow dvlop of assisted living facility on portion of property immediately E of msin residential bldg which was previously designated as townhonse-style residences & open space. Property on N sd of Rt 60I (Old Ivy Rd) just E of Rts 29/250 Bypass. Property, zoned R-10 with proffers, is designated as Ffigh Density Residential in Neighborhood 7 by the Comprehensive Plan. TM60B2,P1. JackJouettDlst. APPROVED as proffered (a copy a~ached): PROFFER FORM Date: 8/28/96 ZMA # 96-20 Tax Map Parcel(s)# 60-B2- 1 Amendment of proffers, aunroved with ZMA 87-08 to change the Schematic Site Develovment Plan Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezomg itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. O) The property will be developed for residential use as set out in paragraph 2 below, designed pffncaarily for retired or older persons. (2) The development of the proper~ will be limited to a maximum of 204 residential units; an assisted living facility; a nursing home/health care facility; and, service facilities, such as dining and recreational faeilities, administrative offices, and banking wittfin the llnfits of accessory uses, as provided in the zoning ordinance. O) The buildings will not exceed the height limits established in Section 17.8 of the Albemarle County Zoning Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Ciilmberg Date: December 17, 1996 Page 4 Ordinance, as in effect on October 7, 1987, a copy of which is attached hereto. Buildings, road and parking areas will be located in accordance with the attached Schematic Drawing for Site Development (Attachment A) and as further detailed on Attachment B - "Proposed Site Plan for Assisted Living." Site development will include exterff~ve landscaping, a network of walking paths/and or trails fi-om Area 7 to Area 12 and substantial natural or landscaped areas around the periphery of the site shown as Areas 1, 2 and 3. (4) In an effort to minimize traffic, a shuttle bus will be provided for the benefit of all the University Village residents to give access to cultural and social events, required retail and personal services. Parking requirements for the residential condominium living units will be deterufmed based on those requkrements for multi-family dwellings for the elderly per Section 4.12.6.6.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, with a minimum of one parking place per dwelling unit to be in the basement area of the buildings, in covered parking enclosures or in individual garages. Attachments to tiffs proffer amendment include the following: Proffer Schematic Revision date 12/3/96 Proposed Site Plan for Assisted Living Facility Zoning Ordinance - Section 17.8 By: CCAT 2/Uuiversity Village Limited Liability Company, a Delaware Liability Company By: CCAT 2 L.P./., a Delaware I/mired partnership, its manager By: Cheyenne Investments, Inc., an Oregon corporation, its general partner Bruce D. Thom Bmoc D. Thorn. Secretary_ 12/6/96 Signatures of Owners Printed Names of all Owners Date (Executive on behalf of: Cheyeune Investments, Inc., The General Partner for CACAT 2/Uhiversity Village lJtmited Liability Company) AgendaItem No. 12. SP-96-42. Kenneth J. Newei1 (apphcant), CCAT2/Uhiversity Limited Liability Company (Owner) (Sign #2). Public Hearing on a request to establish assisted living facility (nunfmg home or similar institution) on portion of University Village property described under ZMA-96-20 above. APPROVED SP-96-42 subject to the following conditions: Facility to be located in general conformance with the proposed site plan for "Manor House at University Village" dated November 6, 1996; 2. The number of beds for the assisted hying fa(thty shall not exceed 126; Landscape buffering between the assisted living facility and the Uhiversity Village residential development, the Ivy Gardens development, and the University Foundation Offices shall be provided, and existing vegetation maintained, as required by the Albemarle County plarmmg Department staff. Agenda Item No. 13. SP-96-04. Albemarle County Service Authority by 360° Communications Company of Charlottesville, d/b/a360° Communications Company. Public Hearing on a request to allow l00 ft tower & equip bldg on portion of a 9.536 ac parcel zoned R-I located on E sd of Avon St Ext (R.t 742) N of Cale Elem Sch on property dvlp Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: December 17, 1996 Page 5 with wa' storage tank. TM91 ,P 1. Scottsville Dist. (This site is not located in a designated growth area.) APPROVED SP-96~04 subject to the following conditions: 1. Tower height shall not exceed 100 feet (80-foot monopole with 20-foot antennae/lighting rod); 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 hghting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground; 4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or knply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even ff 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 m the event of structural fallure, the tower and components will remain willfin the lease area. A modification of Section 4.10.3.1 has been granted to allow location of the tower closer to the property line than the height of the tower; 6. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for cellular comtnnnication purposes. The Board also granted the medificafion of Section 4.10.3.1 to allow the location of the tower closer to the property line than the height of the tower. Agenda Item No. 14. SP-96-48. Terry Dean's Dance Studio (Signs #68 & ~59). Public Hearing on a request to establish school of special instruction on approx. 0.525 ac zoned CO on W sd of Commonwealth Drive at Westfield Road. TM61W, Sec 1,BlkB,Lot2. Rio Dist. APPROVED SP-96-48 subject to the following coudition: Hours of operation: 10 a.m. to l 0 p.m., Monday through Friday. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker said on Dec 4th, VDOT held a public hearing on the proposed improvements to Bridge #3 on Route 614. He has prepared a draft letter for the Chairman's signature asking VDOT to support the County's alternative plan presented at the public hearing. Mrs. Thomas mentioned a piece of property that is located La her district that was given to the Wildlife Centen The propc~ty is a total residue and has no development fights. The County's Real Estate Assessor assumed the property was tax exempt and then somewhere along the line found out it was not exempt. The Wildlife Center received a tax bill of more than $1,000. The Wildlife Center caunot generate any income on this property, harvest the timber or lease the hunting rights. They have to allow public access, but cannot dispose of the property except to a similar nonprofit organization. She has suggested they- investigate the County's land use progrmn as they do have a land management plan. Most of the land is forested. The Wildlife Center has suggested the County grant them tax exempt. Another alternative was that the Wildlife Center donate the land to the County. She wanted to inform the Board of this development and she would prefer that alternatives, other than tax exemption, be considered. She asked staff to look at the habihty of the County ff ~t accepted this land as a donation. Mr. Davis commented that these are restrictions that could be removed ffthe owners or grandchildren Memo To: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Date: December 17, 1996 Page 6 agreed. Mr. Perkins suggested fl~e Wildlife Center pursue granting a conservation easement on the property. Mrs. Thomas also suggested that stafflook into the liability of the County purchas'mg the property. Mrs. Thomas said she attended a technololTy meeting at Western Albemarle High School. It was a demonstration of all the things they are doing with computers at WAI:IS and she was extremely impressed. Mrs. Humphris said H JR 160 of the 1996 General Assembly set up a kigh level study on transportation that will attempt to identify and recommend ways to pay for major Iong-range state-wide transportation nends. The representative for tiffs area is Nancy O'Brim of the TJPDC. The information she has indicates that the meetings will be open to the public andparticipation by visitors encouraged. This is a major c°rmmttee and she thimks the County needs to pay attention to when the meetings are scheduled and attend them in support of the major transportation needs of this area. Mrs~ Humphrls said she heard fi.om a number of people that at the last meeting of the Bypass Design Advisory Committee, Mr. Gene Potter appem'ed representing RWSA because he had been dismayed to find that no pmticular attention was been given to protecting the South Fork Rivmma Reservoir intake. The County was told that since it did not request that any measures be taken to protect the Reservoir fi'om degradation, it must now make a spec/al request and include juslilicafien. Mr. Tucker indicated that Mr. Potter and Mr. Hirschman are working on a report to VDOT regarding this issue. Mrs. Humphris said she saw in the VACo newsletter that two more counties passed a meals mx referendum on November 5th. Mr. Bowerman said the Board has met in Executive Session many times over the past 18 months regarding reversion. At this time, the Board feels it is appr°pnate for Dick CranweI1, the County's legal counsel, to give a presentation whichsets out everything the Board knows abontreversion and what the Board wants its position to be. The meetmg will be held next Wednesday, December 18th, at 7!00 p.m. Mr. Tucker said the intent is not to hold a publ/c hearing; it is for information purposes only. The Board then voted to schedule a meeting on December 18, 1996, 7:00 p.m., to hear a presentation un reversion. Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 9:36 p.m. /ewe Attachments (6) cc: Richard E. Huff, II Roxarme White Kevin C. Castner Larry Davis Amelia MeCulley Jo Higgins Brace Wondzell Richard Wood Jan Sprinkle File 3t.2.4.3 31.2.4,4 31.2.4.5 the board of supervisors-shall have referred the application therefor to the conunisslon for its recommendations. Failure of the commission to report w~thin ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the commission after the application has been referred to the commission shall be deemed a recommendation of approval. No such permit shall be issued except after notice and hearing as provided by section 15.1-431 of the Code. Also, a notification sign shall be posted by the appli- cant upon the subject property and adjacent to the nearest state highway at. the point of access to the subject property for a period of twenty-one (21) days prior to the first public hearing of the commis- sion. (Amended 5-5-82) CONDITIONS The board of supervisors may impose upon any such permit such condi- tions relating to the use for which such permit is granted as it may deem necessary in the public interest and may require a bond with surety or other approved security to ensure that the conditions so imposed shall be complied with. Such conditions shall relate to the purposes of this ordinance, including, but not limited to, the preven- tion of smoke, dust, noise, traffic congestion, flood and/or other hazardous, deleterious or otherwise undesirable substance or condi- tion; the provision of adequate police and fire protection, transpor- tation, water, sewerage, drainage, recreation, landscaping and/or screening or buffering; the establishment of special requirements relating to the building setbacks, front, side and rear yards, off- street parking, ingress and egress, hours of operation, outside storage of materials, ducation and intensity of use, building height and/or other particular aspects of occupancy or use. Except as the board of supervisors may otherwise specifically provide in a partic- ular case, any condition imposed under the authority of this section shall be deemed to be essential ~o and nonserverable from the issuance of the permit itself. REVOCATION Any permit issued pursuant to this ordinance may be revoked by the board of supervisors, after notice and hearing pursuant to section 15.1-431 of the Code, for wilful noncompliance with this ordinance or any conditions imposed under the authority of this section. In the event that ~the use, structure or- activity for which any such permit is issued shall not be commenced within eighteen (18) months after the issuance of such permit, the samm shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate. For purposes of this section, the term "con~nenced" shall be construed to include the commencement of construction of any structure necessary to the use of such permit within two (2) years from the date of the issuance thereof which is thereafter completed within one (1) year; provided that the board of supervisors may, as a condition of approval, impose such aIternative time limits as may be reasonable in a particular case. (Repealed 9-21-88) -202- (Supp..~68, 9-9-92) PROFFER FORM Date: Dec;..'Z, li 1996'. <-ZMA # 96-18 Tax Map Parcel(s) Original Proffer × Amended Proffer (Amendment ~. ) 03200-00=00-020D0 03200-00-00-020E0 1.63 Acres to be rezoned from R1 to Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below wh ich shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (t) (2) (3) Permitted uses of the properly, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the following sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in effect on December 11, 1996, a copy of the sections being attached hereto: 24.2.1 (2) Automobile, Truck Repah' Shops (35) Electric, gas... (36) Public uses... (37) Temporary Construction uses Access to the prope~ty for commercial use will be through the entrances on adjacent Tax Map Parcel 32-40, as shown on the attached ch'awing. Owner reserves the fight to request amendment(s) to the above proffers in the fitture wlfich may be necessaw or appropriate resulting from the planned improvements to Airp o~:r Road. Si~ll~atures~?~'9,~' ~,r~~(57 of_All %whets ¢ Printed Names of All Owners Date OR Signature of Attotney4n4=act (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) PROFFORM.WPD Rev. December 1994 BEC 0 9 1996 Planning Dep'L 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.2,1 H~GHWAY COMMERCIAL - HC INTE~T, WHERE PERMITTED HC districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map to permit development of commercial establishments, other than shopping centers, primarily oriented to highway locations rather than to central business concentrations. It is intended that HC districts be established on major highways within the urban area and communities In the comprehensive plan. It is further intended that this district shall be for the purpose of limiting sprawling strip commercial development by providing sites with adequate frontage and depth to permit controlled access to public streets. PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT The following uses shall, be permitted in any HC district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit, as a use by right, a use no~ specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character, and' more specifically, similar in terms of locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.0. 1. Automobile laundries. ~ Automobile, truck repair shops. 3. Automobile service stations (reference 5.1.20~. 4. Building materlals sales. Churches, ceme~erles. 6. Clubs, i~ges, c:vlc, fraternal, patriotic {reference 5.1.21. 7. Convenience stores. Educational. tecnnical and trade schools. 9. Factor~~ outlet sales - clothing and fabzic. 10. Feed an~ seed stores {reference 5.1.22). -150- 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27° 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. · 34. Financial 6Fire extinguisher and service. Fire and rescue squad Funeral homes. Furniture stores. institutions. security products, sales and stations (reference 5.1.9). Food and grocery stores including s~ch specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops. Home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning, exterminators, landscaping and other repair and maintenance services. Hardware. (Repealed 6-3-81) Hotels, motels and inns. Light warehousing. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental. Mobile home and trailer sales and service. Modular building sales. Motor vehicle sales, service and rental. New automotive parts sales. Newspaper publishing. Administrative, business and professional offices. Office and business machines sales and service. Eating estabils.hment: fast food restaurants. Retail nurseries and greenhouses. Sale of ma]or recreational equipment and vehicles. Wayside stands vegetables and agricultural produce (reference 5.1.19). Wholesale distribution. -151- (Supp. 93, 6-3-81) 24.2.2 Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems an conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93) Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmis- sion, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (~eference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11-1-89) Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). Indoor theaters. 39. Heating oil sales and distribution (reference 5.1.20). 40. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8) . (Added 3-5-86) 41. Uses permitted by right pursuant to subsection section 22.1, commercial, C-1. (Added 6-19-91; Amended 9-9-92) 22.2.1 of 42. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93) 43. Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36). (Added 10-11-95) BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT Commercial recreation establishment including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-1-83) 2. Septic tank sales and related service. 3. Livestock sales. 4. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11). 5. Drive-in theaters (reference 5.1.8). Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lin~s, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appursenances (reference 5.1.12). -152- (Supp. #80, 10-11-95) Original Proffer Amended Proffer X (Amendment No. ) Page 1 Revised: 12/3/96 PROFFER FORM Date: 12/3/96 ZMA # 96-20 Tax Map Parcel(s)# 60-B2-1 Amendment of proffers, approved with ZMA 87-08 to change the Schematic Site Development Plan Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ifrezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (1) The property will be developed for residential use as set out in paragraph 2 below, designed primarily for retired or older persons. (2) The development of the property will be limited to a maximum of 204 residential units;.an assisted living facility;, a nursing home/health care facility; and, serdce facilities, such as dining and recreational facilities, administrative offices, and banking within the limits of accessory uses, as provided in the zoning ordinance. (3) The buildings will not exceed the height limits established in Section 17.8 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, as in effect on October 7, 1987, a copy of which is attached hereto. Buildings, road and parking areas will be located in accordance with the attached Schematic Drawing for Site Development (Attachment A) and as further detailed on Attachment B - "Proposed Site Plan for Assisted Living." Site development will include extensive landscaping, a network of walking paths/and or trails from Area 7 to Area 12 and substantial natural or landscaped areas around the periphery of the site shown as Areas 1, 2 and 3. (4) In an effort to minimize traffic, a shuttle bus win be provided for the benefit of all the University Village residents to give access to cultural and social events, required retail and personal services (5) Page 2 Revised_ 12/3/96 Parking requirements for the residential condominium riving units will be determined based on those requirements for multi-family dwellings for the elderly per Section 4.12.6.6.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, with a minimum of one parking place per dwelling unit to be in the basement area of the buildings, in covered parking enclosures or in individual garages. Attachments to this proffer amendment include the following: Proffer Schematic Revision date 12/3/96 Proposed Site Plan for Assisted Living Facility Zoning Ordinance - Section 17.8 By: CCAT 2/University Village Limited Liability Company, a Delaware Liability Company By: CCAT 2 L.P./., a Delaware limited partnership, its manager ~ey~)~ ~. ~e~e Invest~~ilsilnffi,lai.lre~ilac~rp0ratiOn, its gilfiiiffarmer Sigmatures of Owners Printed Names of all Owners Date (Executed on behalf of: Cheyenne Investments, Inc., the General Partner for CCAT 2FLlniversity Village Limited Liability Company) DEC 1 i Planning Dep'L 17.4.4 (Amended 8-14-85) 17.5 17.6 (Amended 8-14-85) 17.7 17.8 (Amended 8-14-85) e. Mobile homes for rent in an approved mobile home park shall considered rental units under this section provided they qualify as low or moderate cost housing under the }lousing and Urban Development Section 8 program; (Added 3-5-8~) f, Mobile home lots for rent in an approved mobile home park shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle that the lots shall be available for rent to mobile home owners for a period of five (5) years; (Added 3-5-86) Mobile home lots for sale in an approved mobile home subdivision shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall strict the use of ~e lots to mobile homes or other iow or moderate cost housing for a period of five (5),; years. (Added 3-5-86) The cumulative effect of density factors above may not exceed fifty (50) percent. - CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT OPTION REGULATIONS (Amended 8-14-85) At the option of the owner, regulations under cluster development provisions in section 17.3 may he used for cluster development of the land to be subdivided and developed. Use of cluster provisions shall be subject to other requirements of this ordinance, applicable health requirements and the provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of Albe- marle. BUILDING SEPARATION In any case In which there is more than one maln structure on any parcel, there shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet between such structures except as otherwise provided tn section 4.11.3. This provision shall not apply to structures built to a common wall. (Amended 1-1-83) RECREATIONAL AREA REQUIREMENTS See section 4.16 for recreation requirements. (Amended 3-5-86) HEIGI~ REGULATIONS Except as otherwise provided in section 4.10, structures may be erected to a height not to excees sixty-five (65) feet; provided that any structure exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height shall be set .back from any street right-of-way or single-family residential or agricultural district; in addition to minimum y~rd requirements, a distance of not less than two (2) feet for each one (1) foot of height in excess of thirty-five (35) feet. (Amended 9-9-92) -124- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92) % % C) UJ 0 £ LU ~ > COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Ianuary 8, 1997 Mr. Phil Waigand 113-6 Tumle Creek Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Waigand: Thank you for your comments to the Board of Supervisors on December 1 I, 1996. concerning the Charlottesville Fatherhrg Initiative. Your organization is providing a much needed and beneficial resource to tl~is community. Good luck in the coming year and please keep the Board informed of your progress. Again, thank you for your comments. Sincerely, Charlotte Y. Hurnphtis Chairman My name is Casey Burke. I am a junior at Western Albemarle High School and a resident of Albemarle County. I am here tonight representing the Ivy community m urging you m pursue Option 2 of the GBB report that was recently submitted to the RSWA. Option 2 specifies that the landfill be closed within two years. Furthermore, we .encourage you to maximize the elevation to 700 feet so that the recovered site blends into the neighboring terrain. It is our position that the Iandfill should be closed as soon as possible and that the site be converted for recreational use and returned to the community for the following reasons: 1. It would be good for the citizens of Albemarle and Charlottesville. We should minimize threats to the environment and we should provide new recreation area for the community. 2. Pollution of the area's water and air would be minimized. I attend one of the five schools in the Countv that are within a 5 mile radius of the landfill and can be affected by the uncontrolled off-gassing. There are continued risks associated with continuing to operating a substandard landfill. Our waste ~ should be transferred, as soon as possible, to a landfill that is properly sited,constructed, and maintained. 3. It would be good for the public image of Albemarle County. Visitors and prospective residents would be reassured that Albemarle will not continue to destroy its own enmronment by perpetuating the status quo of operating a landfill that does not meet current environmental protection standards. 4. It would be good financially. Private industry is better prepared to manage solid waste under current environmental protection standards and at competitive prices. Long-term clean- up costs will only increase if we continue to use a substandard facility. 5. It is most consistent with the report of the Citizens' Task Force, which spent months studying the problems of solid waste disposal. If the Task Force report is taken seriously, then Albemarle should aggressively pursue reduction, recycling, and reuse, not landfilling. RSWA should stop landfilling over unlined or substandard garbage cells at the earliest possible date. 6. Finally, I personally support the efforts of the citizens of the County and the SOCA organization to convert the site into soccer fields. [ have played soccer in Albemarle County for ten years and recently I have begun coaching young children. SOCA, an excellent organization, has constantly struggled to find good fields for the ever increasing number of children who are playing the game. This fall I played for the Under 18 express team and we travelled to sites within Virgima and North Carolina for our games. The comparisons are embarrassing. The best facilities in Albemarle County are vastly inferior to those in our neighboring communities. We need to join hands with SOCA and increase the quantity and quality of soccer fields in the County, The need for better facilities are real and acute and will service a huge number of families in the community. This is a legitimate and desirable use of the Ivy facility. We deserve better than a substandard landfill in Ivy that threatens the community. We encourage you to consider more enlightened uses and implement them within two years. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance Ella W. Carey, Clerk, December 19, 1996 Board Actions of December Il, 1996 At its meeting on December 11. 1996, the Board of Supervisors took the following actions: Item No. 5.7. Voluntary Early Retirement Request for Seinor Deputy Clark. Approved. ItemNo. 5.8. Set public hearing for January8, 1997, on expenditure ofLaw Enforcement Block Grant Award. Public hearing set for January 8, 1997, 7:00 p.m. Agenda Item No. 6 Publdc Hearing on an Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article VII, of the Code of Albemarle entitled '~Real Estate Tax Exemption for Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons" to revise the filing deadline for elderly and handicapped property mx exemptions to be no earl/er ~ January first and no later than April first of each taxable year. ADOPTED the attached Ordinance. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to Amend and Reordain Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation by repealing section 8-76, Volunteer rescue squad and fire company workers, to eliminate the separate class of personal property for one automobile owned by volunteer rescue squad and fire company members. ADOPTED the attached Ordinance. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to Amend and Recrrdain Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article V, Counry Vehicle Licenses of the Code of Albemarle, by repealing section 12-23 to remove the vehicle license fee exemption for one vehicle for volunteer tire company or rescue squad members, to amend section 12- 24 to emend Memo To: MeDin A. Breeden Date: December 19. 