The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000-10-11 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of October 11, 2000 October 13, 2000 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT 1. Call to order. 4. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. · Deborah Murray presented a report, prepared for the Southem Environmental Law Center, on the proposed Route 29 widening and ~parallel frontage roads. 5.1 SP-2000-43. Rodgers Residence. None. · REFERRED back to the Planning Commission for proper public hearing. (Note: This item has been rescheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on November 14 and the Board on December 13, 2000.) 5.2 Appropriation: Education, $8,542.40 (Form fr20016). · APPROVED 5.3 Authorize County Executive to execute Service Agreement with Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department, Inc, · APPROVED 5.4 Proclamation recognizing October 2[)00, as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. · APPROVED 6. Ordinance to amend Cha;}ter 15, Taxation, by addin_q Article XV, Short-Term Rental Tax. · ADOPTED Ordinance. 7. Ordinance to amend Chapter 8, Licenses, by amendin.el Article VI, Schedule of Taxes. · ADOPTED Ordinance. E~. SP-00-40. Blue Rid.qe E<luine Partners (Si.qn #96). · APPROVED subject to the one condition recommended by the Planning Commission. 9. SP-00-046. Winston {Triton PCS CVR 363C) (Si.~n #80). · APPROVED subject to 11 conditions recommended by Planning Commission. 10. ZMA-00-06. Greenbrier Office Park (SiQn #38). None · APPROVE D as proffered, signed by the applicant, and dated October 2, 2000. 11. CPA-00-01. Wireless Desi,cln Manual. · ACCEPTED the Manual. Directed staff to incorporate the changes recommended by staff and the changes discussed at the Board meeting, and bring beck to the Board on November 1. · 2. Financial Advisors Report (continued discussion from Oct 4.) None. · APPROVED all "Proposed Policy Guideline Modir~,ations" for the County's fiscal management policy, and approved Case I as the directive for basing the Capital Improvements Program for the next ten years. · 3. Cancel Board of Supervisors Meeting of November 15, 2000. None. · CANCELLED the Board meeting. -5. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Meeting was called to Order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman. All BOS members present. Ella Carey, Clerk. Clerk: Acknowledge comments for Chairman's signature. Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and copy appropriate persons. County Attomey's offK~e: Forward original to Finance and copies to Fire/Rescue and Board office after County Executive's signature. Clerk: Forward to Pat Craver of the Shelter for Help in Emergency. Clerk: Forward to County Attomey's office to include in next update of County Cede, and copy Finance. (Attachment A) Clerk: Forward to County Attorney's office to include in next update of County Code, and copy Finance. (Attachment B) Clerk: Forward condition to Planning Department. (Attachment C) Clerk: Forward conditions to Planning Department (Attachment C) Planning staff: Bdng back changes on November 1. · There were none: 1 16. Adjourn. Meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. Attachment A - Adopted Ordinance to amend Chapter 15 Attachment B - Adopted Ordinance to amend Chapter 8 Attachment C - Conditions of Approval ATTACHMENT C Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2000-40. Blue RidQe EQuine Partners (SiQn #96). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to amend a SUP to allow construct of new hospital bern for animal hospital. Znd PUD. TM30, P110. Contains 3.9 acs. Loc on Mockemut Ln at intersec w/Buck Mountain Rd. White Hall Dist. APPROVED subject to the following condition recommended by the Planning Commission: The clinic shall be for equine care only and shall be operated in accordance with the plan described in the applicant's description (attached to the staff report for SP-00-040 as Attachment D), and the information contained in the letter dated July 23, 1997 (sent to homeowners and attached to the staff report as Attachment E), with the addition of the operation of the isolation bern described in the application for this permit. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2000-46. Winston (Triton PCS CVR 363C) (SiQn PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow communication fadlity ind a 92' wood pole tower w/flush mounted antennas & ground equipment on 125' x 125' lease area on 18.18 ac parcel. Znd RA. TM106, P7. Loc on N side of Thomas Jefferson Pkway (Rt 53) approx 2,000' from Fluvanna County line. Scottsville Dist. APPROVED subject to the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission: The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall not ever exceed seven (7) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-f'n/e (25) feet of the fadlity at or below the same base elevation as the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding red, shall be located above the top of the pole; The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The woeden pole shall be natural dark brown color; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; d. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the plan entitled "Snow Hill-Winston Property'; e. A grounding rod, not exceeding two (2) feat above the top of the pole, and with a width not to exceed one (1) inch diameter at the bese and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole; f. Pdor to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one (1); g. Within one (1) month after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured beth in feat above ground and also measured Above Sea Level (ASL); and h. The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in condition number one (1) of these conditions of approval, without pdor approval of an amendment to this special use permit; The fadlity shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Snow Hill-Winston Property"; Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled "Snow Hill- Winston Property"; and b. Satellite and microwave dishes are prohibited; Pdor to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan developed by a certified arbodst, specifying tree protection methods and procedures, and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site, both inside and outside the access easement and lease area, shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment building, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200) foot buffer, after the installation of the subject fadlity; The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one (1) time per year, no later than July I of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height of the pole is in compliance with condition number one (1); No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the Iowast part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a luminary is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply; 10. The permittee shall comply with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted; and 11. Pdor to issuance of a building permit for this facility, the applicant shall submit a revised set of construction plans to the Planning Department, for approval. The revised plans shall reflect all of the conditions of the special use permit. SoLltherI1 Environmental Law Center 11 October 2000 201 West Main Street, Suite 14 Charlottesville, VA 22902-5065 804-977-4090 Fax 804-977-1483 selcva@selcva .org Charles S. Martin, Chair Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 200 Pineridge Lane Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Martin: As you are aware, the Virginia Department of Transportation has proposed widening U.S. Route 29 in Atbemarle County from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport Road. As a part of this project, VDOT has also proposed constructing parallel access roads on both theeastern and western sides of Route 29 slated for widening. These projects will have a tremendous impact on both growth and traffic patterns in this part of the County. In light of the importance of. these projects to the County's future, we hired Walter Kulash, a nationally recognized transportation engineer, and his firm of Glatting Jackson to review VDOT's proposal. We have enclosed a copy of Mr. Kuiash's report, entitled "Proposed Route 29 Widening And Parallel Frontage Roads: A Review Of Need And Design." Some of the key findings of the report are as follows: 1. The proposed widening of Rt.. 29 north of the South Fork of the Rivanna River is not needed now or in the immediate future, according to VDOT's own projections. In facts. widening Rt. 29 would. increase traffic volumes by promoting a type and intensity of development in the Rt. 29 corridor that cannot be handled by Rt. 29 alone and that would run counter to the .-~ County's emerging vision for that corridor and the DISC Neighborhood Model. In fact, a well-designed system of parallel access roads - coupled with sensible land use policies - could effectively handle traffic along this portion of Rt. 29 through 2020 and beyond without widening the road. However, the proposed parallel frontage roads, as currently planned, would not meet this objective. 2. The proposed parallel access roads need to be reconfigured. West of Route 29, two smaller and better .placed roads should be designed closer in to Route 29 instead of the road VDOT proposes, which would likely spur additional sprawl. Carolinas. Office: 200 West Franklin St., Suite 330 · Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2520 * 919~967-1450 Deep South Office: The Candler Building · 127 Peachtree St., Suite 605 · Atlanta, GA 30303~1800 · 404-521-9900 100% recycled paper The consultant's recommendations include establishing a full and properly placed supporting street network, including both collector and local streets. Such a network could significantly reduce the need for travel on arterial highways such as Rt. 29 and greatly affect the perceived need for widening of 'such facilities.' 3. Planning for the eastern parallel road should be significantly revised, both in terms of the location and design of the proposed road. Alignment alternatives should be considered that ~would minimize property takings and follow a more context-sensitive design process to address neighborhood concerns. 4. Finally, any analysis of the options for Rt. 29 and its related road network should acknowledge that future land use will vary dramatically according to~the road options provided, rather than remain static, as VDOT has improperly assumed. The County should insist on an interactive land use-transportation forecasting model process, rather than the simplistic "one size fits all,' assumption that exactly the same land use will occur regardless of what roads are built, not built, widened, or not widened. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the findings of this report With you in more.detail, and we look forward to working with you on these critical issues. Sincerely yours, Trip Pollard Senior Attorney Land and Community Project Leader Deborah M, Mu Senior Attorney Bruce ~l~pleya'~r~d/~ Transportation and Land Use Planner DMM/cs Enclosure cc: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Alb~marle County Planning Commission Members 2 PROPOSED ROUTE 29 WIDENING AND PARALLEL FRONTAGE ROADS: A REVIEW OF NEED AND DESIGN Prepared for Southern Environmental Law Center Prepared by Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. October 9, 2000 Proposed Route 29 Widening and Parallel Frontage Roads: A Review of Need and Design The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has proposed widening US Rome 29 noah of the City of Charlottesville from .the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport/Proffit Road. As part of this project, VDOT has also proposed constructing roads on both the east and the west sides of Route 29 along portions of the highway to be widened.. Although often referred to as frontage roads, they should more accurately be described as "parallel access roads," since they are not immediately adjacent to the frontage of Route 29. Glatting Jackson has evaluated these proposals in the context of Albemarle County's comprehensive land use plan, VDOT traffic projections, and other pr. oposed transportation improvements in the area. Based on the above information, we conclude: Widening of Rome 29 noah of the South Fork of the Rivanna River (SFRR) will increase traffic volumes, by promoting a type and intensity Of development in the Route 29 corridor that cannot be handled by Route 29 alone. This, in ram, would most likely increase the pressure for construction of the proposed Route 29 Bypass. The widening of Rome 29 does not appear to be needed if the Bypass were not constructed, since a large amount of through traffic (traffic with neither origin nor destination in the Charlottesville area) would remain on other corridors, such as Interstate 81, rather than be attracted to a widened Rome 29. A well-designed system of parallel access roads bould effectively relieve congestion on Rome 29 without the need to widen Route 29. However, the new parallel roads as currently planned would not fulfill this objective. We offer the following recommendations relating to the widening of Route 29, the further study of this issue, and the development of parallel roads in the Route 29 corridor: Defer the Widening of Route 29. The widening is not needed now or in the immediate future, according to VDOT's own projections. Even in the longer-range future (Year 2020), the land use called for in the County's Comprehensive