1996 Page 2. the application and billing procedure for the issuance of vehicle licenses, and to amend section 12-27 to amend the refund procedure for vel~cle licenses. ADOPTED the attached Ordinance. Agenda Item No. 16. Other Mat~ers not Listed on the Agenda fi-om the BOARD. Mrs. Thomas mentioned a piece of property that is located in her district that was given to the Wildlife Center. The property is a total residue and has no developmem rights. The County's Real Estate Assessor assumed the property was tax exempt and than somewhere along the line found out it was not exempt, The Wildlife Center received a tax bill of more than $1,000 The Wildlife Center cannot generate any income on this properff, harvest the timber or lease the hunting rights. Theyhavet~al~~wpub~icaccess~butcann~tdisp~se~fthepr~perryexce~tt~asimi~arn~npr~~t~rganizati~n. She has suggested they investigate the County's land use program as they do have a land management plan. Most of the land is forested. The Wildlife Center has suggested the County grant them tax exempt. Another alternative was that the Wildlife Center donate the land to the County. She wanted to inform the Board of this development and she would prefer that alternatives, other than tax exemption, be considered. She asked staff to look at the liability of the County if it accepted this land as a donation. Mr. Davis commented that these are mslricfions that could be removed ffthe owners or grandchildren agreed. Mr. Perkins suggested the Wildlife Center pursue granting a conservation easement on the property. Mrs. Thomas also suggested that staff look into the liability of the County purcha£mg the proper~y. Attachments (3) cc: Robert Walters ORDINANCE NO. 96-8(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FtNANCE AND TAXATION, ARTICLE VII, REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAiN ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED PERSONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARI.E, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article VII, Real Estate Tax Exemptions for Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 8-26, Same--Eligibility; restrictions, and section 8-28, Procedure for filing daims, as follows: This ordinance shall be effective on and after January I, 1997. Sec. 8-26. Same--Eligibility; restrictions. F~xemption from real estate taxes permitted hereunder shall be granted subject to the folloWing restrictions and conditions: (6) The person or persons claiming the exemption shall file the affidavit required by this article no earlier than January first nor later than April first of each taxable year. Sec. 8-28, Procedure for filing claims. (a) Annually and between January first and April first of each taxable year for which the exemption is claimed, the person claiming the exemption shall file With the director of finance, in such rammer as he shall prescribe, and on the forms to be supplied by the county, an affidavit setting forth the names of the related persons occupying the real estate for which the exemption is claimed, their total combined income and their net combined financial worth. If such person is under sixty-five (65) years of age, such form shall have attached thereto a certification by the Sodal Security Administration, the Department of Veteran Affairs or the Railroad Retirement Board, or if such person is not eligible for certification by any of these agencies, a sworn affidavit by two (2) medical doctors licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth or are mil!aW officers on active duty who practice medidne with the United States Armed Forces. to the effect that such person is permanently and totally disabled, as defined in section 8-23. The affidavit of one of the doctors may be based upon a physical examination of the person by such doctor. The affidavit of one of the doctors may be based upon medical information contained in the records of the Civil Service Commission which is relevant to the standards for determining permanent and total disability as defined in section 8-23. A certification pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 423 (d) by the Social Security Administration, so long as the person remains eligible for such social security benefits, shall be deemed to satisfy such definition in section 8-23. If, after audit and investigation, the director of finance determines the claimant to be eligible for the eXemption from real estate taxes, he shall certify the claimant's eligibility to the county mx assessor, who shall exonerate the amount of the exemption from the real estate tax liability of those persons entitled to the exemption. (b) Persons claiming the exemption from real estate taxes for the first time may file after April first, but before November first, of the taxable year in the manner set forth in subsection (a) of this section. Further, in hardship cases, persons claiming the exemption from real estate taxes may file after April first, but before November first, of the taxable year in the same manner as set forth in subsection (a) of this section. For purposes of this section, a hardship case shall include only those cases in which the person claiming the exemption was hospitalized or in a nursing home between January first and April first of the taxable year, or similar situation which in the judgment of the director of finance constitutes a hardship case justifying the eXtension of the filing period set forth in subsection (a) of this section beyond April first of the taxable year. (c) Such exemption, if granted, shall be effective Only for the current year and shall not be retroactive in effect. (2-15-73; 1 I-9-77; 8-I3-80; 5-13-87; Ord. of 12-19-90; Ord. of 4-7-93) I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on December 11, 1996. ~er q~Bo~d of County Sup;~ors 2 ORDINANCE NO. 96-12(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER t2, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, ARTICLE V, COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINI/L BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle. Virginia, that Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article V, County Vehicle Licenses is hereby amended and reordained as follows: This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 1997. Sec. 12-23. Repealed by ordinance adopted December I 1, 1996. Sec. 12-24. Application for license; payment of fee; issuance of decal, etc. (a) Every person owning a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer, regularly housed or stored in the county and used or intended to be regularly operated upon the streets'or highways in the coun[v will be issued a vehicle license by mail provided that: 1. The vehicle is currendy licensed by the county; and 2. All local taxes spedfied in section 12-29 have been paid. The vehicle license shall be mailed to the vehide owner in January. License fees prescribed by section 12-25 for such vehicle license shall be included and separately stated on the personal property tax bill and shall be paid by June 5 of each year. (b) Every person owning a motor vehide, trailer or semitrailer, regularly housed or stored in the county and used or intended to be regularly operated upon the streets or highw%vs in the county, and not issued a vehicle license for such vehicle pursuant to subsection (a) above, shall malce application for and procure a county motor vehicle license for thatvehide. The application for the license required by this artide shall be made to the director of finance on forms providing for the name and address of the applicant and a description of the motor vehide for which the license is to be issued. The license fee shall be paid to the director of finance. Upon the payment of the license fee. the director of finance shall issue to the applicant a license decal or other indicia of license for such motor vehide. (c) The purchaser of a new vehicle or a new resident of the county is required to obtain a county license within thirty (30) days of the purchase date or the date moved into the county. New residents with a valid local license issued by a Virginia locality will be given a prorated credit based on the expiration date of their current license. (Code 1967, § 12-92; Ord. of 2-14-90) Sec. 12-27. Same-Refunds. Any person holding a current registration certificate and license under this arride who disposes of the vehicle, trailer or semitrailer for which it was issued and does not purchase another vehicle, trailer or semitrailer may surrender the registration certificate and license decal or other indicia of license to the director of finance and request a refund for the unused portion of the fee paid. The request for refund shall be accompanied by the original license decal or other evidence satisfactory to the director of finance that the original license has been destroyed. The director of finance shall refund to the applicant one-half (1/2) of the total cost of the license if the application for refund was made prior to the first day of July of the current license year or one-third (1/3) of the total cost if the application for refund was made subsequent to June thirtieth and prior to October first of the current license year. No refund shall be paid when application is made after the thirtieth day of September of the current license year. The refund shall be rounded to the nearest dollar, an amount of less than two dollars ($2.00) shall not be refunded nor applied to any other fee, tax or amount due the County of Albemarle. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting hdd on December 11, 1996. ~exk, Board of Co~rs 2 ORDINANCE NO. 96-8(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXATION, ARTICLE XIV, PERSONAL PROPERTY--IN GENERAL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article XIV, Personal Property-In General, is hereby amended and reorclained by repealing section 8-70, as follows: This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 1997. Sec. 8-70. Kepealed by ordinance adopted December 11, 1996. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on December l I, 1996. George Allen Gove~lor COMMONWEALTH o~ Office of the Governor November 27, 1996 Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris Chairman Albemarle County Board of Superdsors 401 Mclntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. Humphris: Last week, I was very pleased to announce a new, innovative and fiscally sound initiative that will help school divisions throughout the Commonwealth meet their future school construction needs. I am writing ro you because this affects your area and I want you to know how this better approach will benefit localities and local school divisions. This initiative, which I will include in my budget amendments this year, will provide a program to assist your locality in meeting many of your school financing needs through the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA). This responsible undertaking will provide school divisions access to fmancing for school construction and education equipment in a more flexible and more efficient manner. And it will ensure the continued ability of local school divisions to issue their own general obligation bonds through the VPSA in the amounts necessary to meet their own construction needs. Further, please note that it can also be used for educational technology equipment - not permitted under current limitations on the Virginia Public School Authority. Education and law enforcement are the top two responsibilities of state government, and certainly we have made tremendous progress in improving the academic quality of our education system and ensuring that Virginia is a safer place to live, work and raise a family. By working closely with you and other education leaders across the Commonwealth, we have adopted many measures to ensure that Virginia's children receive a first-class public school academic education. We have coupled an increased investment in education with accountab'flity by establishing high academic standards in the core academic subjects of English, math, science and history and we have reinforced these new standards with testing to measure student achievement. But there is more work ahead, if we are to make sure that students have the tools they need to succeed in an increasingly competitive world. State CapitoI · Richmond. Virginia 23219 · ,80~ 786-2211 * TDD (804) 371-8015 November 27, 1996 Page 2 It is true that there vcilt always be requests for spend'rog taxpayers money that far exceed available resources, and you know I oppose raising taxes. However, this new VPSA financing initiative is a positive step in the fight direction and will assist your community in meet'rog many of your local school construction and equipment needs. Additionally, to fac'flitate our new technology initiative, VPSA financing may also be used in new electrical wiring for computer outlets and for improved lighting. Together, we have worked hard to reform, enhance and improve our public schools for the benefit of Virginia's students and families. With this appropriate new school financing initiative, we are living up to our proud legacy as Virginians: always adapting...always innovating...always improving...and always striving for excellence. Thank you for your dedication and hard work toward improving and enhancing our public schools. I look forward to further cooperation with you on providing our students with the best possible education. With kind personal regards, I remain, Sincerely, Govemor A Caring Retirement Community November 22, 1996 Ms. Charlotte Humphris, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Va 22902 Dear Ms. Humphris: Our Lady of Peace is pleased to report that it has exceeded, as in the previous years, the requirements of the agreement of November 24. 1992, between Albemarle County, Virginia, and Our Lady of Peace, Inc. Our Lady of Peace has currently residing within its Assisted Living facility eleven indigent people. In addition, there are twelve other limited income elderly residing within its 30 bed Nursing Center. T)~ Board of Directors of Our Lady of Peace would like to convey our deepest and mgst s~nCe~re_~appr~mtton to you and the members of the Board of Supervisors for your on- going suppbtf of ~dii~'d~gent elderly. We invite you and the other members of the Board of Supervisors to visit Our Lady of Peace at your convenience so that we may show you around and demonstrate to you the good care all of the residents of Our Lady of Peace receive. Thank you again fo~:your good works for the common good of Albemarle County. Sincerely, Ruth DePiro President RD/bc CC.' 751 Hillsdale Drzve Charlottesville. Virginia 22901 804/973-1155 CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE November 25, 1996 Certified Mail Return Receipt TO THE COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY AND CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF EACH OF THE FOLLOWING COUNTIES IN WHICH CENTRAL VIRGINIA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE OFFERS SERVICE, AND TO THE MAYOR AND ATTORNEY OF THE BELOW LISTED TOWNS IN WHICH IT OFFERS SERVICE. Albemarle County Amherst County Appomattox County Augusta County Buckingham County Campbell County Cumberland County Greene County Louisa County Nelson County Orange County Prince Edward County Town of Appomattox Town of Gordonsville Town of Scottsville Enclosed is a copy of the ORDER FOR NOTICE AND HEARING in Case No. PUE960229 which was issued by the State Corporation Commission as a result of our application for a change in electric rates and revision of tariffs. Very truly yours, ~oward L. Scarboro General Manager HLS/ah Enclosure Post Office Box 247 · Lovingston, VA 22949 · Telephone: 804/263-8336 · Fax: 8041263-8339 .NOV.-~9' 96[TUE) 16:34 OPC GENERAL COUNSEL TEL: 8043719549 P, 002 (JUMM. UHW,~LL,,~ Ut ¥1KUIMLA ,T.T~ ~o~o~0~ co~,~o~ 9 611 3 03 1 6 COOPERATIVE managemefi= program NO, PUE960229 On October 4, 1~6, ~ntrel Virginia Electric Cooperative ("CV~C" or "the Cooperative") filed an a!~lication reques=ing approval of a demand-side management ("DSM") ~rogram. CV~C proposes =o implement its DSM program =hrou~h a direct load oonurol program for els=trio wauer hea~srs. CVEC sue=es =ha= this program will promote goals of ¢o~t effective utility =onsarvation, efficient use of elso=ri=~l energy, an~ load management. CVEC proposes =o operate its load control system using a blanket cur=ailment of =yPically two hours or less, It ex, sots the maximum duration of any stngl~ curtailment to be four houra. participants may be utili~ed, however, in ~he event of a lengthy duration 6~ a su~amer peak period. The Co, any in=ends =o usa a ~ ?0¥.-1~' 96(TUE) 16:SS OPC GENERAL COUNSEL TEL:$O43?IPS49 P, O03 FM sub-carrier technology oon~rol system to provide communication with =he load management receiving switches. This Uype of limi:s an~ limited participation. The Cooperative has instead availability to any CV~C qualifyin~ member-consumer. The Company anticipates a =wen=y-five percent participation rate in the program. ~-RC proposes ~hat the DSM pro,ram be available on an ongoing basis for an indefinite perio~ unless it is lauer de~ermins~ to be ineffective or uneconomic, a= which time =he p~og~am woul~be revised oM canceled. The Cooperative has calculated ~he anticipated ~ost of the program over an eight year period coinciding with the expiration of its wholesale power contract with Virginia Power on December 31, 2004. The cumulative cost for the eight year pariod · s $3,234,654, which includes capital investment for ~ranemitters, remo~e switches, oompute~ hardware and software, aunual expenses for implementiag and adminiaterin~ =he pro,ram, and incentives provi~aa uo par~icipatin~ customers con~isting of wauer heater maintenance and annual credius of $24.00 per electric heater load con,r01 switch. The first S24.00 credit .NOV.-19'96(TUE) 16:~ OFO GENERAL GOUNSEL TEL:8045719549 P. O04 control switch was ¢onns~t$~ =o the consumer,s electric wats~ heater. The present value cf the cost.for the eight year perio~ is $2,371,29S. The Company also proposes to p=cv~e each ~s ins~alle~. Base~ upon =ha: checkup, a= any time within a twelve-month Dmrlod followin~ ~he installation o~ =~ switch, will bm in =~ rebus=ion in w~lesals billin~ ~ema~s which will r~sult in a re~u~e~ coe~ o~ ~mman~-rela~m~ ~urchase 9owmr ~riod =o be $4,~16,744, with m p~esen~ value of $~,348,71%. Allowance~, =he Co~ission may ~rant a~roval of programs NOW, T~ CO~ISSION, havin~ considered =he ma=~er finds that No. ~960229; ~ha~ ~h= cu~era=&ve shoul~ provide no,ice of i~s =easonablmn~ss of the proposed program; an~ t~t a pe~io~ o~ time ~O¥,-19'96(TUg} 16:36 OFO GENERAL OOUNSgL TEL:804~719549 P. O05 request a haarin~ should be established. A=cordin~ly, iT IS ORDERED T~AT= (1) Central Vi=~inia Eieotrfc Coopere~lve's apDl$cation shall be dookete~ and asAi~ed Case No. PUE960229. (2) CVEC Aha11 ~orthwi=h make copies cf ica application and r~ular business hours a= all o~ its offices where customer bills may be paid. A copy of =he application shall also be made available for public review a= =he Commission's Dooummnt Control Con=er, located on =he first floor of :he Tyler Building, 1~00 Eas~ Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 2~219 during regular business hourm of s~is a.m. =u $:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. (~) Within five (~) business days of a wrtt=enrsquest for a copy of =he application, CVEC shall serve upon any person makin~ mn¥ such toques=, a copy of =he applicaaion and all relevant materials now or hereafter filed with the Commission in support thereof. Rsc~uaste ~or copies of the application shall be saz~ad upon =he Cooperative =hrou~h its counsel, john A. Pirko, ~eq~irs, and Jamem P. ~uy, II, Esquire, LeClair Ryan, 4201 Dominion Boulevard, Suite 200, ~len Alla~, Virginia 23060. .NOV,-Lg'96{TUE) 16:36 OFO 8ENERAL COUNSEL TEL:8043719S49 P, O06 (4) On or before December 9, 199¢, CVE¢ ;hall complete the publication of the followin~ notice by display advertisin~, made on one occasion in newspapers 0£ general circula~ion ~hrou~hout NOTIC~ TO THE PUBLIC OF ANAPPLICATIO~BY CENTRAL VIRGINIA ELECTRIC COOPPA%ATIV~ FOR A~PKOVAL OF DF~2tWD-SIDE M~/VA~EM~NT P~OGRAM O~ October 4, 1996. Central Virginia Elec~riu CooperatiVe (.CV~C. or nthe 0o~perative") filed an ap~lication a~proval of a demand-aide management ("DSM") con~rol system usin~ a blanket cur=ailmen~ of maximum ~uration of any single curtailment =o be four hours. Some rotating cycles for may be utilized, however, in the event of a len~hy duxa~on of a summe~ peak period. The Company intends to use a FM sub-carrier technology control system Co provid~ co~munica=ion with the load management receivin~ switches. This type of control CVEC'S distribution ~y~tem. cvEc is not pro~os~n~ an experimental pro,ram with time limits and limlted par~icipation. The Cooperative has instead requested approval of the DSM pro,ram for immedi&=~ and permanent availability =o any anticipates a twenty~f~ve pe~cen= p&r~i¢i~=ion rate in the program. CVEC ~ .NOV,-lY96(TUE) 16:57 OPO QENERAL OOUNSEL TEL:804~7Ig549 P. O0? ineffective or uneconomic, a= which time the progTamwould be revised or canceled. heater control sw~Cch and to provide each ~nsumer with a free water heater checkup at the ~ime the control switch is installed. Based upon that checkup, at ~y time within a ~walve-~nth period following =he The ~etails of C~EC's DSM proposal are sec out in the Company,s application. The public is invited ~o review the applica~ion. copies of which may be requesced ~rcm CV~C's counsel, Jch~ A. Pirko, Es~ire, and James P. ~uy, II, Es~ire, LeClair ~yan, 4201 Dom~ion Boulegard, Suite 200, Glen ~len, virffinia 23060. ~e ap~lication ~y o~fices where customer bills may be paid, Co~ission's Document Co~==ol Center located a= !300 ~ast ~in Street, ~ler Butldin~, Floor, Ric~o~d, Virginia. Any interested person who wishes to commen: upon or request a hearing on the proposed pre,ram shall file an ori~inal and fifteen (1~) copies of such comments or requests to Will!am J. Br£~ge, Clerk, Ste~e Corpo~ation Commission, c/o Document Control Cea=er, P.O. aox 2~1~, Richmond, v~r~lnia 22218-119~ on or before December 30, 1996, referring to Case No. PUE960229, and serve one (1) copy on =he Cooperative through its counsel at the addressed se~ ~crth above. specific grou~s on which the Commission .~0¥,-19'96I?U~) 1~;~? OFO OE~RAL OOUNSEL TEL;~04~7IP$49 P, O0~ which live =es~imoD¥ is received, Ail written communications ~o ;he Commission =egardin~ this proceeding shall =e~e= ;o Case No. ~UE~S0229 and shall ~e directed ~o ~hm Clerk of the Commimsion a~ =he address set foz~h above. CENTKALViROINiA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE (5} On or before December 9, 1996, CVEC shall serve a copy o~ t~uie ordaTonthe Chairma~ of ~he ~oard o~ Supervisors of each aaa county (or equivalent official) in which =h~ Co~pa=a=ivm provides se=rios. Service on the official shall be made by first-class mail at the customary place of business or reside~e (~) On or before December ~0, 1996, any ~erson desirin~ ~o commen= on or request a hearir~j on the Coopara=ivs~s application shall file.~ith =hs,Commieeionan original and fifteen (1~) CVEC =brough i;s counsel, John A, Pi=ko, Esquire, and ~ame~ P. Guy, Ir, ~squire, LeClair Eya~, ~.C., 4201 Dominion ~oulsvaxd, Suite 200, ~len Allen, Virginia 2~060. ~equ~s=s for hearing should e=a=e =he specific grounds upon which the Commission should ~ran; a hearing. · NOV, %ig'96(TUE) 16:55 OPO GENERAL COUNSEL TEL:804JTig$49 P, 009 (6) above, chis ma==~rmay b~ ~ec for hearin~ and a procedural hearing are recelva~, a ~o~al hea~i~ with oral =es~i~ny may no= be held. (~) ~ or before DecaYer 30, I99g, ~C shall provide the Commission wi=h proo~ of no~ic~ as re,ired in ord=rin~ (4) and (~) ~ove. ~sonableness of the proposed application ~d ~ile a repor~ on =he ~ame on or befor~ J~ua~ 8, 19~T, ~ shai1 send a copy of same to counsel for =ha Cooperative and all other pa~ies of record. (10) Discove~ in =his ma=car shall be ~e~ed ~ Par= VI of =he Rules, excep= =hat the ~ooperative shall make a response ~=a re~ests, wi=bin =eh (10) calendar ~ays of =he receipt of same. ~ A~EST~D COPY hm~eof shall ~e sent ~ ~he Clerk of Commission to: John A. Esquire, LeClair Ryan, ~len Allen, Vi~Jinia Assistant Attorney ~eneral, Pirko, Esquire, and James P. Guy, II, ~.C., 4201 Dominion Boulevard, Suite 200, Edward L. Petrini, Esquire, Senior DiVision of Consumer Counsel, 8 the ~omm~o=,~ ~iv~to~, o~ ~conom~ and ~i~an~a and ~ ABG ~ FINANCIAL SEKVICES, INC. November 25, 1996 Ms. Arlene I-Iernandez Assistant Treasurer The Bank of New York 101 Barclay Street, 2tW New York, New York 10286 no. sox s ~gend~ Item No. CHURCHVILL£. MARYLAND 21028 '~I0-879-9918 F,~x 410-838-5360 Re: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Dear Ms. Hernandez: Enclosed please find a copy of the Bond Program Report for the above referenced project for the month of October 1996. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Sheila H. Moynihan Project Monitor /shm enclosure cc: MS. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 M¢Intire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Effective October 31, 1996 MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS ABG Associates, Inc. 300 E. I&~mrd$~e: Baltimore, Maryland 21202 RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments -ArborCrestApa~ents Charlottesville, Virginia Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the "Deed Restrictions"], as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), and your bank, as ~rus~e,e, the undersigned authorized representative of Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited Partnership (the "Purchaser"), hereby certifies with respect to the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments, Charlottesville, Virginia (the "Projeo="), that as of the date shown below: 1) The number of units in the Pro~ect occupied by lower income tenants is 16 . 2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied_~d held available for Lower Income Tenants is . 3) The number of units held available for (1) and (2) is 50 rented and the number of units rental other than as described in 4) The 'percentage that the number of units described in (1) and (2) hereof constitu~of the total number of units in the Project is . 5) The information contained in this report is true, accurate and correct as of the date hereof. As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in default under any covenant or agreement contained in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and the Purchaser. IN WIT~ES~WHEREQ~ the undersigned has signed this Report as of RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED P;tRTNERSHIP, a Virginia limited partnership A.~=borized Representative October Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Charlottesville, VA Loretta Wyatt y~at199~, I. LO'MZR INCOME 051-35371 Proj~:t I: Num~ro! Uni~ _. 66 November 5, 1996 Effective 10/31/96 Total Occupied 66 Bond Occupied 16 ~ Arbor Crest Dr.. 21. Beverly T. Lane 2 6 Arbor Crest Dr.. 22 _Wilma M. Atkin~o~ 3 7 Arbor Crest Dr~ 23 Ruth M. Jones 4_ 9 Arbor Crest Dr 24 Virginia Burton 12 Arbor ure=t Dr 25 ~, Eou=~ ~one 5 14 Arbor CreSt Dr ;6 Bet~y L. Reed ? 18 Arbor C~est Dr 2! ,Ann S. Kemp ~ 30 Arbor Crest Dr 25 ,.Mary Cox Allen 9 ~ Arbor Crest Dr ~9 ,Sam Atherton 10_56 Arbor Crest Dr ~0 Harlan W. Hooe %% 76 Arbor Crest Dr 3~ A~n G. Saylor 12. 78 Arbor Crest Dr 3~ Ernest M. Nease 13 84 Arbor Crest D~_ 33 Juanita Boliek ~4 88 Arbor Crest Dr 34 N~cy G, Foley ~$ 90 Arbor Crest Dr ~$ Betty B. Elliot/ M. Eileen Knick ~$ 9~ Arbor Crest Dr ~6 i? 37 , ~ .... ~8 , = tg .-- 39 .. 20 40 .... 106 Arbor Crest Dr ~1 Katherine, Nowlen 12., 13 4-. 14 , $$ . 16, . t7 , .. · t~, ~0 I 88 Arbor Crest Dr 11. Nancy G. Foley 2 12.. 3 13, 4.._ 14. $ . 15. 6 16 7 . 17, 8 .... 18. 9 ,, 19. I0. _ , 20. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert B. Brandenburger, Deputy Director of Human Resources Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~b~L/ December 19, 1996 Voluntary Early Retirement Request At its meeting on December 11, 1996, the Board of Supervisors approved Lettie E, Neher]s Voluntary Early Retirement request with the budgetary implicaktions absorbed within the Board s current budget. /ewc cc: Ellen Steele COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Voluntary Early Retirement Request SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request Board approval of early retirement benefits for County Depu~ Clerk STAFF CONTACTt'S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff & Brandenburger AGENDA DATE: December 11,1996 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: Albemarle County Personnel Policy §P-63 provides for voluntary early retirement for county employees who have been employed by the county for ten of the laat thirteen years and who are at least 50 years of age and currently employed. Staff has received a request from an employee who has been employed with the County for 25 years. The employee has requested that she be allowed to take early retirement March 1 1997. The aesociated employee costa for the current fiscal year are $833.21 (pro-rated) and will come from the Board of Supervisors' FY 96-97 Departmental budget. RECOMMENDATION: County policy requires the Board of Supe~sors to approve all early retirement applications upon recommendation of the County Executive. Staff recommends that this request be so approved with the budgetary implications absorbed within the Board of Supervisors' current budget. 96.230 MEMO To: Subject: Richard E. Huff 1I, Deputy County Executive Bob Brandenburger, Deputy Director ofHuman~esou~ {~ VERtP application for Let-tie E. Neher Date: December 2, 1996 I have enclosed copy of Lettie E. Neher's application for the County's Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program which reflects a March 1. 1997 retirement date to be approved at the Board of Supervisors mee[ing on December 11, 1996 I have enclosed a VERIP budget worksheet which reflects the $1740 board contribution for health insurance but does not include any annual leave payoffor retirement bonus which are charged against the departments budget. Please let me know ifI can provide any further information. Attachments: RBB:ash ALBEMARLE COUNTY VOLUNTARY EARLY RETIREMENT PLAN APPLICATION DATE OF "IRE IN ALBE"ARLE COUNTY: ¢"~'//_.L-/././ DATe APPLICATION IS FOR EARLY RETIREMENT TO BEGIN: E · STATE BRIEF REASON FOR EARLY RETIREMENT R QUEST, t I understand that the Albemarle County Voluntary Early Retiremen~ Plan is voluntary and that I am pursuing this request on my own initiative. The Plan will De administered in accordance with the Voluntary Early Retirement policy of the Board of Supervisors/School SIGNATURE OF EMPLOYEE DATE SIGNED* *NOTE: Application must be received by the Director of Personnel by December 1 in order to be considered For next fiscal year. APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO BOARD NOT APPROVED FOR RECOMMENDATION TO BOARD SIGNATURE OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE/SUPERINTENDENT DATE ACTED UPON BY BOARD WHITE - PERSONNEL; YELLOW - SUPT./COUNTY EXECo; PINK - EMPLOYEE o~ (D o DATE AGENDA ITeM NO. AGENDA ITW. M NAME DEFERR~ UNTIL Form. 3 7 ~25/86 ORDINANCE NO. 96-8(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXATION, ARTICLE VII. REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED PERSONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article VII, Real Estate Tax Exemptions for Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 8-26, Same--Eligibility; restrictions, and section 8-28, Procedure for filing claims, as follows: This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 1997. Sec. 8-26. Same.-Eligibility; restrictions. Exemption from real estate taxes permitted hereunder shall be granted subject to the following restrictions and conditions: (6) The person or persons daiming the exemption shall file the affidavit required by this article no earlier than January first nor later than April first of each taxable year. Sec. 8-28, Procedure for filing claims. (a) Annually and between January first and April first of each taxable year for which the exemption is claimed, the person claiming the exemption shall file with the director of finance, in such manner as he shall prescribe, and on the forms to be supplied by the county, an affidavit setting forth the names of the related persons occupying the real estate for which the exemption is daimed, their total combined income and their net combined financial worth. If such person is under sixty-five (65) years of age, such form shall have attached thereto a certification by the Social Security Administration, the Department of Veteran Affairs or the Railroad Retirement Board, or if such person is not eligible for certification by any of these agendes, a sworn affidavit bv two (2) medical doctors licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth or are miliary officers on active duty who practice medicine with the United States Armed Forces, to the effect that such person is permanently and totally disabled, as defined in section 8-23. The affidavit of one of the doctors may be based upon a physical examination of the person by such doctor. The affidavit of one of the doctors may be based upon medical information contained in the records of the Civil Service Con~tmission which is relevant to the standards for determining permanent and total disability as defined in section 8-23. A certification pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 423 (d) by the Social Security Administration, so long as the person remains eligible for such social security benefits, shall be deemed to satisfy such definition in section 8-23. If, after audit and investigation, the director of £mance determines the claimant to be eligible for the exemption from real estate taxes, he shall certify the claimant's eligibility to the county tax assessor, who shall exonerate the amount of the exemption from the real estate tax liability of those persons entitled to the exemption. (b) Persons claiming the exemption from real estate taxes for tl~e first time may file after April first, but before November first, of the taxable year in the manner set forth in subsection (a) of this section. Further, in hardship cases, persons claiming the exemption from real estate taxes may file after April first, but before November first, of the taxable year in the same manner as set forth in subsection (a) of this section. For purposes of this section, a hardship case shall include only those cases in which the person claiming the exemption was hospitalized or in a nursing home between January first and April first of the taxable year, or similar situation which in the judgment of the director of finance constitutes a hardship case justifying the extension of the filing period set forth in subsection (a) of this section beyond April first of the taxable year. (c) Such exempt/on, if granted, shall be effective only for the current year and shall not be retroactive in effect. (2-15-73; 11-9-77; 8-13-80; 5-13-87; Ord. of 12-19-90; Ord. of 4-7-93) I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on December l 1, 1996. 