Plan, and the DISC Neighborhood Model, a network of local streets and careful design and location of parallel frontage roads could substitute for the widening of Route 29. Recon~gure the Western Parallel (Frontage) Road. Rather than a single large western frontage road, design two smaller and better-placed roads, to reduce the likelihood of sprawl and to be consistent with the County's emerging vision for the area. Terminate, at least for the present, such roads at Hollymead Road (west extension). These actions will Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. October 9, 2000 Page 2 help prevent the proposed western fromage road from inducing the type of linear sprawl that would run counter to the more compact development that the County is considering. Advance the Detailed Planning for a Complete Supporting Street Grid in the Hollymead Area. Establish a well-connected collector and local street network for the Hollymead area. Connect this system to the new parallel roads being planned to the west of Route 29. Assure that the new local and collector street network is well connected to and across Route 29, thereby minimizing the amount of travel on Route 29. Revise the Planning for the Eastern Parallel Road. Revisit the location and design of this proposed road, with guidance from an interactive community design process. Consider alignment alternatives that minimize property takings and that promote partnership opportunities in which the road' s development can complement other public and private initiatives. Comprehensively Analyze the Options for Route 29 and Its Related Road Network. Fully and fairly test the reasonable options for assuring mobility while sustaining a livable community along Route 29. Acknowledge, in the testing process, that future land use will vary dramatically according to the road options provided, rather than remaining static regardless of what road options are present. Therefore, test land use and development options that reflect the realities of the future road network. When examining the impact of projected traffic volumes, use the most detailed and state-of-the- art techniques. I. Background A. Transportation Route 29 is the major north-south transportation corridor in the State of Virginia between 1-81 and 1-95. In addition, this highway is an important gateway to Albemarle County, and serves as the County's main commercial corridor. It serves the Piney Mountain and Hollymead designated growth areas, as well as Charlottesville and the many neighborhoods surrounding the City. : Rome 29 serves two types of vehicular trips: the "through" trip, with neither origin nor destination in the Charlottesville area; and the "local" trip, made up primarily of residents of areas such as Hollymead who use Route 29 as their primary travel corridor for work commutes and to obtain daily goods and services from the businesses located along Route 29. Both of these trip types are important, and Route 29 should continue to serve both. The local travel component (which, according to the 1993 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Route 29 Corridor, comprises approximately 80% percent of the traffic in the corridor) will be much better served by a ~ner-grained network of smaller streets than being forced onto a single travel corridor. Currently, all trips made from the Hollymead area to businesses along the Rome 29 corridor must use some portion of Route 29. Additional local Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. October 9, 2000 Page 2 connections would handle many of these trips; while allowing Route 29 to maintain its integrity as a longer-distance travel facility. This approach would more adequately address Albemarle County' s goals of improving connectivity in this area of the County. For example, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors recently submitted a statement to the Commonwealth Transportation Board at a pre- allocation hearing on the state's draft Six Year 'Transportation Plan that reflected the County's desire to address these problems. The portion of the statement pertaining to the proposed widening and access roads along Route 29 called for any such roads to be "...accompanied by a walkable and bikeable transportation network that comprehensively links all elements of the Hollymead community." B. Land Use Albemarle County's rolling hills, mountain vistas, and agricultural activities have created an exquisite rural landscape that has received national recognition and helped to make the County such an attractive place to live, work and visit. The County has taken a number of steps to try to protect these resources from the sprawling growth that has already impacted much of the Route 29 corridor and threatens the quality of life throughout the County. Among other things, the County has designated eleven Development Areas to accommodate future growth. The remaining areas of the County are intended to remain rural in character. Most recently, the Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee (DISC) has worked to develop recommendations to increase the effectiveness of this approach. The initial phase of DISC is now complete, and the Committee has recommended design principles for development in designated development areas that include encouraging such development to be more compact and more pedestrian- oriented. As development pressure increases in the Hollymead area, Albemarle County is taking the necessary step to guide development by considering an update to its land use plan that embodies DISC principles. A proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would designate a significant portion of the Hollymead growth area to be developed as a "Town Center" with, among other: things, an appropriately scaled multi-modal transportation network that eomprehensively links all elements of the Hollymead community. There are a number of other steps that will still need to be taken, however, to implement the principles and vision of DISC. 'II. VDOT's Proposal for the Route 29 Corridor from the South Fork of the Rivanna River to Airport/Profit Road A. Route 29 Widening VDOT is proposing to widen this portion of Route 29 from a four-lane to a six-lane facility. VDOT proposes to grade slopes adjacent to the proposed roadway to meet modern engineering slope standards of 6: 1. The new lanes and the re-grading of slopes would remove large amounts of the existing vegetation, and result in an appearance similar to the segment of US29 to the Glatting Jackson Kereher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. October 9, 2000 Page 3 south of the South Fork of the Rivanna River. Theright-of-way indicated on the draft plans for the Route 29 corridor would currently range between 200 and 300 feet. B. Frontage Roads Two frontage roads, east and west of Route 29, are being proposed as a part of the improvement plan for this highway. The eastem frontage road is broken into two parts: one between Ashwood Road and Hollymead Boulevard, and the other between Hollymead Memorial Gardens and Timberwood Boulevard. The proposed two-lane eastern frontage road is estimated to require between 120-140 feet of right-of-way as shown in Figure 1. The western frontage road is proposed to extend from just north of Ashwood Road to Airport Road. The southern end of the western frontage road would terminate at the land use boundary between the Hollymead Commtmity Development Area and designated rural areas west of Route 29. The southern terminus of the western frontage road would be approximately one-half mile north of the proposed Route 29 Bypass. The northem limit of the westem frontage road would terminate at Airport Road in close proximity to the planned access road to the new research park of the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation (UREF). The proposed westem frontage road plans indicate the need for 100-140 feet of right-of-way. VDOT's plans call for only two lanes initially, but the plans would accommodate an ultimate expansion to four lanes, also shown in Figure 1. III. Evaluation of VDOT's Proposed Project A. Need for Project is Questionable According to VDOT's own analysis, the proposed widening of Route 29 is not needed at the present time, nor within the next 10 years. Over the longer run (20 years) the project still may not be needed if the Bypass is not built. Moreover, the need for the Bypass itself may be a byproduct of the widening of Route 29 and it (Bypass) may not be needed if Route 29 is not widened. Moderate success with the "smart growth" measures called for in the County's Comprehensive Plan and the DISC Neighborhood Model could also eliminate the need for the Route 29 widening project in the longer run. 1. Route 29 Widening is Not Needed Now Table 2 of the June, 2000 Draft Environmental Assessment for the Route 29 Widening and Frontage Road Study (hereinafier the Route 29 Draft EA), reports an "existing" (Year 2000) peak,hour traffic Level of Service (LOS) "'B" on the existing four-lane Route 29 between the South Fork of the Rivanna River and Airport Road. LOS "B" is free flowing, and is well above levels generally considered appropriate for arterial highways in suburban areas. Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. October 9, 2000 Page 4 2. Route 29 Widening is Not Needed for at Least Ten More Years The June, 2000 Route 29 Draft EA (Table 2) also reports that the existing four-lane Route 29 will continue to operate at a satisfactory level of service (LOS "C") for at least ten more years, until the Year 2010. The Draft EA shows that the most heavily traveled segment (Hollymead North to Timberwood Boulevard) will transition from LOS "C" to LOS "D" in the. Year 2010. The other three links will make this transition in the Years 2012, 2013 and 2014. '3. The Route 29 Widening May Not Be Needed in the Longer Run (20 Years and Beyond) VDOT's analysis in the June 2000, Route 29 Draft EA assumes the same land use activity in the corridor Whether or not Route 29 is widened. This is fallacious, as experience has already shown; in fact, future land use will vary dramatically according to the road options provided, rather than remain static as VDOT's analysis assumes. If it is acknowledged that future land use will vary depending on the road option chosen, a different picture will emerge: we would see a different, and lower, level of land use activity in the corridor with a four-lane rather than a widened Rome 29. In turn, this would result in lower future traffic volumes than those projected in the June 2000 Route 29 Draft EA, such that widening may not be necessary even by the Year 2020. 4. The Widening of Route 29 May Itself be a By-Product of the Bypass Additional traffic attracted to Rome 29 by a Route 29 Bypass around Charlottesville is a major factor in the stated "need" for the widening of Route 29. This increase in travel caused by the Bypass would be from "through" trips passing through on longer distance interregional travel within the state, as a result, for example, of travel diverted from other corridors (such as Interstate 81 ). Recent VDOT data indicate that the proposed Rome 29 Bypass is a major factor driving the perceived "need" to widen Rome 29. The 1996 US Route 29 Corridor Development Study, Phase 1, Technical Report 7, projects that, with the Bypass in place, there will be a growth in : through trips of around 25,000 daily trips over the 20-year period 2000-2020. This increase in through trips represents a sharp upward departure from that reported in the 1993 EIS. The projected increase (25,000 daily trips) is in fact greater than the ENTIRE current volume of through trips as reported in the 1996 study referred to above. This translates to a corresponding rate of growth in through trips over the next 20 years of around 5 percent annually, well over twice the rate (1.5'- 2.0 percent)typically observed for through travel. Likewise, the June 2000 Route 29 Draft EA projects a similar increase in through trips over that predicted in the 1993 EIS. This increment of future traffic could easily spell the difference between an acceptable level of service (LOS "B" or "C") and an unacceptable one (LOS "D" or worse). Therefore, the presence or absence of the Bypass directly affects the need to widen Route 29. Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. October 9, 2000 Page 5 B. The Route 29 Widening Project Will Accelerate the Need for the Bypass Conversely, the proposed Route 29 widening project and the construction of frontage roads, as currently designed, are' likely to increase the pressure to construct the proposed Route 29 Bypass in Charlottesville because of the following: 1. More travel in the Route 29 corridor. There is already dramatic proof of the land development impact from the previous widening of Route 29. The segment of Route 29 that has already been widened (i.e., to the south of the South Fork of the Rivanna River) has become the armature for a disproportionate share of all commercial growth in the Charlottesville region. Not only new growth has been attracted to the widened Route 29 corridor, but also a substantial element ofrelocated activity has occurred. Further, the pattern of travel generated by current growth along Route 29 has consumed a large amount of road capacity for each unit of development. In general, new commercial development along Route 29 has access only to Route 29. Therefore, all trips to and from these destinations require not only the use of Route 29 for their travel, but, even worse from a traffic engineering point ofv!ew, they require that turning movements be made to/from Route 29. Because of the absence of any urban or town environment, where one vehicle trip serves multiple final destinations, the development along Route 29 is locked into a pattern in which a pair of vehicle trips is needed for every visit to the commercial destinations. Further, the scale of the retail destinations ("big box" retailing frequently in excess of 130,000 square feet) is highly consumptive of travel, all of which must use Route 29. "Big box" retailing which seeks to concentrate sales into a single establishment typically supplants a pattern of retailing with more and smaller destinations. The vehicle miles of travel generated is always less at smaller scattered sites than for large, concentrated "big boxes." There is no reason to believe that the pattem of development along a widened Route 29 to the north of the South Fork of the Rivanna River will be any different than the existing pattem as seen to the south of the river. The conditions that foster this kind of growth -- the size of road, i~s prevailing speed of traffic, the volume of traffic moved, the area's master plan, subdivision regulations and site plan regulations - are comparable or even identical for the areas to the south and to the north of the South Fork of the Rivanna River. With the widening of the road, a continuation of the commercial pattern now seen to the south of the river would seem to be almost inevitable. 2. Slower through travel. While a widening of Route 29 north of the South Fork of the Rivanna River could be expected to maintain rural travel speeds (typically, posted speed of 55 m.p.h.) for a short period, the likely big box or strip development, with its need for signalization, turning movements, etc., would soon reduce travel speeds to the suburban arterial level, approximately 40-45 miles per hour. A period of free-flow rural conditions followed by a Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. OCtober 9, 2000 Page 6 decrease in speed to suburban conditions is likely to foster the erroneous impression that the widening "failed" to correct a travel deficiency. 3. The western parallel (''frontage") road, an integral feature of the proposed widening of US29 is highly supportive of a Route 29 Bypass. The proximity and design of the western frontage road would accommodate an off-ramp or at the very least a high speed road between the bypass, the airport and the North Fork Research Park. C. Impacts of the Frontage Roads Parallel access roads could effectively relieve congestion on Route 29 since a network of roads will allow some of the local traffic currently funneled onto Route 29 to use alternative routes. Many of the commercial destinations (existing and future) along Route 29 serve primarily local needs; i.e., they are serving a market area of around 3-5 miles. Much of the travel from these market areas could reach their destinations along Route 29 but without traveling on Route 29, if a network of parallel and connector roads were present. In order to do this, however, the roads need to be 1) part of a transportation strategy that supports multiple travel routes and adequately links significant land uses in the area, and 2) part of a land use strategy, coordinated with the transportation network, that places complementary land uses (office, residences and retail) in proximity to one another, so that a single automobile trip provides access to multiple destinations. The proposed parallel frontage road, however, does not meet either of these conditions. It is located approximately 1,200 feet west of Route 29. This distance (1,200 feet) is several times ' greater than the 250-300 feet recommended, by numerous sources, as a desirable size of block for traditional town development. Thus, the proposed front.age road location would lead to "block" depths nearly four to five times larger than are viably walkable or bikeable. This size block pattem is more compatible for large, big box development, which runs counter to the traditional design principles for a functioning town center, as envisioned by the pending Hollymead Town Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposal and DISC design principles. An equal concem in the Hollymead Town Center is a lack of east-west connections across Route 29 for: both vehicles and pedestrians. The lack of connectivity in the proposed street network limits the frontage road' s role as an alternative to Route 29. The right-of-way proposed for the westem froutage road exceeds the size needed for the traffic expected to use the road. Given the proximity of the proposed Route 29 Bypass and the North 'Fork Research Park, it appears that VDOT is reserving right-of-way for potential expansion of the western access road to connect the Route 29 Bypass with Airport Road. In fact, the current CATS Plan includes such a connection. Moreover, as currently conceived by VDOT, the western froutage road will likely spur further sprawl by opening new land to development. The southern terminus point of the proposed westem access road coincides with the land use boundary between the Hollymead "Community" Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. October 9, 2000 Page 7 Development Area and designated rural areas: Designing a roadway to stop at the land use boundary would encourage property owners to push for changes in rural area designations, because of improved access, promoting urban sprawl. A more appropriate design solution for the western access road would be to terminate the frontage road at the Hollymead Boulevard West Extension and transition the roadway to driveway entrances to serve property parcels to the south within the growth area. The eastem parallel road is, in its broad concept, more likely (than its western counterpart) to support the type of traditional development called for in the DISC Neighborhood Model. The eastem frontage road is aligned in a manner that would support a network of local streets, forming a series of blocks appropriate for traditional town building. The right-of-way and planned cross-section of the eastern parallel road 'could be made compatible with the DISC Neighborhood Model. However, several planning issues remain problematical for the eastern parallel road. Its route involves property takings, some of which may be avoided with a more context-sensitive design process. The detailed planning of the road has not flowed from a community design process, with residents involved at early stages in visioning and conceptual design.. Rather, the planning and design has followed a more conventional "top down" approach, driven primarily by concerns with moving vehicles. IV. Recommendations A. Defer the Widening of Route 29 All activity related to the widening of Route 29 should be deferred for the following reasons: The Route 29 widening is not needed now. In its present configuration, the road is functioning at Level of Service "B", or free-flowing (Table 2, June 2000, "Route 29 Draft EA"). The widening is not needed in the immediate future (10 years). VDOT projections from the June, 2000, Route 29 Draft EA show that a four-lane Route 29 would continue to operate at Level of Service "C" through the Year 2010-2018 on the various segments between Airport Road and the South Fork of the Rivanna River. Level of Service "C," still free-flowing, is fully acceptable for a suburban arterial. There is no recent modeling of travel demand for road networks without a bypass. The latest VDOT projection includes the Bypass as part of the surrounding road network, and therefore is higher than the Year 2022 without the Bypass in place. It is quite likely that Route 29 would ftmction at better than Level of Service "D" for Year 2022 with the Bypass excluded. This question for the Year 2022 can be answered definitely only with a full and fair set of modeling, with alternatives carefully structured to reveal the impact of Glatting Jackson Kereher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. October 9, 2000 Page 8 either including or excluding the Bypass in the Year 2022. Another sottree of VDOT data that argues that widening is not nece~ssary in the immediate future is contained in the US Route 29 Corridor Development Study Technical Report 7. This report predicts a Year 2020 daily traffic volume of 54,700 for Route 29 just to the south of Airport Road. This corresponds to Level of Service "B" or a "high" Level of Service "C" in the Year 2020, further confirming that the widening of Route 29 is not needed in the immediate future. Importantly, all of the above projections 1) assume land-use and development decisions in the Route 29 corridor would remain the same regardless of the road option, and 2) assume the proposed bypass and widening will be in place. If the traffic projections were rerun properly to show land use activity in the absence of the bypass and the widening, we would expect to see correspondingly lower future traffic projections. Consequently, four lanes could continue to serve indefinitely at acceptable levels of service. Options for surface street (i.e., other than bypass) network additions, which can drastically alter the need for widening of Route 29, are only beginning to be explored. Parallel frontage roads, multiple parallel frontage roads and a network connecting frontage roads to Route 29 all could have an enormous impact on reducing the need for widening Route 29. The more complete a system of frontage and connecting roads that is present, the less need there is for widening Route 29. Planners are still in the early stages of conceptualizing the local road network that is called for in the County' s Comprehensive Plan, and even further away from simulating it and testing its capacity in the travel demand forecasting process (the CATS model). B. Recon~gure The Western Parallel (Frgntage) Road The western parallel road (''frontage" road) proposed by VDOT as part of the Route 29 widening has the potential for being a valuable asset to the Connty's circulation, independent of whether Route 29 is widened and also whether or not there is a Route 29 bypass. There are several ways in which the planning for the western parallel road should be advanced and improved: ~ Fully reconcile the western parallel road with the County's Comprehensive Plan. At the present time, while the broad concept of a western parallel road and DISC Neighborhood Model has been discussed as part of a proposed amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan, its size and precise location is not specified and a strong chain of planning rationale (land use, travel demand, alternative evaluation) for the sizing and location of this road has yet to be developed. The proper sequence of planning events for the location of the westem parallel road calls for its location to proceed from a carefully crafted detailing of the County' s Comprehensive Plan and the DISC Neighborhood Model and the Hollymead area plans, rather than appearing abruptly as an adjunct to the Route 29 plan. Simply, the County should restore the appropriate sequencing of land use plan first, then followed by a road plan that serves the land use Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. October 9, 2000 Page 9 plan. Locate the western parallel road to foster traditional development. A properly placed parallel road will have the dual function of carrying traffic, as well as being an armature for the street frontage of future development in this part of the County. The traditional town development being considered by the County for this area (DISC, Hollymead plan) translates, in its traffic planning terms, into a maximum spacing of streets of around 250-300 feet. This spacing of streets would foster the fine-grained development and walkable and bikeable environment which is an integral part of traditional town development. Block spacing larger than this sets up the conditions for the antithesis of town building, which is "big box" commercial strip development. The proposed alignment of the westem parallel road is, at many points, well in excess of an appropriate spacing from Route 29. We recommend that its alignment at these points be revisited to obtain a street spacing more compatible with traditional town development, or, altematively, additional segments of parallel roadway be inserted (see next comment). ' Plan for two parallel roadways to the west of Route 29, each with two/three lanes: The current VDOT plans call for a right-of-way reservation of up to 120 feet, for a single western parallel road. Although VDOT maintains that only a two-lane road will be built, the designated right-of-way of 120 feet is more typical of a four or even six-lane cross section, rather than a two-lane cross section. Instead of the single right-of-way of 120 feet for the western parallel road, VDOT should designate two right-of-ways, each of 60- 80 feet, and each for a road of only two lanes. The location of the second parallel roadway is also important. It should be located between the 'alignment now proposed by VDOT for the 120 foot right-of-way and the existing Route 29. This would then yield a street spacing supportive of traditional town development. The additional parallel road should not be located to the west of the currently planned VDOT 120 foot right-of-way, since this would create an overly wide spacing of the new street network, more conducive to "big box" sprawl development rather than compact new town development. Two smaller parallel roads, rather than a single larger parallel road, would also be highly supportive of the County's vision for a livable and walkable Hollymead Town Center. Two smaller roads (rather than a single larger road) support the traditional town and town center form of development rather than suburban sprawl, permit the streets