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AGENDA TITLE: Tax Relief for The Elderly Filing Date EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to set public hearing to amend filing dates for the Tax Relief for the Elderly Ordinance. STAFF CONTACT{S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, E~reeden AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER: November13 1996 ~&,/{/~, ~ ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: DISCUSSION: Currently, applicants for the County's Tax Relief for the Elderly and Handicapped Program are required to file an annual application between February 1 and May 1 to be eligible. The May 1 deadline is presenting problems with administration as a result of the split billing of real estate tax. The first half tax bills need to be mailed no later than May 5 to give taxpayers adequate notice to pay by June 5. As you can see, this only allows 5 days to review, determine eligibility, and process their applications. This resulted in numerous adjustments to tax bills in 1996 which not only confused the taxpayer but created substantial work for the Finance staff. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending that the filing dates be changed to January 1 through April 1 We do not believe this will impose any substantial hardship on the applicants. It will provide adequate time for processing and enable us to send a correct bill the first time. We are requesting that a public hearing be advertised for December 11. 1996 to adopt the attached amendment to the Albemarle County Code. TAXREL.WPD 96.212 DRAFT: November 7, 1996 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8. FINANCE AND TAXATION, ARTICLE VII, REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN ELDERLYAND HANDICAPPED PERSONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle. Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article VII, Real Estate Tax Exemptions for Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 8-26, Same--Eligibility; restrictions, and section 8-28, Procedure for filing daims, as follows: This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 1997. Sec. 8-26. Same--Eligibility; restrictions. Exemption from real estate taxes permitted hereunder shall be granted subject to the following restrictions and conditions: (6) The person or persons claiming the exemption shall file the affidavit required by this article no earlier than Fcbraa~3- January first nor later than May April first of each taxable year. Sec, 8-28, Procedure for filing claims. (a) Annually and between ~ January first and ~,,~zcy April first of each taxable year for which the exemption is claimed, the person claiming the exemption shall £de with the director of £mance, in such manner as he shall prescribe, and on the forms to be supplied by the county, an affidavit setting forth the names of the related persons occupying the real estate for which the exemption is claimed, their total combined income and their net combined finandal worth. If such person is under sixty-five (65) years of age, such form shall have attached thereto a certification by the Social Security Administration, the Department of Veteran Affairs or the Railroad Retirement Board, or if such person is nor eligible for certification by any of these agencies, a sworn affidavit by two (2) medical doctors licensed to practice medidne in the Commonwealth or are miliary officers on active duty who practice medicine with the United States Armed Forces, to the effect that such person is permanendy and totally disabled, as defined in section 8-23. The affidavit of one of the doctors may be based upon a physical examination of the person by such doctor. The affidavit of one of the doctors may be based upon medical information contained in the records of the Civil Service Commission which is relevant to the standards for determining permanent and total disability as defined in section 8-23. A certification pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 423 (d) by the Social Security Administration, so long as the person remains eligible for such social security benefits, shall be deemed to satisfy such definition in section 8-23. If, after audit and investigation, the director of finance determines the claimant ro be eligible for the exemption from real estate taxes, he shall certify the claimant's eligibility to the county tax assessor, who shall exonerate the amount of the exemption from the real estate tax liability of those persons entitled to the exemption. (b) Persons daiming the exemption from real estate taxes for the first time may file after May April first, but before November first, of the taxable year in the manner set forth in subsection (a) of this section. Further. in hardship cases, persons claiming the exemption from real estate taxes may file after },{aTy' April first, but before November first, of the taxable year in the sane manner as set forth in subsection (a) of this section. For purposes ofthis section, a hardship case shall include only those cases in which the person claiming the exemption was hospitalized or in a nursing home between F--ebvam~ lanuarv first and May April first of the taxable year, or similar situation which in the judgment of the director of finance constitutes a hardship case justifying the extension of the filing period set forth in subsection (a) of this section beyond May April first of the taxable year. (c) Such exemption, if granted, shall be effective only for the current year and shall not be retroactive in effect. (2-15-73; 11-9-77; 8-13-80; 5-13-87; Ord. of 12-19-90; Ord. of 4-7-93) 8.26,Sc28.WPD 2 ORDINANCE NO. 96-8(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXATION, ARTICLE XIV, PERSONAL PROPERTY--IN GENERAL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article XIV, Personal Property--In General, is hereby amended and reordained by repealing section 8-70, as follows: This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 1997. Sec. 8-70. Repealed by ordinance adopted December 11, 1996, I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree. correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on December 11, 1996. COUNTY OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing to Repeal Section 8-70, Finance and Taxation - Personal Property - In General; Volunteer rescue squad and firs company workers and Section 12-23 Motor Vehicle and Traffic - County Vehicle Licenses; Volunteer firemen and rescue squadsmen SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Conduct a public hearing to consider repeal of the above County Code Sections with these benefits being prsVKled through a voucher system to be handled administratively STAFF CONTACT(Si: Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden AGENDA DATE: December 11, 1996 ITEM NUMBER: ~/~./~1~, ~5~'~ ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: The County currently exempts the first $4500 of value for one vehicle for personal property purposes for all volunteer firs and rescue workers. Due to revisions to State Code Section 58.1-3506. staff began to review the County Code provisions and the effort required to process this exemption in light of our prorated personal property process. Concurrently, the policy of issuing a free decal to the same volunteers was reviewed and staff is recommending that the process be revised and greatly simplitied. DISCUSSION: Staff eslimates that the current process for providing the personal properb~ exemption and free decal to volunteer fire and rescue workers consumes approximately 1,000 man hours per year to administer the program. Staff is recommending that a voucher system be established that will be issued to the volunteer firs company and rsscue sq aads to be distributed to their members ss they see fit. During the budget process, the Board approved raising the exemption on a single personal property vehicle from $4500 to $5700 for 1996-97. Staff is rscommending that the same qualification procedures be used for the vouchers as is currently used for the decal and personal property exemption except that thrse separate vouchers will be issued by January 1st to the organization for each eligible member. These vouchers are to be issued per member as follows: Descrintion 1. Decal Fee 2. Personal Properbj Tax 3. Personal Property Tax Maximum Value $25.00 $125.00 $125.00 All vouchers will be valid for the calendar year of issuance only and may be used by the volunteer for either the first, second or third cycle billing. By issuing vouchers rather than exempting actual vehicles, staff will no longer be required to track volunteers' vehicles separately from all other personal property in the County and will grsatly simplify the proration process for these vehicles. Staff estimates that the voucher system can be bendled in 8 to 16 hours per year rather than the 1,000 ho[ms previously required. The voucher amounts have been rounded to $125 (times two) which would effectively grant an exemption of approximately $5850 per volunteer for vehicles and up to $25 for their decal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that County Code Section 8-70 and 12-23, which provided for the personal property exemption and free decal, be repealed following a public hearing and that these benefits be replaced by a voucher system as described and per the attachment outlining the guidelines for the program. 96.228 PERSONAL PROPERTY/VEHICLE DECAL VOUCHER ELIGIBILITY AND PROCEDURES FOR VOLUNTEER FIRE AND RESCUE MEMBERS El~ibility: ME1VfBERS.~re defined as those persons who regularly respond to emergency calls or regularly perform other duties for the rescue squad or fire depamneut. Members must have completed minimum training requirements and must have contributed a minimum of 100 hours of volunteer activities for the organization during the preceding 12 months, Eligible hours are for attending meetings, training sessions, or actual responses to calls. Life Members, Board Members, Auxiliary workers DO NOT qualify unless they also meet the above definition of a member. Procedures: Each volunteer fire/rescue organization must provide a list of all eligible members by December 1 of each year. Tiffs list must contain the members full name, address, and social security number, Based on this listing, the Director of Finance will issue vouchers by January 1 to the organization for each eligible member. Three vouchers will be issued per member as follows: Description Maximum Value I. Decal Fee 2. Personal Property Tax 3. Personal Property Tax 25.00 125.00 125.00 All vouchers will be valid for the calendar year of issuance only (January 1 to December 31). Vouchers are valid only for a decal or personal property tax where the member is owner or partial owner of the vehicle(s) or other personal property or the property is leased by the member who is obligated under the terms of the lease to pay the personal property mx. The personal property voucher(s) may be used for either first, second, or third cycle billings; both vouchers may be used at the same time if desired. A voucher, when used, must be used in full. No credit will be given for any unused portion ora voucher. Examnles: 1. A member's personal property bill is $100 for each half (cycle) of the year. One voucher may be used for each cycle, but no credit will be given for the unused value of $25 on COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance Change - Section 8-70 Finance and Taxation - Personal Property - In General; Volunteer rescue squad and fire company workers and Section 12-23 Motor Vehicle and Traffic - County Vehicle Licenses; Volunteer firemen and rescue squads men SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request repeal of the above County Code Sections with these benefits being provide through a voucher system to be handled administratively. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden AGENDA DATE: November 13, 1996 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ITEM N"~ BER:. \ INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes J DISCUSSION: Revisions to State Code Section 58.1~3506, which allows a tax reduction for volunteer fire/rescue workers, required staff to review the County Code provisions and processing procedures. The current process of providing the tax reduction and issuance of a free decal is very time consuming and complicated. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends that County Code Sections 8-70 and 12-23, which provide for the benefits, be repealed. These benefits would be replaced by a voucher system which would provide equal or greater benefits to the volunteers and reduce the staff time required for processing. This request is to advertise a public hearing for December 11, 1996 to repeal the above code sections. It is necessary to repeal these sections prior to Jaouary 1, 1997 in order to implement changes for the June 5 collection. Written guidelines for the voucher procedure are being drafted and will be available prior to the public hearing. FIRE.WPD 96.214 DRAFT: November 7, 1996 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXATION, ARTICLE XIV, PERSONAL PROPERTY--IN GENERAL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article XIV. Personal Property--In General, is hereby amended and reordained by repealing section 8-70, as follows: This ordinance shall be effective on and after Januaz3r 1, 1997. Sec. 8-70. '~r~ ..................... V"'-'I:'"""Y o,..ffo..o. .... ..... '~ ..... al,. ..... (c) The ............ clc rcscue squad o~' firc company mcrnbcr ~ .Cot.~nd ..... s. 8-70.WPD 2 ORDINANCE NO. 96-12(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND KEORDAIN CHAPTER 12, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, ARTICLE V, COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article V, County Vehicle Licenses is hereby mended and reordained as follows: This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 1997. Sec. 12-23, Repealed by ordinance adopted December 1 I, 1996. Sec. 12-24. Application for license; payment of fee; issuance of decal, etc. (a) Every person owning a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer, regularly housed or stored in the county and used or intended to be regularly operated upon the streets or highways in the county will be issued a vehicle license by mail provided that: 1. The vehicle is currently licensed by the county; and 2. All local taxes specified in section 12-29 have been paid. The vehide license shall be mailed to the vehicle owner in January. License fees prescribed by section 12-25 for such vehicle license shall be induded and separately stated on the personal property tax bill and shall be paid by June 5 of each year. (b) Every person owning a motor vehide, trailer or semitrailer, regularly housed or stored in the county and used or intended to be regularly operated upon the streets or highways in the county, and not issued a vehicle license for such vehide pursuant to subsection (a) above, shall mal, e application for and procure a county motor vehicle license for that vehicle. The application for the license required by this artide shall be made to the director of finance on forms providing for the name and address of the applicant and a description of the motor vehicle for which the license is to be issued. The license fee shall be paid to the director of finance. Upon the payment of the license fee, the director of finance shall issue to the applicant a license decal or other indicia of license for such motor vehicle. (c) The purchaser of a new vehide or a new resident of the county is required to obtain a county license within thirty (30) days of the purchase date or the date moved into the county. New residents with a valid local license issued by a Virginia locality will be given a prorated credit based on the expiration date of their current license. (Code 1967, § 12-92; Ord. of 2-14-90) Sec. 12-27. Same-Refunds. Any person holding a current registration certificate and license under this article who disposes of the vehicle, trailer or semitrailer for which it was issued and does not purchase another vehide, trailer or semitrailer may surrender the registration certificate and license decal or other indicia of license to the director of finance and request a refund for the unused portion of the fee paid. The request for refund shall be accompanied by the original license decal or other evidence satisfactory to the director of finance that the original license has been destroyed. The director of finance shall refund to the applicant one-half (1/2) of the total cost of the license if the application for refund was made prior to the first day of July of the current license year or one-third (1/3) of the total cost if the application for refund was made subsequent to June thirtieth and prior to October first of the current license year. No refund shall be paid when application is made after the thirtieth day of September of the current license year. The reftmd shall be rounded to the nearest dollar, an amount of less than two dollars ($2.00) shall not be refunded nor applied to any other fee, tax or amount due the County of Albemarle. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on December 11, 1996. erk, Board of County ~uperm~rs 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance Amendment -Albemarle County Code Sections t2-24 and 12-27 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request that Sections 12-24 and 12-27 of the Albemarle County Code be amended to provide for a change in the method of issuing County vehicle licenses. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden AGENDA DATE: November 13, 1996 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY.: BACKGROUND: ITEM/NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Currently the County of Albemarle requires the purchase of a vehicle decal for all vehicles garaged in the County and normally operated on the highways of the County. The vehicle license requirement serves both as a source of revenue and encourages the payment of the personal property tax in a timely manner. Applications for this license are normally mailed in late December with renewal of the license required by January 31. Applications are mailed only to vehicle owners whose personal property taxes have been paid in full. Approximately 50% of these licenses are renewed by mail, 20% at the various outside agencies and the remaining 30% at the County Finance Department. DISCUSSION: For several years the Finance Department has been reviewing ways of reducing the workload required by this process while at the same time making the process more convenient for the taxpayer. In order to accomplish this, we are proposing that the vehicle license be automatically mailed in early January to all vehicle owners with a current license who have no unpaid personal property taxes. The license fee would be included with the first half personal property bill due and payable by June 5th. Each license will have to be mailed individually but there will not be any significant postage cost increase since we will not have the duplicate cost of mailing an application and returning the decal by mail to the 50% who renew by mail. Current projections indicate that this process will increase issuance cost by $5 - $10 thousand dollars; this increase should be more than offset by savings in staff time and part-time help. Any additional cost will be absorbed within the existing budget. This process will eliminate, for approximately 90% of County vehicle owners~ the necessity of taking any action to renew the license in January. Payment of the license fee and personal property tax can be accomplished with one transaction by June 5th. This process will hopefully result in some reduction of the long lines experienced during the last few days of January for renewals. However, since the majodty of the people in those lines have not paid their personal property tax, the lines will not be totally eliminated. It will, however, make more staff available to assist these taxpayers since staff will not be processing the mail renewals at the same time The revised process will eliminate the use of the outside agencies for renewals. We are currently negotiating w th them concerning their future role in this process. We are hopeful they will continue to issue decals on new-v~hicles. perform transfers, etc. as a convenience to the general public, especially at night and on weekends.. -- AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance Amendment - Albemarle County Code Sections 12-24 and 12.27 November 13, 1996 Page 2 Renewals for delinquent taxpayers will continue to be processed as in the past and they will be required to pay the license fee at the time of issuance. Since we no longer issue decals prior to the start of the license year, Section 12-27(b) is being removed from the Code. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this process and that the attached revisions to the Albemarle County Code be adver[ised for public hearing on December 11 1996. DECAL. WPD 96.213 DRAFT: November 7, 1996 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAI~ER 12, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, ARTICLE V, COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle. Virginia, that Chapter 12, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Article V, County Vehicle Licenses is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Repealing: Section 12-23 Same--Volunteer firemen and rescue squadsmen. Section 12-27(b) Same-Refunds By Amending: Section 12-24 Application for license; payment of fee; issuance of decal, etc. section 12-27 Same--Refunds. This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 1997. Sec 12 23 c .... ~r_~ ........ c: ........~ ............ .~ .... f'' ~==°''~-~ -c°~'~=~°'Rp dbv dp d t~.- .... . ~,~*. ~. ~-.~-/,~, ~ ,,-~ e eale ordinance a ote ,1996. Sec. I2-24. Application for license; payment of fee; issuance of decal, etc. (a) Every person owning a motor vehicle, trailer, or semitrailer, regularly housed or stored in the county and used or intended to be re95zlarlv operated upon the streets or highways in the counW will be issued a vehicle license by mail provided that: i. The vehicle is currently licensed bv the cotmtv: and 2. All local taxes soecified in section 12-29 have been vaid. The vehicle license shall be mailed to the vehicle owner in lanuarv. License fees prescribed by section 12-25 for such vehicle license shall be included and seoaratelv stated on the oersonal Drot)ertv tax bill .and shall be ~)aid by lune 5 of each year. (b}_ Every person owning a motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer, regularly housed or stored in the county and used or intended to be regularly operated upon the streets or highways in the county, and not issued a yehide license for such vehicle pursuant to subsection (a) above, shall make application for and procure a county motor vehicle license for that vehicle. The application for the license required by this article shall be made to the director of finance on forms providing for the name and address of the applicant and a description of the motor vehicle for which the license is to be issued. The license fee shall be paid to the director of finance. Upon the payment of the license fee, the director of f'mance shall issue to the applicant a license decal or other indicia of license for such motor vehicle. (b) (c~ The purchaser of a new vehicle or a new resident of the county is required to obtain a county license within thirty (30) days of the purchase date or the date moved into the county. New residents with a valid local license issued by a Virginia locality will be given a prorated credit based on the expiration date of their current license. (Code 1967, § 12-92; Ord. of 2-14-90) Sec. 12-27. Same-Refunds. 0a-} Any person holding a current registration certificate and license under this article who disposes of the vehide, trailer or semitrailer for which it was issued and does not purchase another vehicle, trailer or semitrailer may surrender the registration certificate and license decal or other indicia of license to the director of finance and request a refund for the unused portion of the fee paid. The request for refund shall be accompanied by the original license decal or other evidence satisfactory to the director of finance that the original license has been destroyed. The director of finance shall refund to the applicant one-half (¥5) of the total cost of the license if the application for refund was made prior to the first day of July of the current license year or one-third (1/3) of the total cost if the application for refund 2 was made subsequent to June thirtieth and prior to October first of the ctcrrent license year. No refund shall be paid when application is made after the thirtieth day of September of the current license year. The refund shall be rounded to the nearest dollar, an amount of less than two dollars ($2.00) shall not be refunded nor applied to any other fee, tax or amount due the County of Albemarle, I2~3~4.27 3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXEC'UTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Mt. Amos Baptist Church Extension Request (SP 96-51 and SP 94-28) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:. Request to extend the approval period of a previousIy approved special use permit an additional two years. STAFF CONTACT(S/: Mr. Fritz AGENDA DATE: Planning Commission - December 10, 1996 Board of Supervisors - December 11, 1996 ACTION: Yes INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: No ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: A special use permit to allow the construction of an addition to the Mt. Amos church was approved on December 14, 1994. The action letter and staff report for that action are attached. The 1994 approval will expire on December 14, 1996 unless an extension is granted in accord with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.4 . _ of the Zoning Ordinance. DISCUSSION: The applicant has provided a written justification for the extension of the special use permit approval which is attached. The justification indicates that the applicant has been working towards making use of the special usepermit. The need for additional approval time is not uncommon for churches which must go through a fund raising procedure. Staffreviews extension request to determine if any changes in the character of the area, Zoning Ordinance or Comprehensive Plan have occurred which would affect this type of application. Staff is unable to identify any changes which affect the prior approval and that all comments made in 1994 are still appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: Based on this review staff opinion is that a two year extension is appropriate. Staff recommends approval of the request subject to the follov~_ing conditions: 1. Church expansion limited to not more than 1,200 square feet; 2. Usage of the church to be limited to worship and related service only. Use of the church for non- congregational activities shall warrant amendment of this special use permit; 3. The.eastern.. :~-'0entrance shall be used only as an entrance onto the property from Route 601, and a sign' prohihitmg ~ from the property onto Route 601 shall be posted and maintained at the eastern entrance; 4. This 'special use permit shall expire on December'l 4, 1998 in accordance with Section 31.2.4.4 of the Alben~arle County Zoning Ordin}mce as it exists on December 3:1996(a copy ~ ,~ - Mtamos.rpt 31.2.4.3 31.2.4.4 31.2.4.5 the board of supervisors-shall have referred the application therefor to the commission for its recommendations. Failure of the commission to ryport w~hin ninety (90) days after the first meeting of the eommmssion after the application has been referred to the commission shall be deemed a recommendation of approval. No such permit shall be issued except after notice andhearing as provided by section 15.1-431 of the Code. Also, a notification sign shall be posted by the appli- cant upon the subject property and adjacent to the nearest state highway at, the point of access to the subject property for a period of twenty-one (21) days prior to the first public hearing of the commis- sion, (Amended 5-5-82) CONDITIONS The board of supervisors may zmpose upon any such permit such condi- tions relating to the use for which such permit is granted as it may deem necessary in the public interest and may require a bond with surety or other approved security to ensure that the conditions so imposed shall be complied with. Such conditions shall relate to the purposes of this ordinance, including, but not limited to, the preven- tion of smoke, dust, nomse, traffic congestion, flood and/or other hazardous, deleterious or otherwise undesirable substance or condi- tion; the provision of adequate police and fire protection, transpor- tation, water, sewerage~ drainage, recreation, landscaping 'and/or screening or buffering; the establishment of special requirements relating to the building setbacks, front, side and rear yards, off- street parking, ingress and egress, hours of operation, outside storage of materials, duration and intensity of use, building height and/or other particular aspects of occupancy or use. Except as the board of supervisors may otherwise specifically provide in a partic- ular case, any condition imposed under'the authority of this section shall be deemed to be essential ~o and nonserverable [rom the issuance of the permit itself. RE'VOCATION Any permit issued pursuant .to this ordinance may be revoked by the board of supervisors, after notice and hearing pursuant to section 15.1-431 of the Code, for wilful noncompliance with this ordinance or any condit%ons ~mposed under the authority of this section. In the event that~he use, structure or' activity for which any such permit is issued shall not be commenced within eighteen (18) months after the issuance of such permit, the same shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate. For purposes of this section, the term "commenced" shall be construed to include the commencement of construction of anystructure necessary to the use of such permit within two (2) years from the date of the issuance thereof which is thereafter completed within one (1) year; provided that the board of supervisors may, as a condition of approval, impose such alternative time limits as may be reasonable in a particular case. (Repealed 9-21-88) -202- (Supp..#68, 9-9-92) TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 401 MCINTIRE RD. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. 22902 NOVEMBER 20,1996 RE:SPECIAL USE PERMIT WE,THE PASTOR,OFFICERS,AND MEMBERS OF THE MOUNT AMOS BAPTIST CHURCH REQUEST A TWO YEAR EXTENSION TO OUR PRESENT SPECIAL USE PERMIT THAT WILL EXPIRE AS OF DECEMBER 14,1996. WITHIN THE PAST TWO YEARS OUR ACTIONS HAVE CONSISTED OF HAVING THE PROPERTY SURVEYED,SATISFYING CONDITIONS AS SPECIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION,ARCHITECTURAL PLANS DRAWN,OBTAINING BIDS FROM VARIOUS CONTRACToRs, AND HAVING NUMEROUS FUND RAISING CAMPAIGNS AND PLEDGES. CURRENTLY THE BANK IS ASSISTING THE CHURCH WITH PAPERWORK THAT WE MAY OBTAIN A LOAN FOR THE BUILDING. THE REASON WE ARE REQUESTING AN EXTENSION IS TO ATJ&)W MORE TIME FOR LEGAL CRITERIA THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DONE AFTER THE LOAN PROCEEDS FROM THE BANK(LAWYERS TITLE SEARCH,INCLEMENT WEATHER,SECURING OF BUILDING PERMIT). WE CERTAINLY HOPE THAT OUR REQUEST WIL BE HONORED BY YOU THAT WE MAY CONTINUE WITH THE PLANS FOR OUR FELLOWSHIP HALL. RESPECTIVELY SUBMITTED, THE MOUNT AMOS BAPTIST CHURCH B.J. POINDEXTER,TRUSTEE/SECRETARY RE'END MARY R. CAREY, P,ASTOR COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Developmenl 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 December 22, ! 