to be fronted by new residential development rather than "walled-in" by conventional suburban development, provide for more altemative routings for the relief and avoidance of Route 29 and are essential for non-vehicular modes of travel (i.e., bicycling and walking). There is no economy of scale in larger streets; to the contrary, the traffic-carrying Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. October 9, 2000 Page 10 efficiency of a lane of traffic deteriorates as the number of lanes in a street increases. This deterioration is due to the additional signal phases required, the increased length of traffic signal clearance phases (yellow and all red), and imbalances between the loadings of each lanes. Thus, four lanes of pavement, when divided into two roads of two lanes each, provide more capacity than the same four lanes of pavement combined into a single four-lane road. Make Hollymead Road (west extension) the southern terminus of the new western parallel roads. Extensions of the western parallel roads beyond this point (i.e., to the south of Hollymead Road west extension) should be undertaken only as part of any planning for the extension of the Hollymead community development area. Their design should reflect the planned character of the area; specifically, the roads should be two- lane, with low design speed, that is in keeping with the two-lane town-building of the roads within the development area. The termination of a western parallel road at the Hollymead Road west extension will work toward containing the proposed development in this area into the configuration as called for in the DISC Neighborhood Model. Further, a clearly defined termination will reduce or eliminate the possibility that new segments of arterial highways south of Hollymead Road west extension would act as an armature for unintended development, not currently called for in County plans. That such development follows major road construction and expansion should no longer be in any doubt in the Charlottesville area, as evidenced by what has happened along Route 29 already. The County' s best assurance in avoiding repetitions of the Route 29 sprawl and in gaining control over its transportation/land use destiny is to have road plans that serve the development need, not that induce and lead development. Co Advance the Detailed Planning of a Complete Supporting Street Grid in the Hollymead Area Establish the Collector and Local Street Network in the Hollymead Area. The western parallel road (or roads) would constitute the arterial backbone of the Hollymead= area. A complementing network of collector and local roads and streets is necessary to assure that the traffic pattern would take the form of traditional town building, rather than conventional sprawl. Such a network is not likely to appear as a result of accumulated fortuitous decisions from a series of typical land subdivision and development actions. Rather, a County initiative for developing this network is required. Major elements within this recommendation include establishing the network of streets, adoption of a guideline for street cross-section, and requirements for the connectivity of streets that begin as part of a private subdivision but that are intended to later constitute a part of the local and collector public street system. Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. October 9, 2000 Page Refine Assure the Connectivity of Local and Collector Streets to Route 29. An important function of the local and collector street system in the Hollymead area is that it provide an alternative means of access from origins (typically homes) within the Hollymead area to local and frequently visited destinations (many of them along Route 29) with little or no travel required on Route 29.' This minimization of travel on Route 29 is attained through assuring that there is a complete network of local streets in the Hollymead area, by assuring that a well-spaced series of collector streets in an east-west direction provides access to multiple points along Route 29, careful attention, ahead of need, to designating which intersections with Route 29 would become signalized, and so forth. Provide New Connections Across Route 29. At several locations within the Hollymead area, the topography along Route 29 is favorable for the location of ~yovers over Route 29 or underpasses beneath it. These ~yovers and underpasses present the opportunity for grade-separated crossings for vehicles and pedestrians, or, in some instances, for pedestrians only. Opportunities for such grade-separated crossings of Route 29 should be further explored as part of the Comprehensive Plan update process. Apply Access Management Measures to Route 29. A particularly effective measure in alleviating traffic on Route 29 is simple access management devices that assure access to properties on Route 29 without requiring the use of Route 29 itself for nearby residents. Two important measures of this type are: (1) the local street to the rear of commercial frontage along Route 29 (i.e., "back street" in traditional town center planning) and (2) connection to the east-west connector streets by the commercial destinations along Route 29. This connection can be fttrther enhanced by having multiple properties gain access to the same cross street, by means of ordinary access management devices such as the cross- access easement across adjoining properties along Route 29, so that traffic using a cross street can gain access to all the commercial propgrties, without having to use Route 29 at all. Cross access easements also, over the longer run, set in motion the conditions for changing strip commercial to a form that more nearly resembles town commercial streets. This pattern is in evidence in Charlottesville, in the Barracks Road shopping center,' which is "evolving" a main street environment within an otherwise strip shopping mall. D. Revise Planning for Eastern Parallel Road the planning and design of the eastern parallel road through the following measures: Community Visioning - In ,an interactive community design process, led by urban or town designers, establish principles for the design of the eastern parallel road. Context-Sensitive Design -- Consider alignment alternatives that minimize property takings. Develop parmership opportunities in which the road design can spur and complement other public and private initiatives, such as recreational sites, village commercial centers, greenways, and so forth. Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. October 9, 2000 Page 12 Access Management - Adopt site plan' measures to consolidate future driveway locations and control the access points for traffic generators. E. Comprehensively Analyze the Options for Route 29 and Related Road Network Recent VDOT traffic analyses for the Route 29 corridor (the 1997 Route US 29 Bypass Traffic Capacity Analyses, the US29 Corridor Development Study Technical Report 7 and the June, 2000 Draft Environmental Assessment, Route 29 and Frontage Road Study) examined altematives that include the bypass, as well as include/exclude the Route 29 widening. However, at no point does the analysis bring together, in a single study by a single analyst, a comprehensive test of the reasonable combinations of possible improvements to Route 29. Moreover, there is no recent estimate of future traffic without the Bypass in place. The County can strengthen its leadership of the land use/transportation planning for the Route 29 corridor through conducting or insisting upon the following planning actions: Test all options for the widening (or non widening) of Route 29. At the present time, the only option for Route 29 being rigorously tested is its widening to six lanes. The Year 2020 traffic projections in the June, 2000 Route 29 Draft EA appear to assign the same traffic to a four-lane Route 29 as to a six-lane Route 29. Thus, the most important impact of a four-lane road (different distribution of trip origins and destinations) is apparently not being modeled. A four-lane section should be tested in combination with the bypass options and with a well-planned complement of local roads (below). Test the impact of a full network of local and collector streets in the Hollymead area. In all tests of the widening of Route 29 and the Bypass (above) include the full network of collector and local streets planned for in the Hollymead area. They should also include the detailed configuration of the western parallel road (or roads) that is selected to most effectively support the Hollymead area plan. Accurately reflecting this type of local street network in the travel 'demand forecast model can have a major impact on the assignment of traffic to a major arterial system, such as: Rome 29. A well-developed and properly placed supporting street network (collector and local streets) can significantly reduce the need for travel on the arterial highways (such as Rome 29) and greatly affect the need for widening such facilities. Test land use scenarios that reflect the planned roadways. In the past, transportation planning along Route 29 has assumed that exactly the same land use would occur in the corridor, regardless of whether roads in the corridor remain the same, are widened, or are supplemented by maj or new links such as the bypass. The results of this shortcoming (over-simplification of the land use/transportation relationship) can be seen in the development along Route 29 to the south of the South Fork of the Rivanna. The proposed further widening of Route 29 would result in a disproportionate share of all new commercial growth being attracted to the road corridor, and the road itself would be the Giatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. October 9, 2000 Page 13 armature for much of the new growth in the region. The Cotmty should insist on an interactive land use/transportation forecasting model process, in which the pattem of development reflects the roads in place, rather than the simplistic "one size fits all" assumption that exactly the same land use will occur, regardless of what roads are built, not built, widened or not widened. The County's capabilities with GIS give it the ability to quickly develop alternate land use scenarios, and then translate them into the zonal data needed for the CATS travel demand forecasting model. Once these zonal data sets are prepared, it becomes a straightforward and efficient process to produce a series of model rims that properly reflect the impacts of major road planning actions. The small size of the Charlottesville urban area, or the argument that that is not the way things have been done in the past, should not be accepted as reasons for failing to use state-of-the-art planning methods in the Route 29 corridor. Use Detailed Traffic Flow Models. A new generation of traffic simulation models, C'micro-simulation"), is coming into widespread use in transportation planning. Micro- simulation models do not project future levels of traffic (these are stipulated from other sources, such as CATS forecasts), but rather they simulate the flow of any given volume in great detail, with the results shown in a compelling, highly graphical form which traces the movement of each vehicle through the network. Micro-simulation models are proving to be enormously useful in two of the situations that are particularly relevant to the ROute 29 corridor: (1) simulation of highly developed networks of smaller streets, which have the potential for reducing traffic on nearby arterial streets, and (2) traffic flow on major arterials such as Route 29 that have somewhat unusual operating conditions (e.g., rural environment, aggressive access management, actuated signals, and so forth). Micro-simulation analyses are consistently proving that traffic can in fact flow freely in many instances in which the older more simplistic tools (for example, the Highway Capacity Manual intersection level of service analysis) would predict an "unacceptable" flow. In making a decision on widening or not widening Ronte 29, the County should insist on the most sophisticated analytical tools available, such as micro-simulation. Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. October 9, 2000 Page COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appropriation - Education AGENDA DATE: October 11, 2000 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: S U BJ ECT/P RO POSALIREQ U EST: Request approval of Appropriation #20016, totaling $8,542.40, for various school programs and donations. CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Castner, Breeden; Ms. White ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY / BACKGROUND: At its meeting on September 14, 2000, the School Board approved the following appropriations: Donation - Hollymead Elementary Patricia Grant, second grade teacher at Hollymead Elementary received a donation in the amount of $200.00 from the Sylvan Learning Center. This donation is to be used toward any extra classroom needs. Donation - Woodbrook Elementary School Nancy Kendall Williams, teacher at Woodbrook Elementary School, was awarded a Virginia Education Association (VEA) Mini Grant Award in the amount of $500.00. This grant will fund the Professional Books for Parents Project. Books will be purchased to create a school based, research library, which will facilitate research by parents and educators into issues that children face daily, thus increasing parental involvement, as well as providing insight, understanding and solutions to issues that face children in a constructive and positive way. Grant - Shannon Foundation for Excellence in Public Education The Shannon Foundation for Excellence in Public Education made grant awards to several teachers in Albemarle County Public Schools in the amount of $7,842.40. These funds will help support projects in Social Studies, Science, Math, English, American History, Reading, and Special Education classes. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the Appropriations, totaling $8,542.40, as detailed on Appropriation #20016. . APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 00/01 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND DONATIONS. EXPENDITURE CODE DESCRIPTION NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO SCHOOL X X X 20016 AMOUNT 1 2205 61101 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies $200.00 1 3104 61311 601200 Books/Subscriptions $500.00 1 3502 60606 601300 Ed/Rec Supplies $7,842.40 TOTAL $8,542.40 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation $200.00 2 3104 18000 181142 VEA Mini-Grant $500.00 2 3502 18000 181223 Shannon Grant $7,842.40 TOTAL $8,542.40 TRANSFERS REQUESTING COST CENTER: EDUCATION APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SIGNATURE DATE OCT. 2, 2000 SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this 13th day Of October , 2000, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision, (the "County"), and the SCOTTSVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC., a Virginia Corporation, (the 7Fire Department"). WHEREAS, the Fire Department agrees to continue to provide valuable fire protection services in Albemarle County in its delineated service area as set forth on the Response Area Maps located at the Emergency-Operations Center ("Service Area"); and WHEREAS, the Fire Department desires the County to contribute Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) for the purchase of a new tanker truck necessary to provide fire protection services in the said Service Area. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the above stated County and Fire Department agree, as follows: premises, the 1. The County shall contribute to the Fire Department Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) to be used for the purchase of a tanker truck. The funds shall be allocated from the County's Fire Fund ("Fund") and shall be made available upon execution of this agreement. 2. The Fire Department agrees that the County will withhold Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) from the County's annual appropriation to the Fire Department's operating budget beginning July 1,200~ and ending after a final withholding in July 2008. Thus at the end of eight (8) years, which is the term of this Agreement, a total of $200,000 shall be withheld. This withholding may be used by the County to replenish the Fund for so long as the County, at its discretion, continues such Fund. This withholding is in addition to the withholding for all prior advances under prior service agreements with the Fire Department dated October 6, 1993, July 21, 1993, May 27, 1992, October 8, 1987, and August 1, 1984. The Fire Department agrees that any amount of this repayment that may exceed the County's annual appropriation will be remitted to the County no later than July 31 st of each year. . 3. The Fire Department agrees that the Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) contribution shall be used only for the purchase of the tanker truck to be used in the Service Area in Albemarle County. The Fire Department further agrees that it shall not convey the tanker truck or any interest therein to any party other than 'the County without the County's prior written consent during the useful life of the tanker truck or the term of this Service Agreement, whichever is longer. For purposes of this Agreement, the useful life of the tanker truck shall be fifteen years from the date the tanker truck is placed into service. In addition, the Fire Department agrees that any insurance proceeds received from a claim related to any damage to the tanker truck shall be used entirely for the immediate repair and improvement of the tanker truck unless the County expressly authorizes in writing a different use for such funds. 4. The Fire Department agrees that at such times as it no longer provides voluntary fire department services in Albemarle County while operating under the jurisdiction of the County that it shall convey all of its interest in the vehicle described in paragraph 1 to the County at no additional cost to the County upon the County's request. 5. The County and Fire Department agree that the covenants set forth in their prior agreements dated October 6, 1993, July 21, 1993, May 27, 1992, October 8, 1987, and August 1, 1984, to the extent they are not in conflict with this Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect. 6. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations by the County to the Fire Department, at the discretion of the County Board 2 of Supervisors, to support, enhance, or augment the services to be provided by the Fire Department. Witness the following signatures and seals: Date Date Approved as to form: ,,~~n ttorney ER~TTW~t~J',I~R.':T~ ALB MARLE COUNT~ EXECUTI E ~ ' SCC'qY'FSVILLE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGIN IA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The foregoing Service Agreement was signed., sworn to and acknowledged before me this/,,~ _~ day of ff2~ ,2000, by Robert W. Tucker, Jr. My Commission Expires: Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE: The for.e. going Service Agreement was signed, sworn to and acknowledged before methis ~/.t,~ dayof N My Commission Expires: ~ c ~/, 2~0 3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Service Agreement with Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: To authorize the County Executive to sign the service agreement with Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. advancing $200,000 to purchase a new tanker to replace tanker that is 15 years old. 01-05-00 Request of $100,000. 02-16-00 revised Request of $150,000 due to increase in cost. 05-26-00 revised Request of $200,000 due to increase in cost. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Pumphrey AGENDA DATE: October 11,2000 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Several years ago Albemarle County established a revolving fund to be used by the ten volunteer fire and rescue companies in the County. This fund, currently funded at two million dollars, provides the volunteer companies a means of acquiring needed fire-fighting and rescue squad equipment and buildings, interest free, with repayments being deducted from their annual County appropriation. Requests for disbursements from the fund are monitored and approved by the Jefferson Country Fire and Rescue Association (JCFRA). DISCUSSION: The current amount available in the revolving fund is $247,400.67. Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department, has requested, through JCFRA, an advance of $200,000 to be used for the purchase of a tanker and has executed the standard service agreement approved by the County Attorney's office. This advance can be disbursed upon approval of this agreement by the Board of Supervisors. Repayment of the allocation will be over an eight-year period beginning in FY 00-01. JCFRA has approved this request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends authorizing the County Executive to execute the attached Service Agreement. ,00.202 Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department P.O. Box 381 Scottsville, VA 24590 May 26, 2000 Carl Pumphrey Albemarle County Fire/Rescue 401 Mclntire Road, Room 320 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Pumphrey: A request had previously been submitted by the Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department for $150,000 from the Advanced Allocation FUnd. At this time, we will need an additional $50,000, to make our total loan request $200,000. This will be effective July 1, 2000. We are in the process ofupgrading our equipment. If you need any further information, please feel free to contact me at (804) 286- 3612. Sincerely, Gene N. Johnson Truck Committee David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorder, Jr. Charlotte Y. HumphrLs Jack Joueti COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 {804} 296-5843 FAX {804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Waiter E Perkins White Hail Sall~ H. Thomas October 12, 2000 Ms. Pat Craver Shelter for Help in Emergency PO Box 3013 University Station Charlottesville, VA 22903-0013 Dear Ms. Craver: At its meeting on October 11, 2000, the Board of Supervisors approved the attached Proclamation recognizing October, 2000 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. /EWC Sincerely, a . are , , Cl~ Attachment Printed on recycled paper it is battered women themseXes ~o~ ha~e been in the forefront of efforts to in'lug peoce and equality to the hme; NOW, THEREFOIl, in rewgniaon of t~e important ,,,ork being done by domesac vida~ progrants, 1, Ckades S~ Martin, C~aman, on bdtalf of t~e Board of Supervisors of Albemade County, V'wginia, do hereby proclaim the mont~ of OCTOBE ooo, DOMFXHC VIOLENCE A W~ MONTH I, REMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPER~RS 0CT--04--00 10:10 AM S.A.R.A- 2958841 P,02 20 ~lett?s o1~ ae.'tvice to tAe eommt.~nit~ Wol~hing to end domeeti~ violence [ri oul· o.,Ommunllq August ! I, 2000 Mr. Charles Martin Albe,narle County Board of SupeiMsors 40 l Mcl,'~tire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. Martin, October is natiozially k.nown as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. The Shelter for Help in I-2n~ergcncy is dedicated to ending violence within the home, and October is a very iniportant time for the Shelter to educate the conimunity about domestic violence. The Shelter not only provides emergency shelter and operates a 24-hour hotline but also provides legal advocacy and counseling to the residents of Albema~e County and surrounding counties and city in Platruing District Ten. I am writing to> request that you proclaini October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Enclosed please find a sample proclamation; you cml sign this copy or type one cryour own to be accompanied by an official seal. I would greatly appreciate your support in helping end domestic violence in our community. Please place this proclamation on the agenda for a Ihtt|re meeting. I also request, if at all possible, that I be notified of the date ofthe meeting i,1 which the proclamation will be read because members of the staff and Board of Directors of ti~e Shelter would like to be present. Thank you fi>r your time and consideration of lhis request. Sincerely, Pat Graver Outreach/Education Coordinator Shelter for Help in Emergency P.O. Box ~013 · University Station · Charlottesville. Virainia 2290.t-r1¢)11 · HnfiinP' ~1141 )qt-~a~ · n~4ir~,- mn~ ~-~= FAX (804) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832 TFD(804) 972-4012 September 25, 2000 Doug Kingma P.O. Box 5626 Charlottesville, VA 22905 Re: Official Determination of Number of Parcels - (Tax Map 55, Parcel 13) Katherine Gray Shirley Trust Dear Mr. Kingma: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the deed and plat information that you have submitted for the above-noted property. It is my official determination, that this property consists of one parcel. Tax Map 55, Parcel 13 is one parcel of record which consists of about 43 17/160 acres. This parcel is entitled to a total of five (5) associated development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are only hypothetical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots of less than 21 acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, one parcel with a minimum of 21 acres in area may potentially be created. This determination primarily considered the history of acquisition of the property and. the language of the deeds. There was a 1907 partition which established 3 lots. One of these was the 48 17/160 acre "Lot 1" now owned by the KG Shirley Trust (less the 5 acre lot that was previously divided from it). The partition order establishing Lot 1 and the accompanying plat showing Lot 1, identify a single parcel comprised of 48 17/160 acres. While the accompanying plat shows the acreage of Lot 1 in 3 subtotals, there is no indication that these subtotals reflect separate parcels that survived through 1980. The areas comprising each subtotaled acreage are separated by dashed BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 09/25/00 Page 2 of 2 Determination of Parcels (TM 55, P13) lines. Separate parcels are commonly depicted with solid and not dashed lines. Furthermore, the subtotaled acreage is not defined and described by metes and bounds. This further stands for the fact that the subtotaled acreage is not set apart and created as freestanding parcels. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have the right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals anotice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. In order for an appeal to be considered complete, it shall include a completed application and $95 fee. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your Convenience. Sincerely, Amelia G. McCulley Zoning Administrator Cc: Katherine Gray Shirley Trust c/o Cameron Maxwell George Dygert; Attorney Ella Carey, Clerk to the Board Reading File by Tax Map 1 by tax map, 1 by determination *This acreage is estimated. The actual number of development rights is dependent on surveyed acreage and actual building sites which comply with the zoning regulations. The number of hypothetical rights is calculated at the rate of 1 development right per 2 acres, with five being the maximum number of development rights allowed. ORDINANCE NO. 00-15(4) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY ADDIN6 ARTICLE XV, SHORT-TERM RENTAL TAX. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 15, Taxation, is hereby amended and reordained by adding Article XV, Short-Term Rental Tax, as follows: CHAPTER 15. TAXATION ARTICLE XV. SItORT-TERM RENTAL TAX Sec. 15-1500 Definitions. The following words and phrases, when used in this article, shall have, for the purposes of this article, the following respective meanings, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (1) Affiliated The term "affiliated" means any common ownership interest in excess of five percent (5%) of any officers or partners in common with the lessor and lessee. For purposes of this test, (i) any rental to a person affiliated with the lessor shall be treated as rental receipts but shall not qualify for purposes of the eighty percent (80%) requirement, and (ii) any remal of personal property that also involves the provision of personal services for the operation of the personal property rented shall not be treated as gross receipts from rental. For purposes of this section, the delivery and installation of tangible personal property shall not mean operation. (2) Daily rentalproperty. The term "daily rental property" means all tangible personal property held for rental and owned by a person engaged in the short-term rental business, except trailers, as defined in Virginia Code § 46.2-100 and other tangible personal property required to be licensed or registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, or the Department of Aviation. (3) Gross proceeds. The term "gross proceeds" means the total amount charged to each person for the rental of daily rental property, excluding any state and local sales tax paid pursuant to the Virginia Retail Sales and Use Tax Act. (4) Short-term rental business. The term "short-term rental business" means a business in which a person is engaged if not less than eighty percent (80%) of the gross rental receipts of such business in any year are t~om transactions involving remal periods of ninety-two (92) consecutive days or less, including all extensions and renewals to the same person or a person affiliated with the lessor. See. 15-1501 Levied; amount. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-3510.1, there is hereby assessed and imposed on every person engaged in the short-term rental business a tax of one pertera (1%) on the gross proceeds of such business. Such tax shall be in addition to the tax levied pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-605. Sec. 15-1502 Taxation of rental property that is not daily rental property. Except for daily rental passenger cars, rental property that is not daily rental property shall be classified for taxation pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-3503. Sec. 15-1503 Collection, return and remittance of tax. Every person engaged in the short-term rental business shall collect the rental tax from the lessee of the daily rental property at the time of the rental. The lessor of the daily rental property shall transmit a quarterly return to the finance director, indicating the gross proceeds derived from the short-term rental business and shall remit therewith the payment of such tax as is due for the quarter. The quarterly returns and payment of tax shall be filed with the finance director on or th before the 20 day of each of the months of April, July, October and Jantmry, representing, respectively, the gross proceeds and taxes collected during the preceding quarters ending March 31, June 30, September 30 and December 31. The return shall be upon such forms and setting forth such information as the finance director may require, showing the amount of gross receipts and the tax required to be collected. The taxes required to be collected under this article shall be deemed to be held in trust by the person required to collect such taxes until remitted as required in this article. Sec. 15-1504 Procedure upon failure to collect, report or remit taxes. If any person, whose duty it is so to do, shall fail or refuse to collect the tax imposed under this article and to make, within the time provided in this article, the returns and remittances required in this article, the fmance director shall proceed in such manner as he may deem best to obtain facts and information on which to base his estimate of the tax due. As soon as the finance director shall procure such facts and information as he is able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any tax payable by any person who has failed or refused to collect such tax and to make such return and remittance, he shall proceedto determine and assess against such person the tax, penalty and interest provided for by this article and shall notify such person, by registered mail, sent to his last known place of address, of the total amount of such tax, penalty and interest and the total amount thereof shall be payable within ten (10) days from the date of such notice. In the event such tax is not paid within ten (10) days from the date of the notice, the Finance Director shall proceed to collect same in accordance with Chapter 39 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia. See. 15-1505 Penalty and interest. If any person, whose duty it is so to do, shall fall or refuse to remit to the finance director the tax required to be collected and paid under this article within the time specified in the article, there shall be added to such tax a penalty in the amount often percent (10%) of the tax past due or the sum often (10) dollars, whichever is the greater. The assessment of such penalty shall not be deemed a defense to any criminal prosecution for failing to make any remm or remittance as required in this article. Additionally, interest on late payments of all taxes due shall be added at the rate often percent (10%) per year. Penalty and interest for failure to pay the tax assessed pursuant to this article shall be assessed on the first day following the day such quarterly installment payment is due. Sec. 15-1506 Exclusions and exemptions. No tax shall be collected or assessed on (i) rentals by the Commonwealth, any political subdivision of the Commonwealth or the United States or (ii) any rental of durable medical equipment as defined in subdivision 2 of Virginia Code § 58.1-609.7. Additionally, all exemptions applicable in Chapter 6 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia (§ 58.1-600 et. seq.) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the daily rental property tax. Sec. 15-1507 Renter's certificate of registration. Every person engaging in the business of short-term rental of tangible personal property shall file an application for a certificate of registration with the finance director. The application shah be on a form prescribed by the finance director and shall set forth the name under which the applicant intends to operate the rental business, the location and such other information as the finance director may require. Each applicant shall sign the application as owner of the rental business. If the rental business is owned by an association, partnership or corporation, the application shah be signed by a member, partner, executive officer or other person specifically authorized by the association, partnership or corporation to sign. Upon approval of the application by the finance director, a certificate of registration shall be issued. The certificate shall be conspicuously displayed at all times at the place of business for which it is assessed. The certificate is not assignable and shall be valid only for the person in whose name it is issued and the place of business designated. Sec. 15-1508 Criminal penalties for violation of article. Any person violating or failing to cornply with any provision of this article shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. Provided however, if the amount of tax due and unpaid for any quarterly installment exceeds $1,000, any person failing to remit payment when due shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (Ord. 00-15(4), 10-11-00) This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2001. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on October 11.2000. Aye Mr. Bowerman Y Mr. Dorrier Y Ms. Humphris Y Mr. Martin Y Mr. Perkins Y Ms. Thomas Y Nay Clerk, Board o~Gounty Supervies"' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance - Daily Rental Tax S U BJ ECTIP RO P OSAL/REQU EST: Request adoption of an ordinance establishing a Daily Rental Tax. AGENDA DATE: October 11, 2000 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATI ON: INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White ATTACHMENTS: Yes ~ REVIEWED BY:/~/ BACKGROUND: The Virginia Code provides that a locality may impose a daily rental tax at the rate of one percent of the gross rental proceeds. This tax is similar to the sales tax in that it is collected from the user by the merchant and remitted to the locality on a quarterly basis. DISCUSSION: This tax would be applicable to those businesses that rent items such as movies or music videos, uniforms or costumes, lawn or construction equipment, and household appliances, etc. on a daily basis. Imposition of this tax would exempt this equipment from the business personal property tax currently imposed. Our review of the major businesses indicate that annual revenue would be approximately $83,000 compared to $22,000 currently collected as Business Personal Property. The City of Charlottesville and most of the more urban localities statewide impose this tax. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the attached ordinance be adopted. :00.211 DRAFT: August 31, 2000 ORDINANCE NO. 00-15( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 15, TAXATION, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BY ADDING ARTICLE XV, SHORT-TERM RENTAL TAX. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 15, Taxation, is hereby amended and reordained by adding Article XV, Short-Term Rental Tax, as follows: CHAPTER 15. TAXATION ARTICLE XV. SHORT-TERM RENTAL TAX See. 15-1500 Definitions. The following words and phrases, when used in this article. shall have. for the purposes of this article. the following respective meanings. except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (1) 40'iliated. The term "affiliated" means any common ownership interest in excess of five percent (5%) of any officers or partners in common with the lessor and lessee. For purposes of this test. (i) any rental to a person affiliated with the lessor shall be 'treated as rental receipts but shall not qualify for purposes of the eighty percent (80%) requirement. and (ii) any rental of personal property that also involves the provision of personal services for the operation of the personal property rented shall not be treated as gross receipts from rental. For purposes of this section, the delivery and installation of tangible personal property shall not mean operation. (2) Daily rentalproper.tv. The term "daily rental property" means all tangible personal property held for rental and owned by a person engaged in the short-term rental business, except trailers. as defined in Virginia Code § 46.2-100 and other tangible personal property required to be licensed or registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles. the Depariment of Game and Inland Fishcries, or the Department of Aviation. (3) Gross proceeds. The term "gross proceeds" means the total amount charged to each person for the rental of daily rental property. excluding any state and local sales tax paid pursuant to the Virginia Retail Sales and Use Tax Act. (4) Short-term rental business. The term "short-term rental business" means a business in which a person is engaged if not less than eighty percent (80%) of the gross rental regeipts of such business in any year are from transactions involving rental periods of ninety-two (92) consecutive days or less. including all 'extensions and renewals to the same person or a person affiliated with the lessor. See. 15-1501 Levied: amount. Pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-3510. 