994 Mount Amos Baptist Church c/o Rev. Mary Carey P. O. Box 112 Esmont, VA 22937 RE: SP-94-28 Mt. Amos Baptist Church Dear Rev. Carey: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on December 14, 1994, approved the above-noted request to add a fellowship hall of approximately 1050 square feet to the existing building. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: Church expansion limited to not more than 1,200 square feet; Usage of the church to be limited to worship and related services only. Use of the chumh for non-congregational activities shall warrant amendment of this special use permit; The eastern entrance shall be used only as an entrance onto the property from Route 601, and a sign prohibiting exists from the property onto Route 601 shall be posted and maintained, at the eastern entrance. I£you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, V. Wayne Ci['lmberg / Director of Planning & C~mmuni~Developmen! cc: Ella Carey Jo Higgins Amelia McCulley STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: RON LILLEY OCTOBER 11, 1994 NOVEMBER 9, 1994 SP-94-28 MOUNT AMOS BAPTIST CHURCH Petition: To allow an addition of approximately 1050 square feet to an existing church [ 10.2.2.35] on 1.1 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas in the White Hall Magisterial District. Property, described as Tax Map 29, Parcel 46, is located on the north side of Route 601, about I/2 mile south of Free Union. This property is not in a designated:growth area [Rural Area 1]. Character of the Area: The existing church building is situated parallel to Route 601' (see attached drawing). The church is served by a U-shaped drive with two entrances to Ronte 601. Three dwellings and one church are located within view of the church, with open fields also in the immediate surroundings. Applicant's Proposal: The existing building, which is approximately 1100 square feet, is adequate to accommodate worship services (about 25 persons in the congregation with an average attendance of 15-20 persons), which are held on the 2nd and 4th Sundays of each month, and Wednesday evening Bible study (once a month, typically 6 persons). The annual homecoming/revival in Jul.~ can be attended by as many as 100 people and the food/social part of that function is held outdoors. The purpose of the proposed fellowship hall is primarily to accommodate the homecoming event, but also other occasional special programs, by providing an indoor area for food/socials. The fellowship hall would not be rented out for receptions or for child care or bingo or other such uses. STAFF COMMENT: The church has existed for over 100 years and there is no proposed intensification of use. Regarding the criteria for issuance of a special use permit, staff opinion is that: · The use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property; the character of the district will not be changed; the use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and with the uses in the area; · the use will be consistent with public health and welfare. Therefore, staff recommends favorably on this petition. An issue regarding the entrances needs to be addressed by the Planning Commission and Board, possibly by a~ding a condition requiring upgrading of one entrance and closing of the other. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) recommends that the. eastern entrance be closed since it does not have adequate sight distance and that the western entrance be upgraded to commercial standards (30' width, 25' radius). In 1976, the Board of Supervisors requested that VDOT limit its review of proposals to the best technical transportation solution and not consider the particular circumstances of any applicant, that being a matter for deliberation by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in the public hearing process. That discretion having been reserved to the Commission and Board, staff offers the following comments for consideration: 1. A purpose of zoning is "to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets." The Count.~ Attorney has stated that requirement of upgrading the entrances is permissible under the authority to impose conditions upon a special use permit. Staff opinion is that special use permit conditions should address peculiar aspects of a use in such a manner as to allow the positive findings required by Section 31.2.4.1 and that such conditions should be applied equitably. The only reason this issue is before the Planning Commission and Board is because a special use permit is required to allow the building expansion. If this use were allowed "by-right", no site plan approval would be required by operation of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff opinion is that there are no peculiar aspects to traffic generated by the church. The differences in character between traffic generated by this church and uses allowed "by-right" are not so significant as to warrant upgrading the entrances, 3. VDOT requires a commercial entrance to serve three dwelling units (i.e. - 30 vehicle trips per day). Staff has used this as benchmark in evaluating applications. This church (excluding annual homecoming) would generate about 15 vehicle trips per week, which is less than a single home normally generates. The prior comments are based on representation of church activities together with size and attendance of the congregation. Certainly, any church may be subject to change in intensity of use. Historically, conditions of approval have relied on good faith compliance by the applicant. In this p~i'ticular case, considerations of the size of the church building, size of congregation, remoteness from growth areas and low population density mitigate against the possibility of significant increase of usage. The proposed addition would require shifting the driveway and normal parking area somewhat (see drawing), but this would not affect the entrance areas and sufficient area for parking would still be available. Therefore, staff does not believe that it is necessary to upgrade the entrance. However, the issue of inadequate sight distance at the eastern entrance is significant enough to warrant support of VDOT's recommendation of closing that entrance, or at least changing it, if possible, to provide adequate sight distance. This may be possible by obtaining a sight easement across the adjoining property to the east and/or by a modest relocation of the entrance. RECOMMENDED,'~ONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Church expansion limited to not more than 1200 square feet. Usage of the church to be limited to worship and related services only. Use of the church for non-congregational activities such as day care, youth groups, food services, and the like shall warrant amendment of this special use permit. Close the eastern entrance or change it to ensure that adequate sight distanceis provided. ATTACHMENTS: A - Tax Map B - Location Map C - Site Drawing D - Virginia Department of Transportation Comment 4AI ~,LBEMARLE COUNTY 40 36 $C 8H SP-94-20 Mt. Amos Baptist T8 WHITE HALL AND dACK JOUETT DISTRICTS 6O ;'6 ~ SECTION 29 . MTN SP-94-20 Mt. Amos Baptist A~fAC~5~NT B FROH UDOT / CULPEPERoU~. DAVID R. GEHR COMMISSIONER COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P, o. Box 671 CULPEPER. 22701 DONALD R, ASKEW September 22, 1994 Hr, Ronald S. Keeler, chief of Planning Dept. of Planning &Community Growth 401 M¢Intire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 REs Submittals for October Public Hearings Dear Hr. Keeler: VDOT has reviewed the following submittals and offers the following~ ~HA-94-1~ River Heights Associates- A traffic generation study is needed to thoroughly assess the impact of this petition. Roughly, 2590 trips per day could be added to Route 29 based on I.T.E. Land Use 110, Left and right turn lanes with tapers will be necessary. EF, A-94-13 Wendell W. Wood- A commercial entrance is required and if possible, should line up with Forest Lakes' entrance. Left and right turn lanes with tapers will be necessary. ~MA-94-14 Highlands Wast Land TrUst- Dan Roosevelt requested that Transportation Planning (VDOT) send the County the Route 240 Transportation Plan developed a couple of years ago. (See Attached memo dated 9-1-94}. This request should be coordinated with the Route 240 Plan. ~MA-94-15 Philip A. Sansone- The existing transportation network should adequately accommodate this development. SP 94-S0 Mt. Amos Baptist Ohurah- At present, this church is served by two entrances. Since the eastern entrance does not have adequate sight distance, we recommend closing it. The remaining entrance should meet commercial standards (30' width 25' radius). COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 December 5, 1996 William A. Marshall, Jr 1791 Airport Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 ZMA 96-18 William A. Marshall Jr Tax Map 32, Parcels 20D and 20E Dear Mr. Marshall: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 3, 1996, unanimously recommended approval ofthe above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to acceptance of applicant's proffers (attached). Comments regarding suggested revisions to the proffers have been forwarded m your representative, Mr. Breeden. The Planning Commission also approved the following: -Modification of Section 4.12.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow off-site parking -Documentation to be placed in the file regarding required screening buffer between property and adjacent residential properties and along Rt. 649 at time of site plan approval. -The final site plan is to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on December 11. 1996. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. ely, audia L. Paine Senior Plier Date: PROFFER FORM 19962 ,~:ZMA # 96-18 Tax Map Parcel(s) Original Proffer x Amended Proffer (Amendment # ) 03200-00v00-020D0 03200-00-00-020E0 1.63 Acres to be rezoned from m. to HC Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner; or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning recluested. (1) (2) (3) permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the following sections of the )albemarle Cormty Zoning Ordinance in effect on December 11, 1996, a copy of the sections being attached hereto: 24.2.1 (2) Automobile, Track Repair Shops (35) Electric, gas... (36) Public uses... (37) Temporary Construction uses Access to the property fo~ commercial use will be through the entrances on adjacent Tax Map Parcel 32-40, as shown on the attached drawing. Owner reserves the right to request amendment(s) to the above proffers in the future whicli may be necessary or appropriate resulting from the planned improvements to Airport Road. Si~j.a,atures of Ail Ownem f Printed Names of All Owners Date OR Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) PROFFORM.WPD Rev. December 1994 PrintedJ'lame of Attorney-in-FacL~, BEC n o 1996 Piannln9 24.0 24.1 24.2 24.2.1 HIGHWAY C~CIAL - HC INTE~T, WHERE PERMITTED HC districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map to permit development of commercial establishments, other than shopping centers, primarily oriented to highway locations rather than to central business concentrations. It is intended that HC districts be established on major highways within the urban area and communities in the comprehensive plan. It is further intended that this district shall be for the purpose of limiting sprawling strip commercial development by providing sites with adequame frontage and depth to permit controlled access to public streets. PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT The following uses shall, be permitted in any HC district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit, as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character; and' more specifically, similar in ~erms-of locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.0. 1. Automobile laundries. ~ Automobile, Truck repair shops. 3. Automobile service stations (reference 5.1.20). 4. Building ma~erlals sales. 5. Churches. cemeteries. 6. Clubs, lo~es, c:vlc, fraternal, patriotic ~reference 5.1.2). 7. Convenience stores. 8. Educational, tecnnical and trade schools. 9. Factory outlet sales - clothing and fabric. 10. Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22). -150- 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30~ 31. 32. 33. · 34. Financial ~Fire extinguisher and service. Fire and rescue squad Funeral homes. Furniture stores. institutions. security products, sales and stations (reference 5.1.9). service and rental. sales. and professional offices. Office and business machines sales and service, Eating establls.nJnent: fast food restaurants. Retail nurseries and greenhouses. Sale of ma]or recreational equipment and vehicles. Wayside stands vegetables and agricultural produce (reference 5.1.19). Wholesale distribution. -151- (Supp. ~3, 6-3-81) Motor vehicle sales, New automotive parts Newspaper publishing. Administrative, business Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, Candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops. Home and business services such as Grounds care, cleaning, exterminators, landscaping and other repair and maintenance services. Hardware. (Repealed 6-3-81) Hotels, motels and inns. Light warehousing. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental. Mobile home and trailer sales and service. Modular building sales. 24.2.2 Electric, gas, oil and com~unication tower structures and including poles, facilities excluding lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Excep= as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 10 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93) Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5}; public water and sewer transmis- sion, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operatgd by the Rivanna Wa=er and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12]. (Amended 11-1-89) Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). Indoor theaters. · 39. Heating oil sales and distribution (reference 5.1.hO). 40. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8 ). (Added 3-5-86) 41. Uses permitted by right pursuant to subsection section 22.1, commercial, C-1. (Added 6-19-91; Amended 9-9-92) 22.2.1 of 42. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93) 43. Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36)0 (Added 10-11-95) BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT Commercial recreation establishment including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance hakls. (Amended 1-1-83} 2. Septic tank sales and related service. 3. Livestock sales. 4. Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11}. 5. Drive-in theaters (reference 5.1.8}. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay =owers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12}. -152- (Supp. ~80, 10-11-95) Date: Dec. 11, 1996 ZMA# Jdginal Prol~er Amertded Proffer (Amendment f~ PROFFER FORM 03200-00~00-020D0 96-18 Tax Map parcel(s) f,~ 03200-00-00-020E0 1.63 Acres to be rezoned from Ri to..HC Pursuant to Section 33.3 o[ tile Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, her.e, by voluntarily proffers tb.e. conditions listed below which shall be applied [o the proper(y ~f rezoned. These conditions are pro[fere,~ as a pad of the: requesled rez0ning and il is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives ri~e lo the need for' the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relatiofi to the rezoning requesled; (1) Permitted uses of ~r~e property, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the following sections of the Albemarle'/iCounty Zoning Ordinance in efefct on December 11, 1996, a copy of the sections being attached hereto: 24.2.1 (2) Automobile, Truck Repair Shops (35) Electric, gas ... (36) Public uses... (37)~ Temporary Construction uses (2)Owners agree that current access to the property through existing entrances on adjacent parcel 40. · (3]Owner rese, rves the right to request amendment(s) to the above proffers.in .future which may be necessary or appropriate resulting from the planhed; improvements to Airport Road. Slg.atUres of All Owners OR P~lnled Names of All Owners William A. Har~hall Rachel K. Marshall Dale 31/25196 11/25/96 Signature o[ Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Altorney) PROFFORM.WPD Rev. December 1994 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: CLAUDIA L. PAINE DECEMBER 3, 1996 DECEMBER 11, 1996 ZMA 96-18 WILLIAM A. MARSHALL. JR. Applicant's Pronosal: The applicant proposes to rezone approximately 1.63 acres to HC, Highway Commercial, to allow for off-site parking to serve the adjacent Airport Road Auto Center (TMP 32/40) also owned by the applicant. At some point in the future, the applicant also may erect a building on these parcels to serve his current business. A detailed description, justification and proffers for this use are included as Attachment A. The proffers limit the uses allowed by-right on these parcels and also limit access to these parcels through the adjacent Parcel 40. Petition: Petition to rezone approximately 1.63 acres from R-l, Residential, to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 20D and 20E, is located on the north side of Rt. 649 (Au'pon Road) approximately .2 miles west of Rt. 29 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead. (see Attachments B & C) Character of the Area: One single-family dwelling currently exists on Parcel 20D. Parcel 20E is vacant except for a shed. Both properties have a moderate upward slope from front to rear. Airport Road Auto Center is located on the adjacent property to the east. which is zoned Highway Commercial. Other commercial uses ex/st to the east and on the south side of Airport Road towards the intersection with Rt. 29. Single-family dwellings exist directly to the south, and towards the west. Also, Airport Acres is to the north. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan aud the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval, with acceptance of proffers. The proffers were received just in time for inclusion in this report, and are subject to County Attorney and Zoning Administrator review and acceptance. The proffers do address the County's concerns regarding uses on and access to the subject parcels. Any changes in language can be addressed at the meeting of the Commission. Planning and Zoning History: These parcels were zoned R-I, Residential with the 1980 adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead. Page 53 of the Land Use Plan states: "Transportation Improvements Include: Alignment improvements and widening of Airport Road from its intersection with Rt. 29 North to the airport. Access to this road should be minimized to the greatest extent possible through the use of joint entrances." (see Attachment D) A plan of development has not been submitted by the applicant. Proffers have been submitted to limit access to the parcels subject to this rezoning through use of a joint en~rhnce throngh the applicant's existh~g business on the adjacent parcel (TMP 32/40). Based on this information, this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. (NOTE: The applicant has expressed an intent to return to this access issue after improvements to Rte. 649 have been completed. This will necessitate further amendment to zoning at that time.) STAFF COMMENT: In addition to the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the primary issues to address for this request are: - uses allowed under HC zoning; - impact on surrounding properties; and - traffic impacts. These will be considered in turn, along with one site plan ite~n. Use~ Allowed under HC Zoning The HC district is generally consistent with the Land Use designation, Regional Service. However, certain HC uses may not be appropriate at this location due to their relationship to this corridor of access to the airport and the adjacent residential areas. The ARB has expressed an interest in designating this an EC, Entrance Corridor. The applicant has submitted proffers which limit the uses on these parcels to a single use in addition to certain other public uses, which should not be proftEred out. While the proffers limit the applicant to a single use, this is a unique situation due to changes that will occur to Airport Road (Rte. 649). Pending completion of these improvements, further consideration of uses appropriate to this location may be proposed by the applicant. This will necessitate further amendment to zoning at that time. Impact on Surronndin~ Pronerties Physical btffi'ers between HC and the existing residential uses m the west and north can be addressed at the site plan review stage. The visibility of uses of this property from the residential uses directly to the south is the only other impact foreseen. The tree canopy provisions of the County Zoning Ordinance will apply to this site, and will require a 10% tree canopy. Traffic Impacts The Virginia Department of Transportation states: "This property can not at present time meet commercial entrance sight distance. All access should be through existing entrance to the east of the site. Route 649 is to be improved in the next few years and any entrance or accesses shotfld be determined by proposed design." (see Attachment E) Route 649 improvement discussions are proceeding. Final design plans hay8 not yet been developed. The applicant is aware that future improvements are proposed for this road and has proffered to limit access to the parcels subject to this rezouing through the existing entrances to the east of this site on Parcel 40 (also owned by the applicant). It is unknown what effect the road improvements may have on the subject parcels. In December of 1981, the Plar~ng Commission approved an amendment to the site plan for Airport Road Auto Center (formerly known as Marshall's Garage) on the adjacent parcel (TMP 32/40), with the condition that: ;'The applicant is put on notice that the 15 parking spaces and the landscaping within the (55') reserved right-of-way shall be relocated in the event that road improvements are made to Route 649." (see Attachment F) While improvements to Rt. 649 have not yet been made, the applicant mentions that currently customer vehicles are being parked off-site since existing parking for customers and employees is not adequate to meet their current business volume [The current off-site parking issue has been addressed and resolved by the Zoning Dept.]. This lack of sufficient parking will worsen once improvements to Rt. 649 commence and the above-mentioned parking spaces are lost. Off-site parking located on parcels adjacent to this use could ad&ess the future loss of parking as well as improve the current situation. Site Plan Items The following item requires Planning Commission action separate from the rezoning action. The Board of Supervisors need not act on this modification. Staffhas identified the need for the following modification which will arise when the applicant submits a site development plan: Section 4.12.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that: "off-street parking spaces shall be provided on the same lot with the use to which it is appurtenant. Where practical difficulties prevent location on site or where the public safety or the public convenience would be better served by the location of parking other than on the same lot, the commission may authorize off-site location of required parking space as will adequately serve the public interest, provided that such space shall be located on land under same ownership as land on which is located the use to be served by the space." The applicant is the owner of TMP 32/40, where he operates an automotive repair shop, and is the owner of the adjoining parcels TMP 32/20E and 20D, which are the subject of this request (Attachment G). The applicant states that the off-site parking will be located within 500 feet of the entrance of the use it serves as required by Section 4.12.3.4.B. Off-site parking located on parcels located adjacent to this use could aid in traffic circulation off-site as well as address a future loss of existing parking spaces to improvements envisioned for Rt. 649. Should this rezonmg request be approved, staff recommends approval of a modification for off-site parking as required by Section 4.t2.3.2. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: The proposed use, as proffered, is generally consistent with the land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use is generally consistent with uses m the east and southeast. 3. HC uses have been limited by proffer. Request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in regard to limiting access to Rte. 649. Staff has not identified any factors which are not favorable to this request. ~ECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of this request, with acceptance of proffers. ATTACHMENTS: A - Applicant's Description, Justification and Proffers B - Location Map C - Tax Map D - Text of Comprehansive Plan for the review area E - VDOT Comments F - PC Action Letter, Dec. 1981 G - Justification for Modification 1 .qGENERAL\S}L4RESCLAUDIA~ZMA 96-18.RPT County of Albemarle Application for REZONING [] PD Under S0 Acres ........ $815.00 [] PD Over 50 Acres ....... $1,255.00 [] Minor Amendment to Existing ZMA (file Tax Map/Parcel: L Location: Project Name: Date Submitted.. Amo.unt Paid Rece,pt Number~ Intake Staff Department of Zoning 401 Mclntire Road :g Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 ~ 804 296-5875 phone :g 804 972-4035 fax ~]/Other Under 50 Acres .......... $815.00 [] Over Over 50Acres .......... $1,255.00 } ...................... $I 75.00 Existing Zoning: OWNER Name Address: /?~// Phone/Fax: Proposed Zoning: .t~t- ~ . /q. /~.~./~.~ // 3~. , Day Time Phone: Day Time Phone: APPLICANT Name (if&fferent from owner): Address: Phone/Fax: CONTACT Name (if different from above): Address: Phone/Fax: Day Time Phone: I hereby disclose that the owner or owners of the subject prope[ty also have an ownership interest in the following tax map and parcel numbers, which abut or are immediately across the street or road from the subject property: . If ownership of the subject property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to. the name of a corporation, partnership, or association, or tn the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, the applicant must sumit with this application a document acceptable to the County which certifies that the person signing below has the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser of the subject properly, the applicant must submit a document acceptable to the County containing the owner's written consent to the application. If tho applicant is the agent of the owner, the applicant must submit e document acceptable to the County that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. I hereby certify that the information provided on this application and accompanying information is accurate, true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signature Date Re'zoning Application 2 DESCRIPTION OF_~REQUEST: (Please attach ad,ditional information as needed) JUSTIFICATION OF REQIJEST: (Please attach additional information as needed) OFFICE USE' ONLY 5. 6. 8. 9. MAG DIST: ,[ :.REQUESTED UNDER ORDINANCE SECTION: ~EXIS~ING USE: PROPOSED USE: i~HI/STOKY: }~ :¥g.s: ' ' [] Lett,r of Authorization 2!9. I:~GENE RAL~SnARE~ZON 1NGUAN~EZON3,$AT Last Revised 5/17~6 -- / ' '.. .- '. ". :. AIRPORT ROAD AUTO CENTER ' "' "':" '""" William A. Maksh~/ll,'Jr..'." · -.:'. :..',, .... ·., · '..1791 Airport Road · · ' :" Chark)ttesvillc VA 22001 October 8, 1996 Claudia L. Paine, Settlor Planner CoUnty of Albemarle Planning Department 401 Mclnfire Road Charlottesville VA 22902 Re: ZMA 96-18 - William A. Marshall Dear Ms. Paine: This request for rezoning to obtain additional parking was made for the following reasons: 1. Existing parking for customers and employees is not adequate for cmTent business volume. 2. Currently, customer vehicles are having to be parked off-site. This results in substantial inconvenience and loss of time rotating velficles from off-site parking to fl~e service area. 3. The off-site parking is currently costing several hundred dollars a month in addition to the )ost time of rotating vehicles. 4. This rotation of vehicles increases traffic flow at the Route 29/Airport Road intersection. Please feel free to contact me if you need any additional information. Sincerely, William A. Marshall, Jr. PROFFER FORM Date: Dec. 11, 1996 ZMA# 96-18 .,riginal Proffer_ Amended Proffer (Amendment ~ 03200-00r00-020D0 Tax Map Parcel(s) #, 03200-00-00-020E0 1.63 Acres to be rezoned from R1 [o HC Pursuant {o Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers lhe conditions listed below which shall be applied to the properly, if rezoned. These conditions are proffere4 as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (1) Permitted uses of the proper%y, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall include only the following sections of the Albemarle' ;County Zoning Ordinance in efefct on December 11, 1996, a copy of the sections being attached hereto: 24.2.1 (2} Automobilef Truck Repair Shops (35) Electric, gas ... (36) Public uses ... (37) Temporary Construction uses (2)Owners agree that current access to the property for commercial use will, ~e through existing entrances on adjacent parcel 40. (3)Owner reserves the right to request an~ndment(s) to the above proffers in. the future which may be necessary or appropriate resulting from the planned · mprovements to Airport Road. Sigrm{ures of All Owners OR Prinled Names of All Owners William A. Marshall Rachel K. Marst~all Prinled Name of A{lomey-in-Fac{ Dale ]1/25/96 11/25/96 Signalure of Allomey-tn-Fac{[ (Allach Proper Power oi'Allomey) PROFFORM,WPD Rev, December1994 ZblA-96-18 ~i%liam A. Marshall Jr. ALBEMARLE COUNTY k. ZMA-96-18 William A. Marshall Jr. WHITI~ HALL RIVANN~ DISTRICTS SECTION ~ATrACHlflENT D I Encourage a full range of housing types and costs within the Hollymead Community. Large employers should work with the Albemarle County Housing Committee to determine what employee housing assistance programs can be implemented. Target oppommities for employees at the lower income level and employees hired locally. Development plans along Route 29 North are to be sensitive to its status as an Entrance Corridor Roadway. Transporiation Improvements include: Development of the Meadow Creek Parkway to provide more access to the Urban Area and downtown Charlottesville, Reserve adequate and useable right-of-way for the location of the Meadow Creek Parkway in areas of new development. With final alignment determination, reserve right-of-way in all areas. In~rporate into the design of the area now referred to as the North Fork Research Park a road parallel to Route 29 that connects into the Meadow Creek Parkway. Limitation of access points on Route 29 through the use ofjoiat entrances, frontage roads and parallel roads. Access to Route 29 is limited to three locations for the entire area east of Route 29 and north of Route 649 (Proffit Road). Areas that can access Roate 29 directly are the regional service, the office service and the Urban Density areas. In addition, the access from Route 29 to the Urban Density area should be aligned with the future access on Route 29 for the area now referred to as the North Fork Research Park. Access of the Regional Service, Office Service and Urban Density areas to Route 785 is prohibited. Future land development along Route 29 North are to have controlled access to the roadway. This can be accomplished through joint entrances, collector roads parallel to Route 29, and roads intemal to the development. Alignment improvements and widening of Airport Road from its intersection with Route 29 North to the airport. Access to this road should be minimized to the greatest extent possible through the use of joint entrances. Phasing of road improvements necessitated by new development which increases traffic on Route 649 (Airport Road) and Route 29 (Seminole Page 2 September 19, 1996 Mr Ron Keeler October Public Hearings ZMA-96-16 Carolyn Lerner, Route 631 The recent improvement to Rio Road appears to be adequate for this slight change in usage. ZMA-96-17 Mechum River Land Trust, Route 240 Route 240 is a non-tolerable road as far as geometrics are concerned~ that includes horizontal alignments, vertical alignment and width of pavement and shoulders. The increase in traffic would not only impact Route 240, but also Route 250, particularly in the Iv~z area. A traffic impact study or an intersection analysis minimum should be performed to determine impacts at Route 240/250 and Route 240 at Highlands/Mechum Subdivislon, along with Route 240 at Western Ridge. If traffic signals are warranted, they should be proffered by the developer. All areas should be through the existing roadway in Highlands Subdivision. ~MA-96-1B William A. Marshall, .Jr. Route. 649 This property can not at present time meet commercial entrance sight distance. All access should be through existing entrance to the east of the site. Route 649 is to be improved in the next few years and any encrance or accesses should be determined by proposed design. Z~A-96-19 Hunter E.. Craig Co. Route 1165 If you have any questions, please advise before you release comments to the developer. H~/ldw cc: J. H. Kesterson Irma vonKutzleben Assistant Resident Engineer Department of Planning COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 401 blclntire Rbad Omrlottesville, VirginSa 22901~4596 December ].8, 1981 Mr, William A. Marshall, Jr. Route l, [{ox 100A B~rlysville, Virginia 22936 Re: Marshall's Garage /~nended Site Plan (T~x F~p 32, Parcel 40) Dear Mr. Harsball: ]he Albemarle County PlannJng Commission, at its meeting on December 17, ]981, approved the amendment to the above-noted site p].a~ for ~]e additional area for ~le food store and tile additional parking, subject to. the following condition tO be added to the Co~ni~sion's action of November 17, 1981: ~he applicant is put on notice that the 15 parking ~paces and the landscaping l~ithin file reserved right-of-way shall be relocated in the event that road ~nprovements are made to Route 649. In order to expedite ~]]e completion of the conditions of approval, please bare tho appropriate agency or departs]ant notify Linde 2]]ompson, Agency Coordinator, (296-5832), in %,rriting that the applicable condition ]]as been ]net. "~f you]she. Id have any questions, please do noa hes.~ta~e to call mc. Sincere] y, Il. MaSon Caperton Senior Plammr B~C:slr CC: Plmming Staff James R, Butler Linda ]]lompson Robert Vaoghn John Greene r. 1,791-Airport Road ; Charlottesville VA 22901 October 8, 1996 Claudia L. Paine, Senior Planner County of Albemarle Planning Department 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville VA 22902 Re: ZMA 96-18 - William A. Marshall Dear Ms. Paine: Based on the infbrmation you provided, I understand that I also need to request a waiver pursuant to 4.12.3.2 for olY-site parking. I am the current owner of parcel 03200-00-00-04000 where I operate an automotive repair center. I am also the owner of the adjoining parcels (03200-00-00-020D0 and 03200-00-00-020E0) for which I am currently requestiog a rezouing (ZMA 96-18) to provide additional parking for my business. This off~site parking will be located within the 500 feet requirement of 4.12.3.4(B). 1 would like to request that this waiver be approved along with the rezouing request. Please feel fi'ee to contact me if you need additional information. Sincerely, William A. Marshall, Jr. November 25, 1996 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planninc3 & CommuniW Developmem 401 Mclntire Ro,~d Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804~ 296-5823 Kenneth J. Newell 7201 Glen Forest Drive, Suite 100 Richmond, VA 23226 RE: ZMA-96-20 Kenneth Newbll, CCAT2/University Limited Liability Co SP-96-42 Kenneth Newell, CCAT2/University Limited Liability Co Tax Map 60B2, Parcel 1 Dear Mr. Newell: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on November 19, 1996, unanimously recommended approval oftbe above-noted petitions to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that these petitions were approved as follows: ZMA-96-20 K~nneth Newell, CCA T2/Universi~_ Limited Liabili~ Co - Approved subject to acceptance of applicant's proffers. Note the Proffer Schematic needs to be changed to reflect residential to~axhouses in Ames 8 tu~d 9. $P~96-42 Ke~tneth Newell, CCA T2/University Lindted Liabilitp CO - 1. Facliity to be located in genemt conformance with the proposed site plan for "Manor House at University Village" dated November 6, 1996. 2. The number of beds for the assisted living facility shall not exceed 126. 3. Landscape buffering betwean the assisted living facility and the University Village residential devetopmem, the Ivy Gardens development, ~and th~ ~iversityr~ Foundation Offices shall be provided, and existing vegetation main~ain~ed,.as required by the Albemarle County Planning Department staff. .... Original Proffer Amended Proffer X (Amendment No. ) Page 1 Revised: 12/3/96 PROFILER FORM Date: _12/3/96 ZMA # 96-20 Tax Map Parcel(s)# 60rB2-1 j. Amendment of proffers, approved with ZMA 87-08 to change the Schematic Site Development Plan Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntari/y proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ifrezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (il The property will be developed for residential use as set out in paragraph 2 below, designed primarily for retired or older persons. (2) The development of the property will be limited to a maximum of 204 residential units; an assisted living facility; a nursing home/health care facility; and, service facilities, such as dining and recreational facilities, administrative offices, and banking within the limits of accessory uses, as provided in the zoning ordinance. (3) The buildings will not exceed the height limits established in Section 17.8 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, as in effect on October 7, 1987, a copy of which is attached hereto. Buildings, road and parking oa'eas wffi be located in accordance with the attached Schematic Drawing for Site Development (Attachment ,~l and as further detailed on Attachment B - "Proposed Site Plan for Assisted Living." Site development will include extensive landscaping, a network ofwallcing paths/and or trails from Area 7 to Area 12 and substantial natural or landscaped areas around the periphery of the site shown as Areas 1, 2 and 3. (4) In an effort to mi~imi~e traffic, a shuttle bus will be provided for the benefit of all the University Village residents to give access to cultural and social events, required retail and personal services. (5) Page 2 Revised 12/3/96 Parking requkements for the residential condominium living units will be determined based on those requirements for multi-family dwellings for the elderly per Section 4.12.6,6.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, with a miniraum of one parking place per dwelling urdt to be in the basement area of the bu'fldings, in covered parking enciosttres or in individual garages. Attachments to this proffer amendment include the following: Proffer Schematic Revision date 12/3/96 Proposed Site Plan for Assisted Living Facility Zoning Ordinance - Section 17.8 By: eyenne Investments,/nc., an Oregon corporation, its general partner /? J~ ~ I.-----._ _ Bruce D_ Thom, Secretary. 12/6/96 Signatures of Owners Date CCAT 2/University Village Limited Liability Company, a Delaware Liability Company By: CCAT 2 L.P./., a Delaware limited partnership, its manager Printed Names of all Owners (Executed on behalf of: Cheyenne Investments, Inc.. the General Partner for CCAT 2/University Village Limited Liability Company) P nning Dept, _/ LL 0 > ~ 70O Mobile homes for rent in an approved mobile home park shall b~-.. considered rental units under this section provided they qualify as low or moderate cost housing under the Housing and Urban Dev~Xopment Section 8 program; (Added 3-5-86) Mobile home lots for rent in an approved mobile home park shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle that the lots shall be available for rent to mobile home owners for a period of five (5) years; (Added 3-5-86) Mobile home lots for sale in au approved mobile home subdivision shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall strict the use of the lots to mobile homes or other low or moderate cost housing for a period of live (5) years. (Added 3-5-B6) 17.4.4 The cumulative affect of density factors above may not axcaad fifty (Amended (50) percent. 8~14-85) 17.5 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT OPTION REGULATIONS (Amended 8-14-85) At the option of the owner, regulatio~s under cluster development provisions in section 17.3 may be used for cluster development of tho land to be subdivided and developed. Use of cluster provisions shall be subject to other requirements of this ordinance, applicable health requirements and the provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of Albe- marle. 17.6 (Amended 8-14-85) BUILDING SEPARATION In any case in which there ls more than one main structure on any parcel, there shall be' a minimum of thtrty (30) [eet between such structures except as otherwise provided in section 4.11.3. This provision shall not apply to structures built to a common wall. (Amended 1-1-83) 17.7 RECREATIONAL AREA REQUIREMENTS See section 4.16 for recreation requirements, (Amended 3-5-86) 17.8 HEIGHT REGULATIONS (Amended 8-14-85) Except as otherwise provided in section 4.10, structures may be erected to a height not to excees sixty-five (65) feet; provided that any structure exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height shall be set back from any street right-of-way or single-family residential or agricultural district; in addition to minimum yard requirements, a distance of not less than two (2) feet for each one (1) foot of height in excess of thirty-five (35) feet. (Amended 9-9-92) -124- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92) ATI'ACHMENT D ....... ~Re~viSed: [1.f~9196 Original Proffer Amended Proffer X_ (Amendment No. ) PROFFER FORM Date: 8/28/96 ZMA # 96-20 Tax Map Parcel(s)# 60-B2-1 Amendment of proffers, approved with ZMA 87-08 to change the Schematic Site D__evelopment Plan Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. the owner, or ks duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, ifrezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. (1) The property will be developed for residential use as set out in paragraph 2 below, designed primarily for retired or older persons. The development of the propertywill be limited to a maximum of 204 resideffdal units; an assisted living facility; a nursing home/health care facility; and, service facilities, such as dining and recreational facilities, administrative offices, and banking within the limits of accessory uses, as provided in the zoning ordinance. (3) The buildings will not exceed the height limits established in Section 17.8 of the Albenmrle County zomg Ordinance, as in effect on October 7, 1987, a copy of which is attached hereto. Buildings, road and parking areas will be located in accordance with the attached Schematic Drawing for Site Development (Attachment A) and as further detailed on Attachment B - "Proposed Site Plan for Assisted Living." Site development will include extensive landscaping, a network of walking paths/and or trails from Area 7 to Area 12 and substantial natural or landscaped areas around the periphery of the site shown as Areas 1, 2 and 3. (4) In an effort to minimize traffic, a shuttle bus will be provided for the benefit of ali the University Village residents to give access to cultural and social events, required retail and personal services. ATTACHMENT D Page 2 Revised 1 t/19/96 Park'mg requirements for the residential condominium Iiv'mg umts will be determined based on those requirements for multi-family dwell'mgs for the elderly per Section 4.12.6.6.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, with a minimum of one parking place per dwelling Unit to be in the basement area of the buildings, in covered parking enclosures or in individual garages. Attachments to this proffer amendment include the following: Proffer Schematic Revision date 11/6/96 Proposed Site Plan for Assisted Liv'mg Fac'~lity Zoning Ordinance - Section 17.8 By: CCAT 2/University Village Limited Liability Company, a Delaware Liability Company By: CCAT 2 L.P./., a Delaware limited partnership, its manager e Investments, Inc., an Oregon corporation, its general parmer -----B:mce D. Thorn_ Secretary_ 9/20/96 Signatures of Owners Printed Names of all Owners Date Page 2 November 25, 1996 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on December 11, 1996. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Senior Planner cc: Amelia McCulley Jo Higgins Ella Carey STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING RON LILLEY November 19, 1996 December 11, 1996 ZMA 96-20 and SP 96-42 Kenneth J. NewelFManorhonse Retirement Centers. Inc. (Applicant) CCAT2/University Village Limited Liabili~ Co. ¢Owner) Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to amend the proffers for the. University Village property so that an area previously designated for residential townhouse andilandseape area can be used for development of an assisted living facility. Petition: To amend the proffers applied to Tax Map 60B2, Parcel 1, as established with ZMA 87-08, to designate the portion of the property east of the ma'm residential building for an assisted living facility instead of residential townhonse and landscape area, and to grant a special use permit to establish an assisted living facility [Section 17.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance (nursing home or similar institution)] in the re-designated area. The property is located at the existing University Village complex on Cmsiwood Drive on the north side of Route 601 (Old Ivy Road), just east of the Route 29/Route 250 Bypass in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District (see Attachment A). The property is zoned R-10 with proffers and is designated for High Density Residential use in Urban Area Neighborhood 7. Character of the Area: The immediate area is generally of a medium density residential character, with the subject site in the east lawn of the University Village condomirdum development, well back from Old Ivy Road. Ivy Garden Apartments and University of Virginia facilities are on the east side of the University Village property and Huntington Village townhouse/condominiums is on the west, and some office and light industrial uses are across Old Ivy Road. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and with the intent for the initial rezoning of the property and recommends approval with acceptance of the revised proffers and with conditions for the special use permit. Planning and Zoning History.: This area has been designated for high density residential land use since the original Comprehensive Plan (1970). The property was rezoned to R-10 in 1982 (ZMA 82-11), with proffers indicating a general development plan and limits on the types and amount of development (260 residential units) and a special use permit to allow nursing home services for the residents of the development was granted (SP 82-60). The special use permit was granted two extensions and expired on April 20, 1986. In 1987, a rezoning to amend the proffers of ZMA 82-11 to allow increased building height, a somewhat revis~ed general 3_ development plan, and a looser relationship between the potential nursing home facility and residential facility was granted~(ZMA 87-08). In 1989, a new special use permit (SP 89-65) was granted fora 45-bed nursing home at the rear of the University Village property. This special use permit has now expired. The proffers of ZMA 87-08 are provided as Attachment B and the conditions of SP 89-65 are provided as Attachment C. Earlier this year, ZMA 96-05 and SP 96-09 were denied. Those applications sought to allow the development of an assisted living facility in the front lawn area of University Village, nero- Old Ivy Road and adjacent to Htmfmgton Village, which is an area that had been designated for landscaping and recreation. The applications were denied based on concern for the affect the change to the proffered plan would have on both Huntington Village and Ivy Garden Apartments. STAFF COMMENT: The major issues for this rezoning and special use permit request are: - consistency with the intent.of the present proffers - impact on adjoining properties/areas - impact on road network These will be addressed in mm. Recommendations regarding the special use permit will follow this discussion. Rezoning The applicant proposes an assisted living facility to be constructed essentially in accordance with the proposed site plan (amended proffers, including the proposed site plan, are provided as Attachment D), which provides for a 3-sto .ry building, providing approximately 110 beds, to be constructed in the area east of the main residential building presently designated for residential mwnhouses and landscaped area (areas 3 and 7 on the current schematic drawing for site development). As proposed, Area 10, shown for future development for a health care facility, would remain designated for health care facility, and Areas 8 and 9 would be designated to receive the 30 townhouses previously designated for Areas 7, 8, and 9. The applicant indicates that Area 10 is envisioned for a nursing home facility, which involves more constant care of residents (and requires a Certificate of Area Need from the State) than does the proposed assisted living facility. The appFleanr also has indicated that Area 10 is not as desirable a location from a marketing/visibility standpoint and from a soils/topography standpoint and that Areas 3 and 7 provide for a better stand-alone facility. The intent of the current proffers involves the amount of occupant loading on this property and the general location of facilities and landscaping to address buffering from adjoining uses. Based on staffreports and minutes of previous considerations for this property, th%main concern for 2 occupant loading relates to the traffic capacity of Old Ivy Road. The County has taken a position that rezonings along roads with serious capacity problems should not be approved unless the resultant traffic generation would not be increased appreciably or unless capacity upgrades are scheduled. In this case, the owner is proftEring a commensurate reduction in the number of residential units that could be located on the property to compensate for the traffic increase resulting from the proposed facility. The applicant indicates that the proposed facility is expected to employ approximately 50 persons, with the largest shill accounting for approximately 20 persons. Occasional deliveries would also be expected. A very low percentage of the residents would be expected to drive, and visits to residents typically occur during non-peak traffic hours and on weekends. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual, such a facility with 50 employees would be expected to generate approximately 202 trips per day, which is the equivalent traffic generation of 56 units of retirement community condominiums. The owner is proffering to reduce th6 potential nuraber of residential units at University Village by 56 to 204 total uuits. Old Ivy Road is scheduled to be widened beginn/ng in January 2000 which is expected to substantially increase its capacity, however, difficult/es with improving the railroad overpass cast doubt on the schedule being maintained. Given all these factors, staffopinion is that this rezoning with the proffered reduction of dwelling an/ts is supportable from the standpoint of traffic generation from this site. The Virginia Department of Transportation will assess the need for a left mm lane fi'om Old IW Road onto Crestwo.od Drive as part of the site plan review for each phase of improvements at this site. With respect to fixing the general location of tSacilifies and landscaping to address buffering from adjoining uses, the Primary impact of this proposal is to the Ivy Gardens Apartments and the Montesano Property used for the University Foundation offices, and to the University Village residents. The current proffer schematic indicates Area 3 to the east of the main building as Landscaped Area and Area 7 as one of three areas where a total of 30 residential townhouses would be located (see Attachment B). The proposal would place a three-story building (approximate height of 35 feet) and parking areas within these two areas, and proffers include "extensive landscaping a~d a network of walking paths and/or trails from Area 7 to Area 12." Substantial vegetation exists along the eastern side afthe site, which would serve to buffer this use from the Ivy Garden Apartments and the University Foundation office building if it is maintained. Maintenance of such a buffer could be made a condition of special use permit approval for the proposed facility. Given all these factors, staffopinion is that the intent of the proffers regarding buffering of adjacent properties is not significantly compromised by this proposal. The applicant has indicated that letters of support for this proposal from Ivy Gardens, Huntington Village and University Village are expected, but only the letter from University Village has been received thus far (provided as Attachment E). If received, the other letters will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Special Use Permit Assuming the amended proffers are accepted, the location of the proposed assisted living facility will be consistent with the proffers. The use itself has been reviewed for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and staff opinion is that, given approval of the general location of the facility and subject to conditions regarding fae'flity size and provision of landscape screening, the use itself wilt not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, the character of the district will not be changed by the nature of the use, the use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the R-10 district, and with the public health, safety, and general welfare. The facility is intended to provide an intermediate level of care, between independent living and nursing home-level of care, to primarily elderly residents. Activities would be mostly indoors or within th4¥elatively secluded areas of the site. The proffers provide for the facility to be in general accordance with the proposed site plan (see Attachment D). To address the sensitivities regarding traffic generation from the Uff~versity Village property and regarding impact on buffering from adjacent properties, staff recommends the following conditions for special use permit approval: Facility to be located in general conformance with the proposed site plan for "Manor House at University Village" dated November 6, 1996. 2. The number of beds for the assisted living facility shall not exceed 120. Landscape buffering between the assisted living facility and the University Village residential development, the Ivy Gardens development, and the University Foundation Offices shall be provided, and existing vegetation maintained, as required by the Albemarle County Planning Department staff. SUMMARY: Stafffinds that the traffic generation from this property is adequately addressed by the proposed proffers and that the trade of development area and landscape/recreation area of the current proffers would not significantly compromise the intent of the current proffers regarding buffering of adjacent properties. Staff fmds that the special use permit for the assisted living facility is supportable with conditions regarding facility size and provision of landscape buffering. Recommended Action: A. Approval of ZMA 96-20 with acceptance of the revised proffers provided as Attachment D; B. Approval of SP 96-42 for an assisted living facility with the following conditions: I. Facility to be located in general conformance with the proposed site plan for "Manor House at University Village" dated November 6, 1996. 2. The number of beds for the assisted living facility shall not exceed 120. 3. Landscape buffering between the assisted living facility and fl½e University Village residential development, the Ivy Gardens development, and the University Foundation Offices shall be provided, and existing vegetation maintained, as required by the Albemarle County Planning Department staff. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map . B - ZMA 87-08 proffers C - SP 89-65 conditions D - Amended proffers E - Letter from adjoining residents l:\generagshare\lilley\univill2.zma ALBEMARLE COUNTY~ ~EN3'AI /' ZMA-96-20 Kenneth Newell / / SAMUEL MILLER,?~ACK dOUETT AND CHARLOTTESViLEE DISTJ~ICT$ ?? _.~ AMENDED PROFFER FOR UNIVERSITY VILLAGE RE TAX M3~P 60, PARCEL 53 Backgro~d: On October 20, 1982, the Board of Supervisors rezoned the above described property from R-1 to R-10 with a proffer ma~e by ~e then o~er. ~e ourrent o~er, University Village Limited Partnership, wishes to amend the proffer to allow a more orderly development of the property, to provide for better preservation of_the landscape and lessen impact on the s~rounding properties. The eat/re proffer adopted on October 20, 1982 is hereby deleted, and ~e following substituted therefor. Applicant hereby proffers: 1. The property will he developed for residential use as set o~t in paragraph 2 below, designed primarily for retired or older persons, with eligibility for residents to be limited to persons 62 years of age or older, except a spouse, other rel~ive or not more than one ~nrelated person l~ving with a ~alified resident may be less than 62 years of age and may continue to be a resident even though such qRalified person shall no longer be a resident. 2. The development of the property will be limited to a max~ of 260 residential ~nits, plus service facilities which may tnclud~ dining and recreational facilities, a~ntstrative offices, ~nJ:in~ and o~her ~crviccs for the 3. ~e b~ildings Will not exceed the height limits established tn paragraph 17.S of the residential R-10 ~oning dls~rict. Building, road and parking areas will be confined a~d resid~tial ~its and service facilities will be built essentially in accordance with the attached preliminary site develo~ent plan titled "University Villaqe - Proffer ] ATTACHPIEI~iT'BI IPag. e,;i.l.' Schematic,' dated October ?, 1987 {Exhibit A}, and the balance of the site will be developed so as to provide substantial natural or landscaped areas around the periphery of the site shown as areas 1, 2 and ] os Exhibit A. Site development wi1! include extensive landscaping, a network of walking paths and trailsv gardens, outdoor activity areas and a main entrance drive from Old Ivy Road. 4. The applicant is currently pursuing obtaining a Certificate cf Need for a ~ursing care facility from the State Health Department, and if successful, may construct a nursing care facility on the property, or whether successful or ~ot may construct a personal care facility for the aged. 5. In an effort to minimize traffic, a ~huttle bus wfll be provided for the benefit of res/dents to give access to cultural and social events, required retail and personal services, 6. Parking requirements for the residential living units will be determined based on those requirements for multi-family dwellings for the elderly, with a minimum of one parking place per dwelling unit to be in the basement area of the buildings, in covered parking enclosures or in individual garages. Additional surface parking for guests and employees will also be provided. UNIVERSITY VILLAGE LIMITED '~.W. ~eiecq~man, General Partner I P~ge 3 ] s/® I ATTACHI,,I ENT ( COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Communit9 Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804} 296-5823 october 20, 1989 University Village Limited partnership P. O. Box 8133 Charlottesville, VA 22906 RE: SP-89-65 University Village Limited Partnership Tax Map 60, Parcels 53 and 24C Dear Sir: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on October 18, 1989, unanimously approved the above-noted request to allow for a nursing home/home for adults to be located on approximately 61.50 acres in conjunction with University Village Retirement Community. Property, located on the north side of Old Ivy Road iRt. 601) about 1900 feet east of its intersection with the Rt. 29/250 Bypass and Old Garth Road. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: Nursing home facility shall be limited to 45 beds. Future expansion shall require amendment to this special permit; Approval of the appropriate state and local agencies. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~ireWca~or oCifliP~& Community Development vwc/jcw cc: Kathy Dodson Charles Mitchell oOZ Z C IT1 re'ri Z- -I ? ? 17.4.4 ( Amended 8-14-85) 17.5 17.6 (Amended 8-14-85) 17.7 17.8 (Amended 8-14-85) Z lAq&'2 AIT C NT tATTACHMENT Hobile homes for rent in an approTed mobile homo park shall b~ considered rental tmits under this section provided they qualify as iow er moderate cost housing under the Housfng and Drban Deuelopment Section 8 program; (Added g-5-86) Mobile home lots for rent in an approved mobile home park shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall enter into an agreement with the County of Albemarle that the lots shall be available for rent to mobile home owners for a period of five (5) years; (Added 3-5-86) Mobile home lots for sale in an approved mobile home subdivision shall qualify for this bonus provided the developer shall re- strict the use of the lots to mobile homes or other low or moderate cost housing for a period of five (5) years. (Added The cumulative effect of density factors above may not exceed fifty (50) percent. - CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT OPTION REGUIATIONS (Amended 8-14-85) At the option of the owner, regulations under cluster development provisions in section 17.3 may be used for cluster development of the land to be subdivided and developed. Use of cluster provisions shall be subject to other requirements of this ordinance, applicable health requirements and the provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of Albe- marle. BUILDING SEPARATION In any case in which there is more than one main structure on any parcel, there shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet between such structures except as otherwise provided in section 4.11.3. This provision shall not apply to structures built to a common wall. (Amended 1-1r83) RECREATIONAL AREA REQU~S See section 4.16 for recreation requirements. (Amended 3-5-86) HEIGHT REGULATIONS Except as otherwise provided in section 4.10, structures may be erected to a height not to excees sixty-five (65) feet; provided that any structure exceeding thirty-five (35) feet in height shall be set .back from any street right-of-way or single-family residential or agricultural district; in addition to minimum yard requirements, a distance of not less than two (2) feet for each one (1) foot of height in excess of thirty-five (35) feet. (Amended 9-9-92) -124- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92) ATTACHPIENT E J university Village Owners A octatton 2401 Old Ivy Road o Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-5898 804 / 977-1800 · FAX 804 / 977-0857 November 7, 1996 Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner Department of Planning and Community Development Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Lilley, After the presentation By Mr. Kenneth Newetl regarding the new plans for the Manorhouse Assisted Living Facility which would be located on the University Village grounds, once again the residents of University Village met together in a "town meeting" and overwhelmingly voted in favor of the proposal. Only one vote was negative. We look forward to an affirmative vote by the Planning Commission on this facility which will greatly enhance the care of senior citizens in Albemarle County. Thank you for your consideration and assistance on behalf of this needed project. On behalf of the residents mad the Board of Directors of University Village, Iam RECEWE© NOV 0 8 1996 Planning Dept,. Very sincerely yours. d/.. Jacgs. o~n.'..N.. Rid_die, President IYniversity Village Owners Association Huntington V ! L L A G E 12 November, 1996 Albemarle County Planning Commission 401 Mclntire Road Charlotlesville, Virginia 22902-4596 RE: ZMA 96-20 -Kennetb J. Newell Dear Comntissioners: I am writing to you concerning the above referenced petition. Iam President oftheHuntington Village Homeowners Association and an owner and resident in Huntington Village. At your 2t May, 1996 public hearing, I spoke in opposition to an earlier proposal by the same developer to build an assisted living facility on propony adjacent to Huntington Village. I have since spoken with Mr. Newell and his representatives a number of times in conuectiun with the location and design of an assisted living facility on the University Village property. The application now bet'ore you contemplates a facility that we believe is thougbtfiflly designed and appropriately located, that takes into accounl the character of our neighborhood, conforms to Ihe intent of the original proffers for the University Village development and accmmnndates the need of our conununity for a facitily of the sort envisioned by Mr. Newell. We support the applicant and urge the you to approve his request to establish an assisted living facility in accordance with the terms of the proposal before you, Respectfully, Robin L. Cordle, President Huntington Village Homeowners' Association IRECE!¥E NOV I 2 1996 Plann n9 Dept, I%3 llarvcal Drivc- Charlollc,avillc, Virg.ua 2290% · f8041295-2543 12 November, 1996 Albemarle County Plamting Commission 401 Mclntiro Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 RE: ZMA 96-20 - Kenneth $. Newell Dear Commissioners: I am writing to you concerning the above referenced petition. I am General Partner of Ivy Garde~s Limited Partnership and Old Ivy Limited Partnership, owner's of Ivy Gardens Apartments. We support thc applicant and urge the you to approve his request to establish an assisted living facility in accordance with the'terms of the proposal before you. Respectfully, S. W. Heisclunan, General Partner Ivy Gardens Limited Partnership Old Ivy. Limited Partnership RECEIVED NOV ! 2 1996 Planning Dept. Ivy Gardens Apartments 100 Ivs' Drive · Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 · (804) 296-5587 STAFF PERSON: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ December 11, 1996 SP 96-04 SPR1NT CELLULAR (AVON SITE} This item was originally [eviewed by the Planning Commission on May 7, 1996. At this meeting the Planning Commissio~; unanimously recommended denial of the application, The applicant then requested indefinite deferral of the application to allow time to work with the County on a tower siting policy. The County has created a Tower Task Force which is working on issues of tower siting. On a date not yet determined, the final product of the Task Force will be presented to the Board of Supervisors for review and action. Based on service needs the Avon tower site is intended to meet, and the progress of the Task Force to date, the applicant feels they cannot wait for the conclusion of the Task Force's work and has requested the consideration of this tower site move forward. Staff typically provides to the Board of Supervisors the same report presented to the Planning Commission. In this case at.the advise of the County Attorney, staff has modified the staffreport since the Planning Commission meeting. At the time the original staff report was prepared staff had limited familiarity with the 1996 Telecommunications Act which was signed into law in February 1996. This revised staff report is intended to provide analysis that insures the provisions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act have been appropriately addressed. Staff does not believe these revisions have resulted in any substantive changes that would have changed the conclusions of the Planning Commission. Anolicant's Pronosal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 100 foot monopole (80 foot tower with a total structure height including lighting rod of 100 feet) with a support building to improve communications in the southern urban area by increasing the capacity of the cellular system The applicant provided to the Planning Commission an Engineering Study (Attachment I) which addresses various issues. [Please note that this study includes discussion of a site on 29 South which is referred ~to as the Hickory Site. This site is not before the Board at this time,] Petition: Petition to allow a 100 foot tower and a support building on a portion of a 9.536 acre parcel zoned R-l, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 91, Parcel 1 is located on the east side of Avon Street (Rt. 742), north of Cale Elementary School, on property developed with a water storage tank in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is within the Urban Area, Neighborhood 4, and is designated for medium density residential. Character of the Area: This site is developed with an existing Albemarle County Service Authority water tank. Cale Elementary School is located approximately 500 feel to the south. RECQlVIMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the prowsions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends denial. Plannin~ and Zoning History_: This site is developed with a water tank approved in 1987. No other history is available, Comprehensive Plan' This site is recommended for residential use. however as stated previously it is occupied by a water tank. Therefore, residential development of this site is not likely. The adjacent property to the south is zoned LI, Light Industry, which further reduces the likelihood of residential development of this site. A stated design standard of the Comprehensive Plan is "design public utility corridors to fit the topography. Corridors should be shared by utilities when possible. Distribution lines should be placed underground." The intent of this statement is to consolidate locations. The Comprehensive Plan contains no specific recommendations for the placement of cellular communication facilities. Use of this site for a tower in combination with the water tank may be considered as consistent with the utility standards ofthe Comprehensive Plan. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address the issues of this request in three sections: I. 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)(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 snecial use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as nrovided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding bv the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adiacent pronerty. The proposed tower location is approximately 600 feet from the nearest dwelling. These dwelling~ are located in Mill Creek. The Lakeside Apartments are located approximately 1,000 feet distant to the north. Based on balloon tests (balloons were floated at the proposed tower height) the tower will be visible from several locations, including Lakeside and Mill Creek, on Avon Street, 1-64 and the Willow Creek Development located near the Route 20/Route 53 intersection. 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 agencies. The tower will not directly limit the use of any adjacent property. The visibility of the tower from residential property may be considered a determinant. However, staffis not able to determine if the detriment is substantial. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby. This tower will be a stand alone tower facility located adjacent to another utility use. Towers are not encouraged by staff in areas designated for residential use. Staffhas reviewed the applications for towers since 1980 and has determined that only one request, SP 94-26, is located in an area which may be considered as being designated a residential area. That application was for the monopole located at Camp Holiday Trails. Staff review of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site of that tower was on the border of the areas recommended for Residential and Rural Areas. The Camp Holiday Trails site was also located adjacent to an Entrance Corridor, 1-64 and served that corridor. (Staff recommended denial of that special use permit due largely to the comments of the ARB.) The use of the water tank site, which is also designated for residential use, does not in the opinion of staff set a precedent for the use of residential land for towers as the water tank has changed the character ofthls site to a non-residential nature. However, staff does note this request would introduce a new tower to an area of nearby residential development where no towers exist. The ARB has reviewed this request and does not support this application based on the comments contained in the staff report to the ARB (Attachment C) and a general concern as to the lack ora comprehensive plan to address tower location in the County (Attachment D). The ARB staffreport does state that staff could support the request if the tower's height could be reduced to conform to the existing tree tine in height. The 100 foot tower height exceeds the existing tree line. Staff has requested a long range plan of the future need for tower sites as part of the Tower Task Force review and staff has compiled a map showing search areas identified by the cellular providers. [This map is not included as an attachment to this report due to its size. Staffwill provide the map at the Board meeting.] These search areas are not to be considered the only search areas and no time frame is associated with the map. Staff has attached the purpose and intent of the EC district as stated in Section 3 0.6. Based on the comments of the ARB. staff opinion is that this tower does represent a change in the character of the Entrance Corridor District because, at its proposed height of 100 feet, the tower is an anomaly within the character and scale of that portion of the Route 742 Entrance Corridor. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4. 1.5 and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections 1.4., 1.4.4, and 1.5 (Attachment E). All of these provisions address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of cellular telephones clearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use. Sprint Cellular (now known as 360 Communications Company of Charlottesville) is a public utility as identified by the State. Based on the provision ora public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and ~ntent 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 ofthls facility does increase convenience for users of cellular phone technology. However, based on the comments of the ARB, this facility does not provide for a attractive community and approval of this request may be considered inconsistent with this stated intent of the ordinance and the purpose and intent of the EC District as stated in Section 30.6. with the uses permitted bv 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 govermng tower facilities and appropriate conditions are proposed to ensure compliance with this provision of the ordinance. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health and safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in the event of emergencies and increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental affects 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. I 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, sp~res, flag poles, monumems 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 100 feet from the edge of the property. The proposed tower is located approximately 82 feet from the property 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 stuff for this request). This condition protects thepublie safety. Relocation of the tower is not an option in this case as it would interfere with furore use of the site by the Albemarle County Service Authority (Attachment F). 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 relocation would interfere with furore use of the site for the provision of a public utility. Therefore, staff is able to support a reduction in the setback requirement. Section 704(a'}(7)(bl(I)(IB of the Telecommunications Act of I996. The rec~ulation of the nlacement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision ofnersonal wireless servtces. 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's Engineering Exhibit (Attachment I) states "most of the Avon service area already has adequate signal strength." ]?he scatter plot prepared by the applicant's engineer indicates that cellular coverage for the Avon service area exists for all mobile and portable cellular phones. Therefore, personal wireless services already exist in the Avon service area. The applicant's stated need for the tower is based on its desire to improve the quality of the service. The applicant states that in the area of the proposed tower, it has recorded the number of blocked calls to be as high as 20 percent above maximum capacity. (Attachment I, page 6~. The FCC mandates that pemonal wireless companies build out their systems so that adequate service is provided. The applicant has not provided any evidence of any FCC regulation or license requirement pertaining to blocked calls and, in particular, any provision that blocked calls exceeding a certain percentage of the maximum capacity of the system shall be deemed to be not providing service. Finally the applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other locations currently available for a to~ver or for co-location of antennae to absorb telecommunications traffic at its Charlottesville and Carter's Mountain site, or for sectorizing neighborhood facilities. Staff notes that when it met with the applicant prior to filing of this application and in meetings as recently as November of the this year, the parties were not able to identify any other suitable location. For the foregmng reasons, staff does not believe that denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. SUM3IARY The hilly to mountainous terrain of Albemarle County, which results in "dead spots" in a cellular system, has resulted in a number of requests for cellular towers. This tower request is not intended to overcome any "dead spots" in service, but is intended to provide additional handling capacity for the system. The area which would be served by this tower currently has adequate signal strength as identified by the applicant's engineering report. A reduction in the tower's height would give a smaller service area for this cell but would increase the capacity of the system. No analysis has been done to determine if additional tower(s) would be needed if the tower height was reduced or if this tower's height could be reduced at such time as additional cell sites are located in the area. This request is not located within a "tower farm" as is encouraged by the County, although it does represent the clustering of utilities as the site currently is used for water storage by the ACSA. No existing structures were identified by staff in the area that could provide the requested coverage. The applicant has been working with emergency service providers to accommodate their needs. This tower is located along an existing highway corridor and serves, in part, the users of that corridor. Staff has identified the following factors which 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 t.5; 2. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties. Staff has identified the following factor which is unfavorable to this request: 1. Approval of this tower will change the character of the EC district; Approval of this tower is not in harmony with the stated intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate the creation of an attractive community; 3. There is an existing reasonable use of the property. While staff has 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. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff opinion is that the change in the character of the EC District warrants denial of this request. Should the Board choose to approve this request, staffhas provided conditions of approval. Should the Board choose to approve the special use permit staff does support the modification of Section 4. t 0.3.1 and has included appropriate langnage 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 staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Tower height shall not exceed 100 feet (80 foot monopole with 20 foot m~tennae/lighting rod); 2. Compliance with Section 5. t.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. A modification of Section 4.10.3.1 has been granted to allow location of the tower closer to the property line than the height of the tower; 6. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for cellular communication purposes. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - ARB Staff Report, action letter and minutes D - ARB Letter to Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors E - Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5 F - Letter from Albemarle County Service Authority G - Sketch Plan H - Applicant's Information I - Applicant's Engineering Exhibit I - Section 30.6 of the Zoning Ordinance K - Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act L - Planning. Commission action letter and minutes M - Lettem from public I :\GEi'qERAL\SHAR~kFRITZ',SP9604.RPT CHARLOYfES- VILLE ., .? ALBEMARLE COUNTY / \ SGOTTSVILLF DISTRICT 9E SECTION 91 AVON CELL SITE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF PERSON: Marcia Joseph DATE: March 18, 1996 PROJECT NUMBER: ARB-F(SDP)-96-03 LOCATION: Tax Map 91, Parcel 1, Zoned RI - Residential, Scottsville Magisterial District. Located on the south side of Route 742, approximately 1/4 mile north of the intersection of Route 742 and Route ~0. STAFF REPORT: Section 34A.2.c of the Zoning Ordinance states that the ARB will be advisory to the Commission and the Board of Supervisors in special use permits. The applicant proposes placing a cellnlar tower measuring 100' in beigbt that will be visible from the Route 742 Entrance Corridor. The applicant requests approval for a radio-wave transmission tower. Under section 10.2.2.6 a special use permit is required. The ARB is requested to provide a recommendation to the Board or' Supervisors and the Planning Commission t'or this proposed nse. Tile location of tile tower is approximately 750' from Route 742. Tile tower will be visible from Route 742. The pole proposed is a monopole, similar to tile tower erected at the Camp Holiday Trails site. Staffcan not support this request becanse it will create an anomaly within the character and scale of this portion of the Route 742 Entrance Corridor. If tile tower could be lowered to conform to tile existing tree line in height, staff could support the request. The cleared area, the building, and the generator proposed will not be visible from the Route 742 Entrance Corridor. tlickory Cell Certificate of Al:,propriateness March 18, 1996 I Building Code Information (804'~ 296-5832 COUNTY OF AI..BEMARI .E Depar'ancnt of Buildin§ Code and Zoning Serviors 401 Mclnfire Road, Room 223 Charlottesville, 'v'trcjinia 22902-4596 FAX (804) 9724126 TFD (804'~ 972-4012 J ATTACHldENT C J IPage 21 Zoning Information (804) 296-5875 March 19, 1996 Centel Cellular Company of Charlottesville c/e M. E. Gibson, Jr. Tremblay & Smith, LLP P.O. Box 1585 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: ARB-F(SDP)-96-03 Avon Ceil Site Tax Map 91 Parcel i Dear Mr. Gibson: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above-noted item ar its meeting on Monday, March 18, 1996. The Board voted (4:1) to accept the staff report and recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they can not support the request unless the tower is lowered to conform to the existing tree line in height. The ARB also requested that the applicant submit an overall comprehensive plan for a period to correspond with the County's twenty year Comprehensive Plan. This plan should give a general location of the proposed towers. If you have questions concerning any of the above, please call me. Sincerely, Marcia Joseph Design Planner cc: Bill Fritz Timmons Runkle moved MOTION: Mr. conditions recommended by staff. that the request be approved with the SECONDED: Mr. Michel seconded the motion, (5:0) approved. which was unanimously Certificate of Appropriateness ARB-F(SDP)-96-03 Avon Cell Site Contact Person: M.E. Gibson, Jr. Staff stated that the applicant had brought some pictures in for the Board's view. In addition, pictures of the existing tower on 1-64 were displayed. She stated that the applicant had flown a balloon and presented pictures taken from various locations. "AVON CELL SITE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF PERSON: DATE: Marcia Joseph March 18, 1996 PROJECT NUMBER: ARB-F (SDP) -96-03 LOCATION: Tax Map 91, Parcel 1, Zoned Ri - Residential, Scottsville Magisterial District. Located on the south side of Route 742, approximately 1/4 mile north of the intersection of Route 742 and Route 20. STAFF REPORT: Section 34A.2.c of the Zoning Ordinance states that the ARB will be advisory to the Commission and the Board of Supervisors in special use permits. The applicant proposes placing a cellular tower measuring 100' in height that will be visible from the Route 742 Entrance Corridor. The applicant requests approval for a radio-wave transmission tower. Under section 10.2.2.6 a special use permit is required. The ARB is requested to provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission for this proposed use. The location of the tower is approximately 750' March 18, 1996 Minutes of Albemarle County Architectural Review Board 8 from Route 742. Route 742. The ~TTACHMENT C I [Page 4J tower will be visible f~om The pole proposed is a monopole, similar to the tower erected at the camp Holiday Trails site. Staff cannot support this reques~ because it will create an anomaly within the character and scale of this portion of the Route 742 Entrance Corridor. If the tower could be lowered to conform to the existing tree line in height, staff could support the request. The cleared area, the building, and the generator proposed will not be visible from the Route 742 Entrance Corridor." Staff pointed out that the Board was being asked to make a recommendation in an advisory role to the Board of Supervisors. SPEAKERS FOR REQUEST: M.E. Gibson, Attorney for Sprint Centel, spoke for the request. He explained that the increase in applications for towers was due to the increase of the business in the sales of portable phones. Additional facilities are needed to provide adequate coverage and capacity. Ms. Miller asked what happened with the notion of a master plan for developing towers instead of a case by case approach. She stated that it was a major concern and would be helpful as the County reviews this, to understand the overall impact. Mr. Gibson presented an aerial photo of the Carter's Mountain site. SPEAKERS AGAINST REQUEST: David Van Roijen and Montgomery Woods spoke against the request. Mr. Lindstrom asked for Bill Fritz's comments on this since he was the Planner handling this request. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner, spoke concerning the proposed towers. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that each site was an individual issue, but that the general issue was that they had been promised a study since the first tower request. He stated that as the community grows there will be more and more towers. He felt that March 18, 1996 Minutes of Albemarle County Architectural Review Board 9 ATTACHMENT CJ I Page 5] there ought to be a plan. MOTION: Mr. Lindstrom moved that the ARB accept staff's recommendation against the proposed tower and recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they cannot support the request unless the tower is lowered to conform to the existing tree line in height. He further added to that reason, that.it be made very clear that the applicant must submit an overall picture or plan, not just for 3 years~but based upon expected growth rates at least for the 20-year period of the comprehensive plan on what the anticipated need was for towers in Albemarle County given the current technology. SZCOI~DED: Mr. Michel seconded the motion. The motion was passed (4:1). Mr. Beverly - Aye Mr. Michel - Aye Mr. Runkle - No Mr. Lindstrom - Aye Ms. Miller - Aye Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 3:14 p.m. B. ARB-F(SDP)-96-04 Hickory Cell Site Contact Person: M.E. Gibson, Jr. Staff presented photos of the site for the ARB's review. tower stays 180 ~feet. "HICKORY CELL SITE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS STAFF PERSON: Marcia Joseph DATE: March 18, 1996 PROJECT NUMBER: ARB-F(SDP)-96-04 LOCATION: This Tax Map 88, Parcel 30C, Zoned RA Rural Areas~ Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Located on the west side of Route 29S, approximately two miles north of the intersection of Route 29N and Route 708. STAFF REPORT: March 18, 1996 Minutes of Albemarle County Architectural Review Board 10 Section 34A.2.c of the Zoning Ordinance states I ATTACHPIENT D I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Deparlment of Zoning, Room 223 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 2290274.596 (8041 296-5875 FAX [804} 9724035 TDD tS0ql 972-4012 April 29, 1996 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Planning Commission 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Mobile Telephone Communication Towers Ladies and Gentleman: On March 18, 1996 the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the proposals for two new tower sites for the Sprint (now 360) Company. The proposed tower locations are on Route 742 (Avon Ext.) and Route 29S. The ARB did not support either request. The ARB expressed concern that there has been no master plan proposed illustrating the general location and number of towers that may be desired. Without a master plan to guide the placement of these structures, the ARB felt it was [utile to keep acting on the towers. The ARB urged the applicant to provide the information, and requested that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors urge the applicant to do the same. Please feel free to contact any member of the Architectural Review Board or Marcia Joseph (Design Planner 296-5875), to discuss this issue. Sincerely, Members of the Architectural Review Board Diahe Edge~rton Miller Vice Chairman C. Timothy Lindstrom Runkle PURPOSF. AHI) il ATTACHMENT E ~¢it] and to implement tile Comprelmnsive Plan of Albelnarle Cotmty adopted pursuant to the pt-t~visions of Title 15.1, ChaFter 11, article 4, Code of VirDinia, 1950, as amended and has the. purposes and intent set forth in Title 15.1, Chapner 11, Ai-ticl. e 8. As set forth in section 15.1-427 of the Code, this ordinance is intended l_o improve public heal. itl, safety, convenience and pel. fare ef citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia, and to plan for tl~e future development o~ co~nunitJas to the end that transportation systmns be carefully planned; that new community centers be developed with ad~quane high~,'ay, utility, health, educational and recreational l:aci.lities; that the roads of agriculture industry nnd business cecognized in future growth; that :eside:ttial areas be provided witk healthy surroundiegs for family life; that agricultnral and forestal lead be [:reserved; and t.)lal the gt'ow[h ef l:}le Cnfilmtln~iliy I~e ceesonanc ~:it:h the effiaxenr, and economical use oF imbl. ic funds ~ (Added 9-9-92) Therefore be it ot'dained by the l~oard of Supervisors' of Albt~lnarle Count. y, Vi rginia for Lbe pul'poses of promoting khe health, safety, coiweni(mce and gelmra] Yailfare o[ the peblic and o[ piaeni~lg lot t. he future developmenu of the commueity, l:hat the zoning ordinance of Albemarle County, together with the official zoning map adoFted bv reference and declared to be a paru of this ordinaace, ~s designed: To ~acilitaue the prOVlSlOll of adequane police and fire disaster evacuation, eivi] defense, transportation, ~¢ater, sewerage, flood protection schools, parks, forests, playgronnds, .recreationn] facilities, airports and other public requirementS; RI.I,AI IOH TO KI.IVIIiONHENT This ordinance is desiilmd l:o treat l. and~; ~hich are similarly sit.uated ~ive Pla~, the :;uit. nbilit, y of properl:y for wil.-i(ms m;e~;, the trm~d~; plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestnl land, the con- most ,.pl,ropriat.e use of land t:hrmq~hout the eoHnlly. (Amended 11-1-29) 'Al' BEMARLE COUNTY P,O, BOX 1OO9 168 SPOTNAP [~D CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22v~z May 6, 1996 RECE. VED. -'-' ~'1~¥ 0 7. 1996 "'~' Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner County of Albemarle P!anning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Planning DePt:? Re: SP~96-04- Sprint Cellular (360° communications) ;; DearMr. Fritz: We have reviewed your comments concerning the location of the cellular tower on a leased portio~ of our property on Avon ~treet. The site in question has a current use of a water ~storage faeili~ and a reserved, site for installation of another tank and appurtenant water lines. -, , f , ,: . ,?:r,'~ , , ~ . , .-- . The lO'~ation l~roposed ~was selected so as hot'to interfere with our planned future use: Relocation is not an option Wi{bin tho confines of the graded lot. If you have any questions ~oncerning the above, feel free to call. Sincerely, Paul A. Shoop, P.E. Director of Engineering PAS/lbt ./ .7 ? JOHN lC TAC~,ART, Ill THOSt,~S E. A~o Cm~m'r~ TI~o~soN P~TP, Ic~ D. McO~w CHRISTOPHER L. McL~,~2q LtoY~ T. Surnl, Ja, VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION 972-4035 March 12, 1996 William D. Fritz, Senior Planner Dept. of Planning & community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: 360~ Communications Company (formerly Sprint Cellular Company) Avon Cell Site SP -96-04 Dear Bill: This letter is written in response to your request for a narrative site justification statement for this project and Y am providing you with the following information: 1. ~ower. The tower will be an 80' unlit monopole, with a total structure height including lightning rod of 100'. I am attaching a copy of an engineering drawing depicting the monopole. site: cQ¥~raae Obiective, There are three objectives for this (a) Coverage - to improve portabl~ coverage on the south side of Charlottesville along both Route 29 and 1-64 between the downtown Charlottesville and Carter's Mountain cell sites. (b) Frequency planning - Carter's Mountain has 38 voice channels. Due to its location, it is one of the busiest sites in the system and carries a great deal of traffic. It is becoming difficult to add more frequencies (voice channels) without creating so-called frequency reuse interference and bad phone service. (c) Disaster recovery/offloading To prevent massive blockage during a disaster, 360° Communications needs a new site (Avon) to offload the main core sites of Carter's Mountain and downtown Charlottesville. TREMBLAY & Sh~TH, LLP Page 2 Fritz March 12, 1996 IATTACHMENT H I I"age I will have available at the public hearings scatter plots depicting the base couerage. 3. ~oadin~o The tower will have up to 3 whip transmit antennas 15' in length, 6 panel receive antennas 5' in length and a lightning rod extending 3' above the highest point of the whip antennas. Please let me k~ow if you require additional information. Thank you. Very truly yours, M. E. Gibson, Jr. MEG/sp cc: Marcia Joseph Clifford I. Shaffer Larry Bickings Heidi H. Parker 28~,$\~ [b\Fr I tz, [145 DENNY & ASSOCIATES, (-~ONS U LTl NG ENGINEERS I/ rTACHMENT I I ENGINEERING EXHIBIT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF 360° CO1V[MUNICATIONS COMPANY IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATIONS SP-96-03 (HICKORY SITE) AND SP-96-04 (AVON SITE) ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA ENGINEERING STATEMENT INTRODUCTION Almx R. Rosner, being first duly sworn, says that he is a senior engineer with Denny & Associates, P.C., consulting engineers with offices in Washington, D.C.; that he is a professional engineer registered in the District of Columbia and other jurisdictions; that his qualifications are a ma~ter of record with the Federal Communications Commission; and that he is familiar with communications systems of the type described herein. This statement has been prepared for 360° Communications Company (hereinafter, 360° Communications), proponent for the construction of two new cellular base stations' facilities in Albemarle County, Virginia. These sites are referred ~o herein as the Hickory and Avon sites. This statement addresses the necessity of these sites for specific reasons of a scientific and engineenng nature.~ BACKGROUND Cellular telephones operate in the $69-to-894 megahertz portion of the ultra- high frequency (UHF) band. Communications in the UHF band principally occur over a line-of-sight path between the transmitter and receiver. Radio signals are transmitted from antennas located on 360° Communications's tower at relatively low ~ This analysis is based on specifications for the proposed and existing facilities provided to the undersigned by 360° Communications Company. DENNY & ASSOCIATES~ P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Engineering Statement Albemarle County, Virginia Page 2 power levels of 100 watts per channel. Mobile cellular telephones, which send signals from vehicles to the cellular site receivers, transmit with 3 wa~ts of power, and portable or hand-held phone units transmit with only 0.6 watt of power. Add-on antenna products which claim to increase the range of portable hand-held phones are not capable of increasing the phones output power to that of mobile units. Typical coverage areas for cellular base station facilities vary greatly but generally range from 2 to 10 miles. Two of the greatest factors affecting UYIF signal propagation are diffraction and foliage. Diffraction describes the redirection of radio waves caused by obstructions in the path between a transmitter and a receiver. These obstructions can be natural terrain features as well as man-made structures. Diffraction decreases or attenuates the strength of a signal. In extreme cases, attenuation due ta diffraction can reduce signal strength below a usable level. Foliage also attenuates UHF signal strength. In comparison to an unobstructed line-of-sight path which would present a predictable attenuation, mgnal attenuation at UHF frequencies due to foliage can be over 1.000 times greater than expected over an ideal path. Stated differently, UHF signal s~rength may be 1.000 times greater with an unobstructed line-oLsight signal path than it would be when the path is obstructed by heavy foliage. Diffraction and foliage losses present a particular challenge to reliable cellular transmismon because of the low transmitter power levels used in the cellular service. These UHF propagation limitations are not a factor for the comparatively low frequency (0.5-30 megahertz) transmissions of AM radio stations, which broadcast with power levels up to 50.000 watts, and high frequency (HF) amateur radio stations which operate at power levels up to ] 500 watts. For the reasons g~ven above_ UHF ~ransm~mg and receiving antennae should be mounted au minimum heights which are as far above ground level as DENNY ~ ASSOClATES~ P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS WAS H INGTO~ DC I~TTACHI~IENT'I~ I Engineering Statement Albemarle County, Virgima Page 3 necessary ~o achieve a hne-oLsight path. As a practical matter, the mobile or portable cellular telephone antenna height is limited ro a few feet, so the only variable left to adjust in achieving the desired line-of-sight path is the cellular base station antenna height. 360© Communications has specified overall antenna height to clear the existing tree line, allow for future vegetative growth, and to provide as much as possible a llne-of-sight path to the intended service area. To effectively design cellular systems, engineers utilize computer modehng techniques to estimate coverage. Propagation studies or scatter plots of the ~ype included in Figure 1 and Figures 3 through 6 of this exhibit, are one type of computer modeling used by cellular telephone companies and communications engineers ~o predict cellular telephone coverage. These studies are based on propagation models which take into account the most predominant factors relating to coverage for a particular site including location, terrain, climate and, to some degree, vegetation. The use of highly specialized propagation models is a common and accepted practice of engineers in the design of complex communications systems. The predictability and reliability of these propagation models are typically very high. Propagation. or the traveling of a ~vave through any medium, ts affected by so many factors that signal s~rength is expressed as a function of statistmaI probabilities. These probabilities are typically expressed relative to variances in the signal s~rength over time and location. General]y, the farther the location from the transmitter, the greater the degree of signal variance, and the less accurate the prediction. Since computer studies like those provided by 360° Communications canno~ accoun~ for all of the factors affecting propagation, they should be viewed only with the purpose they are intended: as an engineering guide for site selection and coverage determination. DENNY & ASSOCIATES~ P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS WASHINGTONs DC ATTACHIflENT I I Engineering Statement Albemarle County, Virginia Page 4 While propagation studies are extremely useful tools for predicting potential coverage, actual measurement data provide much more reliable information on where coverage needs to be improved and provide engineering validity ~o customer complaints about service. Since signal propagation is based on statistical probabilities. measurement data must account for these statistical factors. In a mobile environment, the dominant statistical factor is location and second to location is time. Proper field strength measurements are made with a calibrated system, often computerized, which enumerates the mean field strength of numerous locations over a short distance segment. [t ~s inadequate to go to a single location and make a measurement or demonstrate that a call can be placed since this fails to account for variations in time and location. Sometimes modifications to cellular systems are necessary ~o meet increased customer demand. Few options exist for a cellular provider needing to increase channel capacity. Generally the simplest option is to increase the number of channels a~ the cellular base station sites which serve the affected area to the maximum. However, cellular licensees only have a finite number of channels that they may use within their service area. In the instant case, the number is 38 voice channels. This corresponds ~o a maximum of 38 simultaneous telephone conversations at each site. To provide service over their entire licensed service area. given the limited number of channels, cellula;c providers must reuse frequencies. Careful spectrum planning and engineering insure that sites sharing the same frequencies or adjacent frequencies are separated by a sufficienl distance to prevent mutual interference. These engineering factors limit the maximum number of channels that can be used at each base station location The second option for increasing base station capacity is co cell spht or sectorize. Cell splitting is the division of a nondirectional site with a circular coverage DENNY ~ ASSOCIATES~ P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS WASHINGTON, DC ATTACHPIENT I 1 Engineering Statement Albemarle County, Virgima Page 5 area into several pie-shaped sectors using directional antennas. This permits a more efficient reuse of frequencies and allows tower locations to be separated by shorter distances. However, cell splitCmg only has limited benefits and often requires that many of the sites within the system be sectorized before these efficiencies can be ~ealized fully. The last means of increasing cellular system capacity is to implement an additional bruited coverage site in the affected area thereby fi'eeing up traffic at the overloaded sites. In most cases, all three of these options are implemented to provide the most reliable service and to meet customer demand. PROPOSED HICKORY SITE The proposed Hickory site is located on the west side of U.S. Route 29 at geographic coordinates 37° 59' 36.5" North Latitude. 78° 35' 18.9" West Longitude.2 The transmitting antennas will be mounted on a 150-foot monopole supporting structure to be erected at the site. Construction of the Hickory facility is necessitated by the lack of reliable coverage along U.S. Route 29. This is supported by the predicted coverage study of Figure 1 which shows predicted coverage from the existing 360° Communications's sites in the vicinity of the Hickory si~e. Further suppor~ is detailed in the depiction of measurement data in Figure 2 which validates the coverage prediction and customer complaints. Figure 3 depicts the predicted coverage for the 150-foot tower proposed for construction at the Hickory site. Use of a lower tower height at the Hickory site will have a detrimental impac~ on the ability of the site ~o improve coverage along Geographic coordinates are referenced to the 1983 North American Datum ~qAD83). DENNY ~ ASSOCIATES, PoC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS WASHINGTON~ DC I'ATTACHMENT I I Engineering Statement Albemarle County, Virginia Page 6 Route 29. This is depicted in the predicted coverage study of Figure 4 which estimates the coverage for a tower height of t00 feet above ground leveI (AGL). Furthermore,t reducing the proposed tower height at the Hickory site will very likely necessitate the need for additional towers along U.S. Route 29. PROPOSED AVON SITE The proposed Avon site is located to the west of State Route 20, at geographic coordinates 37° 59' 52.3" North Latitude, 78° 29' 52.9" West Longitude.~ The transmitting antennas will be mounted on a 80-foot monopole supporting structure to be erected at the site. Construction of the Avon site is necessitated by excessive cellular traffic demands on the 360° Communications system. The coverage issues described relative to the Hickory site are not germane to the proposed Avon service area. In contrast to the Hickory site. most of the Avon service area already has adequate signal strength. The problem in the v~cmity of the Avon site is the very high likelihood that a new or handed-offcall from another site will nor go through due to the unavailability of a voice channel to support the call. The Mobile Telephone Switching Office (MTSO), which controls the creation_ completion and switching of cellular traffic, bas the capability of monitoring the number of failed calls, commonly referred to as blocked calls. In the area of the proposed Avon site, 360° Communications has recorded the number of blocked calls to be as high as 20 percen[ above their maximum capacity. 360° Communications engineers their cellular system [o have a blocked call percentage lower than cwo percent. Geographic coordinates are referenced to the 1983 North American Datum 'NAD83). DENNY & ASSOCIATES~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS WASHINGTON, DC ATTACHf. tENT II Engineering Statement Albemarle County, Virginia Page 7 360° Communications has made every effort to increase capacity without adding sites. Of the options discussed earlier for increasing capacity, 360° Communications increased the number of channels at the Carters Mountain and downtown Charlottesville sites to 38. This is 360° Communications theoretical maximum before they begin to give and receive interference to other sites in their system. Secondly, 360° Communications has planned to secterize both the Carters Mountain site and the downtown Charlottesville site. Since sectorized facilities are typically closer together with smaller service areas, the proposed Avon site is also instrumental in 360° Communications's plans for secterizing the neighboring facilities~ This site at a tower height of 80 feet AGL is predicted to provide adequate coverage ~o flee up traffic at the overloaded downtown Charlottesville and Carters Mountain sites. While it is true that closer placement of cellular towers generally permits towers of reduced height, the height cannot be so low as to obstruct the antenna from the area of set,me. Reducing the height reduces the service area and the effectiveness of the new s]~e to absorb traffic from the adjacent, overloaded sites and only necessitating additional sites. Figure 5 is a study showing the predicted coverage achieved from the Avon site by employing the proposed tower height of 80 feet AGL. The study clearly shows that the Avon site will be able to absorb cellular traffic from parts of U,S. Interstate 64 and State Route 20. Figure 6 shows the predicted coverage with the tower height reduced below the tree line to 60 feet A©L_ Clearly, reducing the height to 60 feet negatively impacts the effectiveness along U.S. Interstate 64 and greatly limits the abiliw of the site to absorb cellular traffic from those areas. DENNY ~ ASSOCIATES~ P.C. CONSUI~TING ENgINEE~:S WASH INGTON~ DC IATTACHPIENT I 1' Engineering Statement Albemarle County, Virginia Page 8 STATE OF THE ART It is alt too often asserted that new technologies will soon make cellular telephones obsolete. Some of these technologies include Personal Communications Services (PCS). Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR), and satellite telephones. PCS and ESMR are similar to cellular in that they employ towers ~o provide service to their licensed coverage area. Satellite based systems generally propose to use numerous low earth orbit sate]lites (LEOS) to provide global coverage. AIl of the newly proposed satellite systems will employ dual mode phones. This means that the phones will first attempt ~o use a t~rrestrial based connection like cellular, PCS or ESMR before connecting ~o the satellite. Satellite based systems are extremely ambitious projects which have not been fully developed or deployed. The satellite based operation of these systems adds increased cost to the purchase and operation of a satelhte phone. In contrast, cellular is an existing mature system which currently is serving the public need and necessity at a reasonable cost. The U.S. Congress recently recognized this public service by assuring that one type of wireless service is not discriminated over another. Specifically, Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)~'I] of the recently passed Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that: mobile The regulation of the placement, cQnstruction_ and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local ¢overnmen~ or instrumentality thereof-- (I~ shall not unreasonably discriminate among ~ roviders of' functionally equivalent services: and (III shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. PCS facilities are being entirely built based on portable phones instead of There is a clear consumer preference for portable phones over mobile phones DENNY & ASSOCIATES, P.C. CONSULTING ENGINE ERS WASH I NgTON~ DC IATTACHMENT I J Engineering Statement Albemarle County, Virginia Page 9 in all of the wireless services. Therefore, declaring that mobile phones are sufficient for cellular systems would clearly impede celluiar's ability [o compete with new wireless services. CONCLUSIONS 360° Commu~fications is proposing ro improve the reliability and availability of cellular service along U.S. Route 29, U.S. Interstate 64 and State Route 20 in Albemarle County, Virginia. 360° Communications has used reasonable engineering judgment to select the proposed Hickory and Avon site locations and has proposed tower heights minimally necessary to achieve the stated objectives. Alan R. Rosner, P.E. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of May, 1996. Donna Holzwart Notary Public, District of Columbia My commission expires November 14, 1998 30.6 30.6.1 30.6.2 - I ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OYERLAY DISTRICT - EC (Added 10-3-90) INTENT The entrance corridor overlay district is intended 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; to ensure a quality of development compatible with these resources through architectural control of development; to stabilize and improve property values; 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; to support and stimulate complimentary development appropriate to the prominence afforded properties deemed to be of historic, architectural or cultural signifi- cance, all of the foregoing being deemed to advance and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the county and visitors thereto. APPLICATION The entrance corridor overlay district (hereafter referred to as EC) is created to conserve elements of the county's scenic beauty and to preserve and protect corridors: -Along arterial streets or highways (as designated pursuant to Title 33.1 of the Code, including section 33.1-41.1 of that title) found by the board of supervisors to be significant routes of tourist access to the county; or -To historic landmarks as established by the Virginia Landmarks Commission together with any other buildings or structures within the county having an important historic, architectural or cultural interest and any historic areas within the county as defined by section 15.1-430(b) of the Code of Virginia; or -To designated historic landmarks, buildings, structures or districts in any contiguous locality. EC overlay districts may be applied over any and/or other overlay district. EC overlay established~ (Added 11-14-90; Amended 9-9-92) basic zoning district districts are hereby To the full depth of all parcels of land in existence on the adoption date of section 30.6 of this ordinance which are contig- uous to the rights-of-way of the following EC streets in Albe- marle County; or -198.1- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92) I ATTACHHENT K I I'ATTACHMENT LI May 9, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Plannir~ & Community Developmem 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596- (804) 296-5823 Tremblay & Smith, LLP c/o M. E. Gibson, Jr P. O. Box 1585 Charlottesville, VA 22902 SP-96-04 Sprint Cellular (Avon Site) Tax Map 91, Parcel 1 Dear Mr. Gibson: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 7, 1996, unanimously recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this p, receive public comment at their meeting .on June 12, 1996. Any new or additional i regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervise seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. lfyou should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, hesitate to contact me. :tition and fformation at least do not Sincerely, William D. Fritz Senior Planner WDF/jcf CC: Ella Carey Jo Higgins Amelia McCulley SP-96-04 Sprint Celh r(Avon Site) - PetitiOn to allow a 1~'" 'oot tower and an · e~quipment building on',, portion of 9.536 acre parcel zoned ,,-'1, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 91, pamel 1, is located on the east side of Avon Street Extended (Rt. 742), north of Cale Elementary School, On property deve oped w th a water storage tank in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is within Urban Neighborhood 4 and is designated, for medium density residential use. Deferred from the March 26, 1996 Commission meeting. Mr. Fritz called attention to a change ~n the staff report. He explained: "This site is proposed for a 100-foot tower and the water tank is 47 feet in heig~ht. The tower doesn't meet the setbacks. We were recommending that it be moved to meet those setbacks. Based on additional information received from the Service Authority, if the tower is moved it may interfere with the future use of that site for future water tanks or lines or other Service Authority related activities. Therefore, based on that new information we can support the reduction in the setback with the standard condition that in the event of a tower collapse that it fall within the leased area. That is a substantial change from the prior position. (However), we are still recommending denial of the application, but if you choose to approve it we can recommend approval of the modification of the setback." Staff Was recommending denial of this request based on the finding that "the change in the character of the EC district and the impact on dwellings in the area outweigh the convenience provided by cellular telephones." Mr. Gibson, again representing the applicant, asked for a deferral of the item. Mr. Kamptner advised the Commission: "The rules of the Planning Commission provide that no matter may be deferred at the request of the applicant unless the request is received by the secretary no less than one week prior to the meeting at which the matter is scheduled to be heard. You can take an independent action, but the applicant's request is untimely at this point." Public comment was invited. None was offered. The matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle said she felt this request should also be denied until a comprehensive plan for tower sitings has been developed. Mr. Dotson noted a' difference ~n this site from the previous one is that this one is not in a mountain protection area. but there are many more existing residences near this location, including a school, In that respect the impact is potentially more significant and without a master plan there is no way of knowing if there is a way to avoid those adverse impacts. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that SP-96-04 for Spdnt Cellular (Avon Site) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial based on those reasons stated in the staff report as follows: 1. Approval of this rowe r will change the character of the EC district. 2. The visual impact created by the tower may be considered a detriment to existing dwellings in the area. IATTACHMENT H I -- I · Dominion Crane & Rigging, Inc. P.O. Box 7324 Charlottesville, VA 22906 March 21, 1996 William D. Fritz County of Albemarle Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: Sprint Cellular Antenna Dear Bill: In response ro your letter dated March 20, 1996, I would like to go on record as NOT being in favor of the proposed Sprint Cellular antenna. I am opposed because of its excessive height and objectionable appearance. Thank you for your consideration. Best Regards, W.K. Heisctunan, President Dominion Crane & Rigging, Inc. ATTACHPIENT M [ -- I,l.~y [) ~ 19% To: Albemarle Planning Commission a4~t9 From: Ida Simmons Re: Cellular Phone Towers I support the addition of cellular phone towers in all areas of Albemarle Coun .ry. As a newcomer who loves the rural setting, I hope we do not pave over our mountains and fields. But the occasional tower at the top ot'a mountain is hardly noticed~ From our house, we cannot see another house--which we love-and we can see about three towers, which we don't notice at all. I hope you ~vill support the additional of communications towers throughout the county. The increased communciations capabilities make our county sate. LAW OFFICES TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP P.O. Box ~5s5 CHARLOTTESVILLE, V1ROINIA 2290L1585 ~05-~09 EAST HIGH STREET TI~EPHONE (804) 977-4455 FACSIMILE ($04) 979-1221 RETIRED T. SMITH, JR. December 5, 1996 HAND-DELIVERED Ella W. Carey, Clerk Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: SP-96-04 Sprint Cellular (Avon) Dear Ms. Carey: Enclosed please find an amendment to Application Use Permit No. SP-96-04. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. if you have any questions. Best personal regards. MEG, Jr./rlw Enclosure xc: William B. Fritz Clifford I. Shaffer Very truly yours, M. ~.. GiBson, Albemarle County Service Authority James M. Bowling, IV, Esq. for Special Please call me The Albemarle County Service Authority and 360° Communications Company of Charlottesville (formerly Centel Cellular Company of Charlottesville) respectfully request that Application for Special Use Permit No. SP-96-04 be amended as follows in order to state the proper name of the applicant: Applicant: &lbemarle County Service Authority by 360° Communications Company of Charlottesville, d/b/a 360° Communications Company By: 360° COM/~UNICATIONS COMPANY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE (for~eyly Sprint Cellular Company) M. E. Gibson, Jr., Ager~t DaSd P. Bowennan Chaflo~e ~. Humphris Ex~-e~t R. Ma~hall, Jr. COUNTY OF ALB~! .~ Office of Board of Supmvi~om 401 Mclnfim Road Charlottesville, Vmg4nia 22902-4596 (804) 296-684,3 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Ri~anna Waiter E Perkins November 15, 1996 Albemarle County Service Authority Cotmty of Albemarle - Robert W. Tucker, Jr Dominion Crane Sc Rigging, Inc IGmco, L C Martim Arlin D Sc Janet Y Mill Creek Phase Two PUD Homeowners Shiffiett, Lila Life Estate RE: SP-96-04. Sprint Cellular (Avon) TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS ADDRESSED: This letter is to notify you as an adjacent property owner that the above-noted petition has been scheduled for a public hearing by the Board of Supervisors for December 11, 1996. The petition is described as follows: SP-96-04. Sprint Cellular (Avon site). To allow i00 ft tower Sc equipment building on portion of a 9.536 acre parcel zoned R- 1. Property located on E side of Avon St Extended (Rt 742) North of Cale Elementary School on property developed with water storage tank. TM91,PI. Scottsville District. The meeting will begin at 7:00 P.M., in Meeting Room #24I, Second Floor, County Office Building. If you should have any comments or questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. : Sincerely, Ella W. Carey, Clerk / / EWC:mms CC: V. Wayne Cilimberg Bill Fritz Larry Davis Centel Cellular Company of Charlottesville Printed on recycled paper ADJACENT OWNERS FOR SP96-04 SPRINT CELLULAR (AVON) BOS - DECEMBER 11 Albemarle County Service Authority County of Albemarle - Robert W. Tucker, Jr Dominion Crane & Rigging, Inc Kimco, L C Martin, Arlin D & Janet Y Mill Creek Phase Two PUD Homeowners Shiffierr, IZda Life Estate OWNER: Centel Cellular Company of Charlottesville c/o M E Gibson, Jr Tremblay &Smith, LLP P O Box 1585 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1585 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 November 7, 1996 Mr. M. E. Gibson, Jr. Tremblay & Smith, LLP P. O. Box 1585 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1585 RE: 360° Communications Company of Charlottesville - Avon Cell Site, SP-96-04 Dear Mr. Gibson: In response to your request faxed to me on November 6, 1996, I have talked with Ella Carey, - Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and she will be including the above referenced special use permit application on the Board's December 11, 1996 meeting agenda. Appropriate legal notice, public heanng sign placement and abutting property owner notification will be forthcoming. I must take issue with your statement that the County has not reciprocated in efforts to cooperate regarding the issue of telecommunication tower siting. While the Telecommunication Towers Task Force did not initially meet until September 27, 1996, County staff worked during the summer to draft a proposal for development of locational criteria for wireless communication towers which was provided to the Task Force for its September 27 meeting and was a basis for initial discussion by Task Fome members. At that meeting, it was agreed by Task Force members that the cellular companies would, by October 14, 1996, provide maps of the County showing where service needs to be improved upon. Staff would then assimilate that information together with physical opportunities available in those areas (existing towers, utility lines, public lands and structures, etc.) and present the information at a late October meeting (later scheduled for October 29, 1996). On October 14 United States Cellular provided the requested information to staf£ On that same date, you indicated in a letter to David Benish that you were "attaching to this letter a list of specific areas where cell sites are currently needed by 360 ° Communications." However, such an attachment was not provided. Mr. Benish contacted you regarding the omission mad you indicated information would be forthcoming. No such information was received by our staff until November 4, 1996. Because of the obviously competitive nature of the cellular business, staff felt it would be inappropriate to have the scheduled October 29 Task Force meeting if there was not a comparable level of information from all cellular companies. In essence, because we had not received the expected information from you or your client by October 29, staff canceled that meeting. I believe Mr. Benish communicated that to you. Furthermore, after checking with you personally on your schedule and availability, staffhas rescheduled the Task Force meeting for November 26, 1996. I am disappointed that you have portrayed the circumstances as you have. I hold grea~ expectations for the Telecommunication Towers Task Force in addressing both industry needs and public issues. I certainly hope that the Task Force's work can move along expediently, but it is only through open dialogue and timely exchange of information by all involved that such progress will be possible. I look forward to your client's continued active participation in the Task Force and, with their help and that of others, anticipate this process will move forward with cooperativeness and trust. Sincerely, cc: David Benish Ella Carey SP-96-04 File 11/06/96 '~ED 14:14 FA~ $04 979 1221 P.O. Box 1585 Charlottesville, Virglnia 22902 105-109 ~. High Street Telephone: (804) 977-4455; Facsimile: (804) 979-1221 SEND TO: Wayne Cilimberg, Albemarle County FAX= 972-4035 Cliff Shaffer, Chicago, IL FAX: 312-399-2437 Comments/Instructions: Client/Matter: Attorney Number: Date/Time: No. Pages: (includes cover) 360°/Avon~Albemarle MEG 11/6/96 3 The information contained in this facsimile message is attorney privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity n~med above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notifie~ that any dissemination, distribution or cepy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please {-mediatel~ notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via the U.S. Postal Service. Thank you. If there is any ~reblem during transmission, please call the telephone number shown above. 11;0~/§6 II'ED 14:1.5 F.&~. 81)4 95"9 lggl TRE-t'~BLAY & Sr~'ITH ~]o02 LAw OPHCE$ TREM~LAY & SMITH, LLP P.O. Box FACS~ILE [~) ~,lZ21 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION 972-4035 November 6, 1996 Hmm H, Pias~ Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Director, Planning & community Development · County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: 360" communications Company of Charlottesville (formerly centel Cellular Company of Charlottesville) Avon Cell Site, SP-96-04 Dear Wayne: My client, 360~ Communications Company Of Charlottesville (formerly Centel Cellular company of Charlottesville d/b/a 360° Communications Company), requests that this case be reactivated and placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda for the December 11, 1996 meeting. Please let me know if this is a problem, and if not, please confirm that it will be done. Please note the legal name of ~he applicant has been changed to 360" Communications Company of Charlottesville. I am aware of the efforts of the Telecommunications Towers Task Force; however, those efforts have been extremely slow and virtually no pro~rsss has been made. My client agreed at the May 7, 1996 Planning Commission meeting to cooperate with the County; however, that cooperation has not been reciprocated, six months have passed and we are no further along than we were in May. The Task Force met for the first time on September 27, 1996. A second meeting was scheduled for october 29, 1996, but it was canceled by Staff without asking the Task Force members if this was acceptable. The meeting has not yet been rescheduled despite my request that it be rescheduled promptly. My client simply cannot afford to suffer further delays and needs to move forward in the development of its business in a highly competitive environment. My client is seeking reactivation of the Avon project, and not the Hickory project at this time. The Avon project is not nearly as sensitive as the Hickory project. My client has reduced the ....... .~ r~ ~u4 ~79 1221 TRE)tBLAY TRElv[BLAY & S1ViITH, LLP Page 2 Cilimberg Nove~tber 6, 1996 tower height for the Avon project to 100'. The facility would be minimally visible in an area where there are already significant manmade structures and developments. My client want~ to continue to cooperate with the County and will continue to be an active participant in the Task Force efforts; however, given the demands of the public for wireless service, the demands on the company's existing facilities, the highly competitive nature of this business and the mandates of federal and state laws, 360" Communications simply cannot continue to wait indefinitely to process applications. Very truly yours, ME~/sp 'CC: clifford I. Shaffer JO14~ K, TAOOAP. T, I1! M. E. GmSON, JR. THOle. AS F.. ALBRO CHRISTINE THOMSON PATIllCIA D. MCGRAW LAW OFFICES TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP P.O. Box isss CHARLOri.eSVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-1585 ~05409 EAST HIGH STREET TELEPHONE (804) 977-4455 FACSIMILE (804~ 979-1221 VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION 972-4035 November 6, 1996 R. L~E LI%qNGSTON H~Vl H. P~R ~. OERALD TREMBLA¥ LLOYD T. SMITH, JR. Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Director, Planning & Community Development · County of Albemarle 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 RE: 360° Communications Company of Charlottesville (formerly Centel Cellular Company of Charlottesville) Avon Cell Site, SP-96-04 Dear Wayne: 'My client, 360° Communications .Company of .Charlottesville {fo~riy ~entell Cellularcompany'of.:Ch~rlottesville.d/b']a 360° Commu~icatlons Company), requests that thls case be r~activ~t'~d and placed on the Board of Supervisors agenda for the December 11, 1996 meeting. Please let me know if this is a problem, and if not, please confirm that it will be done. Please note the legal name of the applicant has been changed to 360° Communications Company of Charlottesville. I am aware of the efforts of the Telecommunications Towers Task Force; however~ those efforts have been extremely slow and virtually no progress has been made. My client agreed at the May 7, 1996 Planning Commission meeting to cooperate with the County; however, that cooperation has not been reciprocated. Six months have passed and we are no further along than we were in May. The Task Force met for the first time on September 27, 1996. A second meeting was scheduled for October 29, 1996, but it was canceled by Staff without asking the Task Force members if this was acceptable. The meeting has not yet been rescheduled despite my request that it be rescheduled promptly. My client simply cannot afford, to suffer further delays'and needs to move.forward in the develgpment.of.its business in a highly competitive environment. My client is seeking reactivation of the Avon project, and not the Hickory project at this time. The Avon project is not nearly as sensitive as the Hickory project. My client has reduced the TREMBL"AY & SMITH, LLP Page 2 Cilimberg Nove~lber 6, 1996 tower height for the Avon project to 100'. The facility would be minimally visible in an area where there are already significant manmade structures and developments. My client wants to continue to cooperate with the County and will continue to be an active participant in the Task Force efforts; however, given the demands of the public for wireless service, the demands on the company's existing facilities, the highly competitive nature of this business and the mandates of federal and state laws, 360° Communications simply cannot continue to wait indefinitely to process applications. Very truly yours, M. E. Gibson, Jr. MEG/sp 'CC: Clifford I. Shaffer 28\S\AIb\C~ [ ~mber. 135 F[ECEIVED NOV ~ 7 {996 Planning Dept, Dominion Crane & Rigging, Inc. P.O. Box 7324 Charlottesville, VA 22906 December 6. 1996 Ella W. Carey Cotmty of Albemarle Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902-4596 RE: SP-96-04 Sprint Cellular (Avon) Dear Ms. Carey: In response m your letter dated November 15. 1996, I would like to go on record as berg OPPOSED to the proposed Sprint Cellular anterma. [ am opposed due to the excessive height and objectionable appearance that the antenna would produce. rhank you for your consideration and meeting notification. Sincerely, W.K. Heischman. President Dom'talon Crane & Rigging, Inc. HISTORY OF LAND SALES & ASSESSMENT VALUES OF PROPERTIES WITH VIEWS OF TOWERS IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA The following list of properties are properties that were selected at random from Forest Lakes S/D, Ivy Farms S/D, Ashcroft S/D, and Shadwell S/D. These single family subdivisions were developed comiguous m or in close prox'maity to existing radio rower(s). All of the towers are over 200 feet AGL and have lights. In the Staff report for SP-82-75 (application for five AM radio towers on Rt. 29 north - Tax Map 46-14A & 15) dated January 4, 1983 under staff comment (1) states that "While the Real Estate Department believes that radio towers would affect property values in the area m a degree, it should be noted that high-value residential developements such as Ivy Farms, Ashcroft PRD, and Shadwell Mounta'm Estates have developed in prox'rmity to existing towers." As you compare the sales and assessments you will see that all properties recorded have made substantial gains in sales and assessment value. Below each tower or tower farm is indicated, followed by the S/D and selected properties. Each property either adjoins or can see the tower(s). Tax map 78-51C EXISTING 3WV TOWER Eure Communications Inc Clay Media, Inc. Evans Communications Systems 4-21-1988 I 1-21-78 1969 Tax Map 78A-3-36 Purchase Date 1990 t987 1987 1995 Assessment ASHCROFT S/D Consideration $ 213,000 188,300 30,000 51,000 179,000 $ 230,400 Land/Building Land Land Buitding Total Tax Map 78A-3-39 Purchase D~e 1994 1986 1985 1995 Assessment Consideration $247,800 156,000 152,900 54,700 189,200 $243,900. Land/Building Land Building Total Tax Map 78A-3-42 Purchase Date 1993 1991 1991 1986 1995 Assessment Con~deration $213,000 177,000 210,750 169,300 50,000 170.80q $220,800 House/Land Land Building Total Tax Map 78A-3-22 purchase Date 1986 1995 Assessment Consideration $150,518 52,000 183.800 $235,800 House/Land Land Building Total SHADWELL MOUNTAIN S/D Tax Map 78D-2 Purchase Date 1985 1995 Assessment Consideration $220,000 110,200 ~68.300 $278,500 House/Land Land Building Total Tax Map 78D~3 Purchase Date Consideration 1993 $305,000 House/Land 1988 288,000 1983 44,500 Land 1995 Assessment 110,400 Land 198A00 Building $308,500 Total Tax Map 78D-14 Purchase Date Consideration 1993 $560,000 House/Land 1982 75,000 Land 1995 Assessment 148,000 Land 425,300 Building $573,300 Tax Map 78D-15 Purchase Date Consideration 1985 $ 85,000 House/Land 1979 39,000 Land 1995 Assessment 117,770 Land 534,9.00 Building $652,600 Total Tax Map 44-34A EXISTING TOWER FARM (4) 245 FOOT TOWERS Charlottesville Broadcasting Corp. Purchase Date Consideration 1964 $ 20,000 IVY FARMS S/D Tax Map 44-115 Purchase Date 1985 1995 Assessment Tax Map 44-109 Purchase Date 1993 1986 1982 1978 1995 Assessment Tax Map 44-88 Purchase Date 1980 1979 1976 1995 Assessmem Tax Map 44-78 Purchase Date 1991 1985 1983 1977 1995 Assessment Consideration $ 42,350 Land 87,700 Land 277,700 Building $365,400 Total Consideration $265,000 House/Land 140,713 30,750 Land 22,500 Land 90,400 Land 180,400 Building $270,800 Total Con~derafion $163,500 House/Land 26,000 Land 18,700 Land 87,600 Land 455.900 Builffmg $543,500 Total Consideration $496,000 HousWland 230,000 40,000 Land 24,100 Land 92,300 Land 360,200 Builffmg $460,200 Total Tax Map 44-35 & 35A Commonwealth of Virginia-Virginia Board of Historic Resources (1990) Purchase Date Consideration 1957/1956 $ 62,622 House/Land 87,800 Land 319.600 Building 407,400 Total 1995 Assessment Tax Map 4-89 Purchase Date Consideration 1989 $359,000 House/Land 1986 249,500 1986 38,000 Land 1976 13,500 Land 1995 Assessment 81,200 Land 333A00 Building $414,300 Total tax map 46-15 EXISTING WCHV TOWERS (5) Eure Communications, Inc. 1983 FOREST LAKES SOUTH S/D Tax Map 46B6-A-2 Marie A. Westbrook Purchase Date 12/15/ Consideration $138,450 1995 Assessment 35,000 $100,600 $135,600 Land Building Total Tax Map 46B6-A-8 Larry Lngar Purchase Date 12/13/93 1995 Assessment Tax Map 46B6-A-62 Jonas Shecham Purchase Date 7/18/94 1995 Assessmem Tax Map 46B6-A-64 Charles Marshall Purchase Date 10/t4/94 1995 Assessment Tax Map 46B5-D-3 purchase Date 8/94 10/94 1995 Assessment Tax Map 46B5-G-11 purchase Date 3/96 7/96 Consideration $170,823 35,000 Land 134,50Q Building $169,600 Total Consideration $130,100 35,000 Land 100.100- Building $135,100 Total Consideration $185,350 35,000 Land 141.100_ Building $176 100 Total Consideration $ 32,000 Land only 182,950 Land/Building 35,000 Land 158.70(} Building $193,700 Total Consideration $ 50,600 Land only 190,000 Land/Building ALBEMARLE cOUNTY. OHARLOTTESVtLLE AND RIVANNA DISTRICTS SECTION 46 ALBEMARLE COUNTY RIVANNA DISTRICT SECTION 4684 ALBEMARLE COUNTY IVANNA DISTRICT SECTION 46B5 SECTION 46Br~ /NLBEMARLE GOUNT¥ .J iL~A ......... ,. wHITE HALL, JAGK JOUETT .: - _. .... '° '" AND GHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRIGTS SECTION 44 ALBEMARLE COUNTY .J SAMUEL MILLER, JACK JOUP.-.I F AND CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICTS -.SECTION 60 ALBEMARLE COUNTY CHARLOTTESVILLE, RIVANNA JACK JOUET-I' DISTRICTS SEGTtON 45 ALBEMARLE OOUNTY SGOTTSVILLE DISTRICT SECTIONT8 C ALBEMARLE COUNTY ! x® ® / / / RIVAN NA DISTRICT SECTION ALBEMARLE COUNTY I J / / / / / / / / / ASHCROFT SECTION 5 1020/476 RIVANNA DISTRICT SECTION 78A ALBEMARLE COUNTY ........... SCOTTSVILLE AND -- ..... ~_ 'r' RIVANN A DISTRICTS SECTION 78 360° Communications Company Aerial Photos of the Avon Site View of site looking south on Route 742 Note commercial uses of surrounding properties 360° Communications Company Aerial Photos of the Avon Site View of site from Millcreek Subdivision Note that site is behind water tank and trees View of site Iooldng west towards Millcreek Subdivision Note how trees line both sides of Route 742 719 H. h'atdic Road September 16, 1996 Mr. Kent Lusk 360 Communications 1746 Rio Hill Center Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. Lusk: Thank you for your cooperation and continued support to provide celluar telephones for our employees during the long period of service restoration following Hurricane Fran on September 6 thru September 12, 1996. With your commitment and dedication to ensure our needs were met, allowed more time for our employees to continue their work in restoring service to our customers. I greatly appreciate you and your staff going beyond the call of duty tor make sure our employees received great service during this time. Again, I thank you and your staff for a job well done. Sincerely, Jeff A. Hutchinson Regional Manager JAH/nfl American Red Cross September 26. 1996 360 Communications Mr. Mike Shiftier 1746 Rio Hill Center ©,~arlottesville. Va 22901 Dear Mr. Mike Shiftier: .Thank you for your generous contribution m the American Red Cross of cellular service. Your donation m the September 1996 Hurricane Fran Vir~nia relief effort was a magn/ficent expression of compassion and concern for the Commonwealth of Vir~.nia residents who were m umgically affected by this disaster. We appreciate your willingness to put your ca_ting and concern into action throu~ die Amehcan Red Cross. Plea_~e be assured that the support you have ~ven to t_he American Red Cross during the September !996 Hurricane Fran Vir~ma disaster relief operation has made a significant difference in the lives of thom whom we serve. The American Red Cross is a tax-exempt, nonprofit orga_dization as de~ribed in section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code of 1984, as amended. We will maintain adequate records, made available to the IRS upon request. For federal tax purposes, no goods or services were provided to you by the American Red Cross in conjunction ro you with your connSbution. We will acknowledge other douations separately. Please note thai the American Red Cross Tax Exempt !.D. # is 52-90-0039-S. We would like ro maintain contact and hope we can call on you in the event of future cl/sasrer opera, ohs. Sincerely, Lois Grady-Wesbacher Job Director Hurricane Fran D/R 1_96 Vir~nia STAFF PERSON~. PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MARY JOY SCALA DECEMBER 11, 1996 $P 96-48 TERRY DEAN'S DANCE STUDIO Applicant's Pronosal: The applicant proposes to establish a school of special instruction (ballroom dance studio), in the former Life of Georgia office building. (See applicant 'sproposal - Attachment 4J. Petition: Petition to establish a school of special instruction on approximately 0.525 acres zoned CO, Commercial Office. Property, described as Tax Map 61W, Section 1, Block B, Lot 2, is located on the west side of Commonwealth Drive at Westfield Road in the Rio Magisterial- District. This site is recommended for Commumty Service in Neighborhood One. ISee maps - Attachment B). Character 0fthe Area: The area is developed in office and residential uses. Single family detached dwellings (zoned R-4) are adjacent to the west. Townhouses (zoned R-6) are adjacent to the south. The Division of Motor Vehicles and other office buildings (zoned C-l) are located across Commonwealth Drive to the east. An office (zoned CO) is located across Westfield Road to the north. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. Plannin_e and Zoning History: None available, Comprehensive Plan: This site is designated for Community Service in Neighborhood One. The Open Space Plan recommends a buffer between the Community Service uses along Commonwealth Drive and the Neighborhood Density Residential uses to the west, A buffer of mature white pines ~ deciduous trees has been established in this area. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision o'f Section 31.2.4.1 oftheZoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to .issue all special use permits ~ermitted hereunder. S~ecial 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_. No alterations are planned to the exterior of the site. There are dwellings located west and south of the proposed dance studio. A buffer of mature white pines and deciduous trees has been established along th~se property lines. Four letters in support of the application have been received, including one letter from an adjacent owner on Minor Ridge Road. (See letters - Attachment C). There are two possible impacts of the proposed use which distinguish it from an office use, hours of operation (during which time cars will be entering and exiting the parking lot) and possible noise. Staff opinion is that neither impact is a concern. Proposed hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 1 p.m. to 10 p.m. and Saturday, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Between 1~6 p.m. weekdays, a maximum of four parking spaces would be needed. Between 6-9 p.m. weekdays, six spaces would be needed. After 9 p.m. weekdays, only three-four spaces would be needed. On Saturday, a maximum of eight-ten spaces would be needed. Special events requiring more parking have been held in Alumni Hall. Regarding a possible noise impact, the applicant states, "Our sound systems are the same types as one would have for home use. The sound level must be low enough to teach over. Therefore, the music would not be discemable outside of the facility." The Virginia Department of Transportation notes that there are currently two existing commercial entrances, and the proposed use is not a major impact. The Department of Building Code and Zoning Services notes that there is no specific parking schedule for this use; Zoning will have to approve the number of parking spaces based on a floor layout and class schedule. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Staff opinion is that the proposed use would be very similar in character to the adjacent office uses. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, relation to the environmem, and relation to Comi~rehensive Plan as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6, and has found this application to be in harmony with these sections. Specifically, this request facilitates the provision of school and recreational requirements within the Urban Area. with the uses nermitted by right in the district, This use is similar in character to an office use. with additional regulations nrovided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no supplementary regulations for schools of special instruction. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The proposed use may promote public health and welfare, and will not affect public safety. SUMMARY: Staffopinion is that this request is in compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. No negative impacts have been identified that are not addressed by operational characteristics or conditions of approval. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Hours of operation: 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 2. Zoning Administrator approval of parking prior to issuance of zoning clearance. ATTACHMENTS: A - Applicant's proposal B - Maps C- Letters A:~SP9648.RPT 3 Terry Dean's Dance Studio 3420 Seminole Trail ~ATTACHPI E NT A] flL-i~I~M~RLE COUNTY [~TTAC H~EN'I:' BI ........ ..... .tit ARLOTr£SVILLF.' -- SP-96-48 ~'eZ'z'y Dean,s Oance Studio ALBEMARLE COUNTY [.ATTACHMENT __ SP-96-&8 Terry Dean's Dance Studio '"-. -" v '" ~ GHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICT 2 3 "9 SECTION 6I-W I ATTACHMENT C I Jerry & Dianne Ratcliffe 400 Minor RidGe Road Charlottesville, Virginia Novem~r 11, 1996 Fir. David A. Tice Albemarle C~Dunty Planning Commission C/OAlbemarle County Planning Department 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virignia 22902 Reference: SP96-48-Terry Dean's Dance Studio Dear Hr. Tice: Hal Brownfield has explained that Terry Dean has applied for a special use permit for his dance studio. Our back yard connects with the proposed Dance Studio's back lob and we would be the neighbor most affected. We do not foresee any problems with this. Montebello Prope~rty and Investment Co. 235 Terrell Kd. We~t Charlottesville. Virginia 22901 i ATTACHMENT C I October 22_ 1996 Mr. William Nitchman, Chairman Albemarle County Planning Commission 401 Mclntire Rd. Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Special Use Permit Present Use-Life of Georgia Building 2363 Commonwealth Dr Charlottesville. Va. The purpose of this letter is to request that a special use permit be granted so that a ballroom dance studio may conduct business from this location, I have known the owner and operator of Terry Dean's Dance Studio for a number of years and have been a customer. They conduct a very classy ballroom dance studio. Noise will not be a t~tctor to persons inside or outside in the parking lot because when music is played verbal instructions are also being given simultaneously. Parking needs will not be excessive nor will there be requirements beyond the existing parking area. A vast amount of the time they have no more than one or two customers per session. When otherwiseL which would be the exception, only 10 cars: but certainly no more than the Life of Georgia would have for a sales meeting. Terry Dean's Dance Studio has a number of customers that are senior citizens, as I am. There business is actually instructing local citizens who want to learn ballroom/social dancing, waltzes, foxtrots, swing and latin dances Ballroom dancing ts regmning interest fi'om the public nationwide and Terry Dean's Studio is helping make that possible in the Albemarle County area [ am inchiding 2 pages of pictures from the recent issue ofU. S. Amateur Ballroom Dancer's Association Magazine. These pictures wilt give you some idea of what results from their instructions, [ ask that you approi~e this request for a special use permit so that they can continue to provide this service to local citizens in a nice environmem Thank ~ou Sincerely, Robert D. Brugh tATTACHMENT CJ Virginia Heritage Brass Fashion Square Mall 1566 East Rio Road Charlottesville VA 22901 804-973-7173 October 25, 1996 To whom it may concern.: I am writing this on behalf of Terry Dean's Dance Studio. I am a local small business owner in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. I have been a customer of Terry Dean's for the past 19 months here in the area. I know him and his associates to be very professional and of high regard as professional ballroom dance instructors, provid'mg high quality instructions to local clientele. I have participated as a private student and with group dance lesson, usually two or three times each week. All o£the activities that I have been involved with have been well structured, organized and conducted with competence, and have met or exceeded my expectations. I believe that continued business presence and growth of the Terrv Dean's Dance Studio would be a fine asset to this community. Frances-A. Huffinafi f~' To: hiembers, Board of Supervisors From: Ella Washfngton Carey, ChiC, Cj~ Sul~jett:Reading List for December I I, 1996 llate: December 6, 1996 O~ober 4, 1995 - pages 22 (Item ~ 12) - end - Mr. Bowerman November 13, 1996 - Mr. hia~in ~ DaSd P. Bowennan Charlotte ¥. Humphris Forrest R. Marshall. Jr COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-S843 FAX fsoaf 296-5800 December 10, 1996 Charles S. Martin Walter F. Perkins Sally H. Thomas Mr. Charlie Williams Assistant Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation Charlottesville Residency Office Post Office Box 2013 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Williams: As you know, the County Engineering Department is proposing an alternative plan for bridge #3 on Route 614. The Moormans River is both a State Scenic River and a County Scenic Stream, as designated in the County's Zoning Ordinance. The County is interested that an alternative is chosen that represents the best solution for the road and the river. Please support the County's alternative plan which was presented at your public hearing on December 4 in White Hall. Mr. David Hirschman from the Engineering Department will be submitting the plan to your agency under separate cover with a written justification. Please contact Mr. Hirschman at 296-5861 ff you have further questions about the plan. Thank you for your consideration of the plan and for providing opportunity for public comment. Sincerely, Charlotte Y. Humphris Chairman CYH\dh 96.027 Printed on recycled paper NORTH AMERICAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC. November 29, 1996 Mrs. Charlotte Humphris, Chairwoman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Charlottesville, Va. 22901 Dear Charlotte: The Wildlife Center of Virginia (WCV) and Wildlife Center of Virginia Foundation (WCVF) are the owners of parcel 85-~in the Samuel Miller District. This parcel of 182.4 acres was donated to the Shenandoah Wildlife Center (WCV's previous name) in 1984. The parcel was a residual area of Miran Forest and has no development rights. Under the terms of Miran Forest's subdivision approval, this residual parcel cannot be further subdivided and cannot be issued a building permit unless new approval is granted by the Planning Commission. The terms of the deed of gift conveying this property to the current owners are even more restrictive. The deed prohibits subdivision as well as other commercial and economic uses, including the cutting of timber. The property is solely used for charitable and educational purposes on a non-profit basis. The owners of the property are non-profit organizations and ask that the Board of Supervisors approve a resolution supporting tax exemption of this property. Suggested draft language for this resolution is enclosed. As a member of the WCV Board of Trustees, I have been asked to present this request to the Board of Supervisors. We ask if this matter can be brought before the board at the earliest opportunity. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, David A. Tice President IN TME COUNTY O~ ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA The __ day of November, I996. A RESOLUTION supporting Tax exemption of properuy in the County of Albemarie owned by T~E WILDLIFE CENTER OF VIRGINIA and THE WILDLIFE CENTER OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION, and used by it exclusively for charitable and educational purposes on m non- profit bas~s. WHeReAs, THE WILDLIFE CENTER O~ VIRGINIA and THE WILDLIFE CENTER OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION, ~hereinafter "the Applicants") have petitioned this Board for supporu of a bill 5o he introduced at ~hs 1997 Session of the General Session to exemDE certain p~oDer~y of the Applicants from taxation pursuant ~o Artic~ X, Section 6Iai /6) of the Constitution of VirGin~a; WHEREAS, a public hearing a~ which all citizens had an opportunity 5o be heard with respecE ~o the ApplicantS' petition was held by the Board on Novmmber __, 1996: WHEREAS, the provisions of subsection B of Section 30-19.04, Code of Virginia (1950}, as amended, have been examined and considered by the Board; WHEREAS, the A.opl£oants agree that th~ pro~erEy to be exempt from taxation is the personal property of Che Applicants and the buildinqs an~ as much land as ~s reasonably necessary to the use of its b~ildings, providing such personal and real property shall be used bv the Applicants excl~sively for charitab!a and educational purposes on a non-profit basis; TME~EFORE, BE iT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of th CoUnty of 3~tbemarle, Virginia as follows: _. The Board supports a bill to bs introduced aT th~ 1997 Session of ~he General A~smmbi¥ whereby The Wildlife Cen~ar of Virginia and The Wildlife Center of Virginia Foundation, non- profit organizations, seek to De classified and designated as charitable and educational organisations within the context of Section 6(a) (6) of 3%rticle X of ~he Constitution of Virginia, and whereby property owned by the Applicants, which is used by it exclusively for charitable and ~ducationat purposes on a non- profit basis, shall be exempt from State and local taxation. 2. In adopting this Resolution, the Board has examined and considered the provisions of Subsection B of Section Code of Virginia {1950), as amended, and pursuant ~o Subsection C of the sa~e sectlon, Board recognizes that the Applicants own real property currently assessed at $145,900, representin~ a real property nax liability of $1,050~45 for the 1996 nax year, and Board tacoma%ends to the General A~se/nbty t.hat the specific classification shall be charitable and educational. 3. This Resolution shall b~ in full. force and effect at such ~zme as a copy, duly signed'by'an authorized officer of the A~icant, has been filed with the County Clerk, ATTEST: Clerk ACCEPTED,:AGREED TO and EXECUTED by THE WILDLIFE CENTER OF VIRGINIA and THE WILDLIFE C~NTER OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION, This th day cf November. 1996. tHE WILDLIFE G~NTER OF VIRGINIA THE WILDLIFE CENTER OF VIRGINIA FOUNDATION By :, ( SEAL Title ~' ' '~ ~. DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE ' ' ~ ~, ~, 401 MCiNTiRE ROAD, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902-'~.-~596  NOTICE OF REAL ESTATE TAXES DUE 90~90000BO4gOg1~O~9~O~000525249 MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE T PARCEL: OWNE~ 01101/ ~9~ SHENANDOAH COUNTY' OF ALBEMARL SHENANDOAH WILDLIFE C£NT~R MAYNESBOR~ VA AMOUNT 22940 t4t4 DUE I~AY BY DECEMBER 05, 1996 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ~g96 REAL ESTATE TAX RATE ~0-72 PER $100 (804) 296-585 ~ARCEL O,~SOO-O0-O0-04000 OWNER01/01/tfl~ ~ENA~0AH ACREAGE I~.400 LAND VALUE ~qS~900 LEGAL1 BUILDING VALUE, 0 jLEGAL 2 ~ND USE DEFERRAL O-O0 DISTRICT ~A~O~L M~LLE~ EXEMPTION O-OO MORTGAGE BILL NUMBER BILL OE~RIP'i'JON .v.o~m-~ AS,SE.~s~MENT TOTAL $25.2 PAID BY D£EEMBER 05~ 1996 Ck# . 'Date .... AC~# - ' .... 'SPECIALtNSTROCTIONS THIS ~S THE END H~LF If196;TA¥ B~LL FOR YOUR REAL YOUR t~T ~ALF BILL ~A$ DU~ JUN~ O~ 1996o TH~S BILL ~NC[UDE~ AIL K~Offff'REAL £~TATE TAX