1 , there is hereby assessed and imposed on every person engagel d in the short-term rental business a tax of one percent (1%) on the gross proceeds of Such business. Such tax shall be in addition to the tax levied pursuant to'Virginia Code § 58.1-605. DRAFT: August 31, 2000 Sec. 15-1502 Taxation of rental property that is not daily rental property. Except for daily rental passenger cars. rental property that is not daily rental property shall be classified for taxation pursuant to Virginia Code § 58.1-3503. Sec. 15-1503 Collection. return and remittance of tax. Every person engaged in the short-term rental business shall collect the rental tax from the lessee of the daily rental property at the time of the rental. The lessor of the daily rental property shall transmit a quarterly return to the finance director. indicating the gross proceeds derived from the short-term rental business and shall remit therewith the payment of such tax as is due for the quarter. The uarterly retums and payment of tax shall be filed with the finance director on or before the 203 day of each of the months of April. July. October and January. representing, respectively. the gross proceeds and taxes collected during the preceding quarters ending March 31, Jtme 30. September 30 and December 31. The return shall be upon such forms and setting forth such informat'ion as the finance director may require, showing the amount of gross receipts and the tax required to be collected. The taxes required to be collected under this article shall be deemed to be held in trust by the person required to collect such taxes until remitted as required in this article. Sec. 15-1504 Procedure upon failure to collect. report or remit taxes. If any person, whose duty it is so to do. shall fail or refuse to collect the tax imposed under this article and to make. within the time provided in this article. the remms and remittances required in this article, the finance director shall'proceed in such manner as he may deem best to obtain facts and information on which to base his estimate of the tax due. As soon as the finance director shall procure such facts and information as he is able to obtain upon which to base the assessment of any tax payable by any person who has failed or refused to collect such tax and to make'such remm and remittance. he shall proceed to determine and assess against such person the tax. penalty and interest provided for by this article and shall notify such person. by regfstered mail. sent to his last known place of address. of the total amount of such tax. penalty and interest and the total amount thereof shall be payable within ten (10) days from the date of such notice. In the event such tax is not paid within ten (10) days from the date of the notice. the FinanCe Director shall proceed to collect same in accordance with Chapter 39 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia. Sec. 15-1505 Penalty and interest. If any person. whose duty it is so to do. shall fail or refuse to remit to the finance director the tax required to be collected and paid under this article within the time specified in the article. there shall be added to such tax a penalty in the amount often percent (10%) of the tax past due or the sum often (10) dollars, whichever is the greater. The assessment of such penalty shall not be deemed a defense to any criminal prosecution for failing to make any remm or remittance as required in this article. Additionally, interest on late payments of all taxes due shall be added at the rate often percent (10%) per year. Penalty and interest for failure to pay the tax assessed pursuant to this article shall be assessed on the first day following the day such quarterly installment payment is due. Sec. 15-1506 Exclusions and exemptions. No tax shall be collected or assessed on (i) rentals by the Commonwealth, any po~tical subdivision of the Commonwealth or the United States or (ii) any rental of durable medical DRAFT: August 31, 2000 equipment as defined in subdivision 2 of Virginia Code § 58.1-609.7. Additionally. all exemptions applicable in Chapter 6 of Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia (§ 58.1-600 et. seq:) shall apply mutatis mutandis to the daily rental property tax. See. 15-1507 Renter's certificate of registration. Every person engaging in the business of short-term rental of tangible personal property shall file art .application for a certificate of registration with the finance director. The application shall be on a form prescribed by the finance director and shall set forth the name under which the applicant intends to operate the rental' business. the location and such other information as the finance director may require. Each applicant shall sign the application as owner of the rental business. If the rental business is owned by an association. parmership or corporation. the application shall be signed by a member. parmer. executive officer or other person specifically authorized by the association. partnership or corporatioh to sign. upon approval of the application by the finance director. a certificate of registration shall be issued. The certificate shall be conspicuously displayed at all times at the place of business 'for which it is assessed. The certificate is not assignable and shall be valid only for the person in whose name it is issued and the place of business designated. Sec. 15-1508 Criminal penalties for violation of article. Any person violating or failinF to comply with any provision of this article shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor. Provided however. if the amount of tax due and unpaid for any quarterly installment exceeds $1.000. any person failing to remit payment when due shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2001. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dorder Ms. Humphris Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas Aye Nay Clerk, Board of County Supervisors ORDINANCE NO. 00-8(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8, LICENSES, ARTICLE VI, SCHEDULE OF TAXES, 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, Licenses, Article VI, Schedule of Taxes, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Repealing: Sec. 8-608 Amusement occupations, business or trades. By Amending: Sec. 8-616 Repair, personal, business and other services. CHAPTER 8. LICENSES ARTICLE VI. SCHEDULE OF TAXES DIVISION 2. AMUSEMENTS See. 8-608 (Reserved) DIVISION 4. PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL, BUSINESS, AMUSEMENT OR REPAIR SERVICE BUSINESS, OCCUPATIONS AND PROFESSIONS See. 8-616 Repair, personal, business, amusement and other services. Each person engaged in a repair, personal, amusement or business service shall be subject to the license tax, and other provisions, set forth herein: A. Each person engaged in a repair, personal, amusement or business service shall be subject to a license tax of thirty_six cents ($0.36) for each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts. B. For purposes of this chapter, the following defmitions shall apply: 1. Repair service. The term "repair service" means repairing, renovating, cleaning or servicing of some article or item of personal property for compensation, unless the service is specifically provided for under another section of this chapter. 2. Personal service. The term "personal service" means rendering for compensation any repair, personal, business, amusement or other services not specifically classified as "financial, real estate or professional service" in section 8-615, or rendered in any other business or occupation not specifically classified in this chapter unless exempted from local license tax by Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia. 3. Business service. The term "business service" means rendering for compensation any service to any business, trade, occupation or governmental agency, unless the service is specifically provided for under another section of this chapter. C. Repair, personal, business, and amusement services include, but are not limited to, the following: Addressing letters or envelopes. Advertising agencies. Airline passenger carrier. Airplane repair. Airports, private. Ambulance services. Amusement park. Animal hospitals, grooming services, kennels or stables. Arcade or building devoted to general amusement or entertaining. Auctioneers and common criers. Auditorium, arena or coliseum with a maximum seating capacity less than 10,000 persons and open to the public. Auto repair, engine repair of any type. Automobile driving schools. Barbershops, beauty parlors and hairdressing establishments, schools and services. Bicycle repair. Bid or building reporting service. Billiards or pool. Bill poster or distributor. Blacksmith or wheelwright. Booking agents or concert managers. Bookkeeper, public. Bottle exchanges. Bowling alley. Brokers and commission merchants other than real estate or financial brokers. Business and office mac!line repair. Business research and consulting services. Buyers, gold and silver. Cable television. Chartered clubs. Licensee hereunder may without additional license operate service of retail merchant and restaurant. The term "chartered club" means any nonprofit corporation or association which is the owner, lessee or occupant of an establishment operated solely for objects of a national, social, patriotic, political 2 or athletic nature or the like, but not for pecuniary gain, the advantages of which belong to all the members; the term shall also mean the establishment so operated. Child care attendants or schools. Cleaning chinmeys, furnaces. Clinical laboratories. Clothes, hats, carpets or rugs, repair of. Collection agents or agencies. Commercial photography, art or graphics. Commercial sports. Computer service operated for compensation. Correspondence establishments or bureaus. Dance halls, except restaurants licensed to serve food and beverages having a dance floor with an area not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the total floor area of the establishment and for which no admission is charged. Dance studios and schools. Data processing, computer and systems development services. Day nursery (other than foster homes). Detectives and watchmen. Each person shall be registered by name and service with the county chief of police. Developing or enlarging photographs. Dog or water raceway. Drafting services. Drive-in theaters. Engraving. Eradication or extermination of rats, mice, termites, vermin or bugs. Erecting, installing, removing or storing awnings. Freight traffic bureau or agency. Fumigating or disinfecting. Funeral services and crematories. Furnishing clean diapers. Furnishing closed circuit musical entertainment. Furnishing closed circuit television entertainment. Furnishing house cleaning service. Furnishing janitor service. Furnishing labor service. Furnishing statistical service. Furniture, upholstering, repair of. Gardens. Golf driving range. Gunsmith, gun repairing. Hauling of sand, gravel or dirt. Hauling or transfer, not in connection with taxicab business. Holding companies, including holding company for mass media communications. Hotels, motels, tourist courts, boarding and rooming houses, trailer parks and campsites. Information bureaus. Instructors, tutors, schools and studios of music, ceramics, art, sewing, sports and the like. Interior decorating. Job printer, printing shop, bookbinding, duplicating processes. Laundry, cleaning and garment services including laundries, dry cleaners, linen supply, diaper service, coin-operated laundries and carpet and upholstery cleaning. Locksmith. Machine shop, boiler shop. Mailing, messenger and correspondent services. Marinas and boat landings. Mattresses, repair of. Miniature golf. Motor vehicle transportation of passengers. Movie theaters. Music teacher. Newspaper delivery service. Nickel plating, chromizing and electroplating. Nurses and physicians registries. Nursing and personal care facilities including nursing homes, convalescent homes, homes for the retarded, old age homes and rest homes. Operating a scalp treating establishmentL Packing, crating, shipping, hauling or moving goods or chattels for others. Paint shop, other than contractor. Parcel delivery services. Parking lots, public garages and valet parking. Parks, athletic fields. Personnel services, labor agents and employment bureaus. Photographers and photographic services; the license tax on photographers with no regularly established place of business in the state shall not exceed thirty dollars ($30.00). Piano tuning. Picture framing and gilding. Porter services. Press clipping services. Private hospitals. Private schools (other than religious and nonprofit). Promotional agents or agencies. Protective agent or agency. Public relations counselor. Publicity service, furnisher of; booking agent, concert manager. Radio engineer. Radios, televisions, refrigerators, electrical appliances, home appliances, repair of. Realty multiple listing services. Recorder of proceedings in any court; commission or other organization. Refrigeration engineer. 4 Renting airplanes. Renting or leasing any items of tangible personal property. Renting bicycles. Renting or furnishing automatic washing machines. Renting wall signs or billboards. Reproduction services. Reweaving. Riding academy. Rifle ranges or shooting galleries, except those operated by private or nonprofit gun clubs. Road machines, farm machinery, repair of. Rug cleaning. Sales agent or agency. Saws, tools, repair of. Scales, repair of. Scientific research and development service. Sculptor. Secretarial service. Septic tank cleaning. Shades, repair of. Shoe repair, shoe shine and hat repair shops. Sightseeing carriers. Sign painting. Skating rink. Stenographer, public. Storage, all types. Supplying clean linen, coats, aprons, towels. Swimming pools open to the public. Tabulating service. Tax consultant. Taxicabs. Taxidermist. Telephone answering service. Theaters. Theatrical performances. Theatrical performers, bands and orchestras. Tire repair. Title abstract company. Title insurance company. Towing services. Translator of foreign languages. Transportation consultant. Transportation services including buses and taxis. Travel bureaus or tour agents. Tree surgeons, trimmers and removal services. Turkish, Roman or other like baths or parlors. 5 U-drive-it firm or business. Umbrellas, harnesses, leather goods, repair of. Undertaker, embalmer. Vehicle title service. Vehicular advertising, electric advertising, advertising. Wake-up services. Washing, waxing, auto; cleaning of automobiles. Watches, clocks, repair of. Welding shop. bus advertising, commercial Persons accepting or offering to accept or place orders, which such person will deliver at a later date, for the sale of medicines, perfumes, salves, liniments, cosmetics, cookware, plastic wares, brushes, books, magazines, vacuum cleaners or any other merchandise and not having a regular place of business in the county but who sell or offer to sell from house to house, or at parties or meetings arranged for that purpose. All other similar personal service, business service, amusement service or repair service occupations, trades or businesses not included herein and not otherwise taxed by this chapter. (3-15-73, §§ 39.1, 53; 4-21-76; 3-10-82; 11-14-84; 4-13-88; Ord. 96-11(1), 11-13-96, § 11-66; Code 1988, § 11-66; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, Ord. 00-8(1), 10-11-00) State law reference-Va. Code §§ 58.1-3706, 58.1-3727. This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2001. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on October 11. 2000. ~d of County SU~~ Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dorrier Y Ms. Humphris Y Mr. Martin Y Mr. Perkins Y Ms. Thomas Y Aye Nay Y COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance Amendment - Business, Professional and Occupation License Tax AGENDA DATE: October 11, 2000 ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: SU BJ ECT/P ROPOSALIREQU EST: Request adoption of the proposed ordinance redefining amusement activities as a service business and changing the license rate from $0.20 cents to $0.36 cents per hundred. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes / BACKGROUND: The Albemarle County Business, Professional and Occupation License ordinance has always placed amusement activities in a separate classification with a tax rate of $0.20 cents per hundred, equal to the retail tax rate. DISCUSSION: Changes in state legislation relating to the license tax over the last several years have redefined amusement activities as a service business which has a maximum tax rate of $0.36 cents per hundred. This rate was not increased when the County ordinance was amended to bring it in compliance with the comprehensive revision of the BPOL enabling authority. The major intent of state legislation has been to establish uniformity in tax rates and classifications statewide. The proposed amendment to the County Ordinance is consistent with that intent and would impose a $0.36 cent tax rate on amusement activities similar to surrounding localities and other service businesses within the County. This increase would have an impact on approximately 25 businesses in the County and represents an 80% increase in their license tax. The County would recognize increased revenue of approximately $27,000. In order to establish uniformity in tax rates and classifications with both surrounding localities and the State as a whole, staff recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the attached ordinance be adopted. DRAFT: August 31, 2000 ORDINANCE NO. 00-8( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 8, LICENSES, ARTICLE VI, SCHEDULE OF TAXES, 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, Licenses, Article VI, Schedule of Taxes, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Repealing: Sec. 8-608 Amusement occupations, business or trades. By Amending: Sec. 8-616 Repair, personal, business and other services. CHAPTER 8. LICENSES ARTICLE VI. SCHEDULE OF TAXES DIVISION 2. AMUSEMENTS See. 8-608 Amuscmcnt occupations, busincss or tradcs. (Reserved) Each person engaged in an amusement occupation, business or trade shall be subject to the applicable license tax, and other provisions, set forth herein: A. Each person engaged in an amusement oceupation, business or trade, as identified in paragraph (B), shall be subject to a license tax of twenty cents ($0.20) for each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts. B. The following amusement occupations, busingsos or trades shall bc subject to thc license tax imposed by paragraph (A): Amusement park. Arcade or building devoted to gcneral amusement or cntertaining. Auditorium. Billiards or pool. Bowling alley. Cable television. Do. nee halls, cxcopt restaurants licensed to serve food and beverages having a danec floor with an arca not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the total floor area of the establishment and for which no admission is charged. Dog or water raceway. Drive in theaters. DRAFT: August 31, 2000 Furnishing closed circuit television entertainment. Furnishing closed circuit musical entertainment. Gardens. Golf driving range. Miniature golf. Movie thoatcrs. Parks, athletic fields. Riding academy. Rifle ranges or shooting galleries, except those operated by private or nonprofit gun Skating rink. Swimming pools open to the public. Theaters. Theatrical porformanoo~. (3 15 73, § 59; 3 10 82; Ord. 96 11(1), 11 13 96, § 11 Code 1988, § 11 48; Ord. 98 A(1), 8 8rate law rifefence Va. Codo §§ 58.1 3700, 5~.1 3729. DIVISION 4. PERSONAL, PROFESSIONAL, BUSINESS. AMUSEMENT OR REPAIR SERVICE BUSINESS, OCCUPATIONS AND PROFESSIONS Sec. 8-616 Repair, personal, business. amusement and other services. Each person engaged in a repair, personal. amusement or business service shall be subject to the license tax, and other provisions, set forth herein: A. Each person engaged in a repair, personal. amusement or business service shall be subject to a license tax of thirty-six cents ($0.36) for each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of gross receipts. B. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: 1. Repair service. The term "repair service" means repairing, renovating, cleaning or servicing of some article or item of personal property for compensation, unless the service is specifically provided for under another section of this chapter. 2. Personal service. The term "personal service" means rendering for compensation any repair, personal, business. amusement or other services not specifically classified as "financial, real estate or professional service" in section 8-615, or rendered in any other business or occupation not specifically classified in this chapter unless exempted from local license tax by Title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia. 3. Business service. The term "business seNice" means rendering for compensation any service to any business, trade, occupation or governmental agency, unless the service is specifically provided for under another section of this chapter. DRAFT: August 31, 2000 limited to, the Repair, personal_~ -,~a business, and amusement services include, but are not following: Addressing letters or envelopes. Advertising agencies. Airline passenger carrier. Airplane repair. Airports, private. Ambulance services. Amusement park. Animal hospitals, grooming services, kennels or stables. Arcade or building devoted to gen,eral amusement or entertaining. Auctioneers and common criers. Auditorium, arena or coliseum with a maximum seating capacity less than 10,000 persons and open to the public. Auto repair, engine repair of any type. Automobile driving schools. Barbershops, beauty parlors and hairdressing establishments, schools and services. Bicycle repair. Bid or building reporting service. Billiards or pool. Bill poster or distributor. Blacksmith or wheelwright. Booking agents or concert managers. Bookkeeper, public. Bottle exchanges. Bowling alley. Brokers and commission merchants other than real estate or financial brokers. Business and office machine repair. Business research and consulting services. Buyers, gold and silver. Cable television. Chartered clubs. Licensee hereunder may without additional license operate service of retail merchant and restaurant. The term "chartered club" means any nonprofit corporation or association which is the owner, lessee or occupant of an establishment operated solely for objects of a national, social, patriotic, political or athletic nature or the like, but not for pecuniary gain, the advantages of which belong to all the members; the term shall also mean the establishment so operated. Child care attendants or schools. Cleaning chimneys, furnaces. Clinical laboratories. Clothes, hats, carpets or rugs, repair of. Collection agents or agencies. Commercial photography, art or graphics. Commercial sports. DRAFT: 'August 31, 2000 Computer service operated for compensation. Correspondence establishments or bureaus. Dance halls, except restaurants licensed to serve food and beverages having a dance floor with an area not exceeding ten percent (10%) of the total floor area of the establishment and for which no admission is charged. Dance studios and schools. Data processing, computer and systems development services. Day nursery (other than foster homes). Detectives and watchmen. Each person shall be registered by name and service with the county chief of police. Developing or enlarging photographs. Dog or water raceway. Drafting services. Drive-in theaters. Engraving. Eradication or extermination of rats, mice, termites, vermin or bugs. Erecting, installing, removing or storing awnings. Freight traffic bureau or agency. Fumigating or disinfecting. Funeral services and crematories. Furnishing clean diapers. Furnishing closed circuit musical entertainment. Fumishing closed circuit television entertainment. Furnishing house cleaning service. Furnishing janitor service. Furnishing labor service. Furnishing statistical service. Furniture, upholstering, repair of. Gardens. Golf driving range. Gunsmith, gun repairing. Hauling of sand, gravel or dirt. Hauling or transfer, not in connection with taxicab business. Holding companies, including holding company for mass media communications. Hotels, motels, tourist courts, boarding and rooming houses, trailer parks and campsims. Information bureaus. Instructors, tutors, schools and studios of music, ceramics, art, sewing, sports and the like. Interior decorating. Job printer, printing shop, bookbinding, duplicating processes. Laundry, cleaning and garment services including latindries, dry cleaners, linen supply, diaper service, coin-operated laundries and carpet and upholstery cleaning. Locksmith. Machine shop, boiler shop. 4 DRAFT: August 31, 2000 Mailing, messenger and correspondent services. Marinas and boat landings. Mattresses, repair of. Miniature golf. Motor vehicle transportation of passengers. Movie theaters. Music teacher. Newspaper delivery service. Nickel plating, chromizing and electroplating. Nurses and physicians registries. Nursing and personal care facilities including nursing homes, convalescent homes, homes for the retarded, old age homes and rest homes. Operating a scalp treating establishment. Packing, crating, shipping, hauling or moving goods or chattels for others. Paint shop, other than contractor. Parcel delivery services. Parking lots, public garages and valet parking. Parks. athletic fields. Personnel services, labor agents and employment bureaus. Photographers and photographic services; the license tax on photographers with no regularly established place of business in the state shall not exceed thirty dollars ($30.00). Piano tuning. Picture framing and gilding. Porter services. Press clipping services. Private hospitals. Private schools (other than religious and nonprofit). Promotional agents or agencies. Protective agent or agency. Public relations counselor. Publicity service, furnisher of; booking agent, concert manager. Radio engineer. Radios, televisions, refrigerators, electrical appliances, home appliances, repair of. Realty multiple listing services. Recorder of proceedings in any court, commission or other organization. Refrigeration engineer. Renting airplanes. Renting or leasing any items of tangible personal property. Renting bicycles. Renting or fumishing automatic washing machines. Renting wall signs or billboards. Reproduction services. Reweaving. Riding academy. 5 DRAFT: August 31, 2000 Rifle ranges or shooting galleries. except those operated by private or nonprofit gun clubs. Road machines, farm machinery, repair of. Rug cleaning. Sales agent or agency. Saws, tools, repair of. Scales, repair of. Scientific research and development service. Sculptor. Secretarial service. Septic tank cleaning. Shades, repair of. Shoe repair, shoe shine and hat repair shops. Sightseeing carriers. Sign painting. Skating rink. Stenographer, public. Storage, all types. Supplying clean linen, coats, aprons, towels. Swimming pools open to the public. Tabulating senrice. Tax consultant. Taxicabs. Taxidermist. Telephone answering service. Theaters. Theatrical performances. Theatrical performers, bands and orchestras. Tire repair. Title abstract company. Title insurance company. Towing services. Translator of foreign languages. Transportation consultant. Transportation services including buses and taxis. Travel bureaus or tour agents. Tree surgeons, trimmers and removal services. Turkish, Roman or other like baths or parlors. U-drive-it firm or business. Umbrellas, harnesses, leather goods, repair of. Undertaker, embalmer. Vehicle title service. Vehicular advertising, electric advertising, bus advertising, commercial advertising. Wake-up services. Washing, waxing, auto; cleaning of automobiles. DRAFT: August 31, 2000 Watches, clocks, repair of. Welding shop. Persons accepting or offering to accept or place orders, which such person will deliver at a later date, for the sale of medicines, perfumes, salves, liniments, cosmetics, cookware, plastic wares, brushes, books, magazines, vacuum cleaners or any other merchandise and not having a regular place of business in the county but who sell or offer to sell from house to house, or at parties or meetings arranged for that purpose. All other similar personal service, business service, amusement service or repair service occupations, trades or businesses not included herein and not otherwise taxed by this chapter. (3-15-73, §§ 39.1, 53; 4-21-76; 3-10-82; 11-14-84; 4-13-88; Ord. 96-11(1), 11-13-96, § 11-66; Code 1988, § 11-66; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98. Ord. 00-8(1), 10-11-00) State law referenee-Va. Code §§ 58.1-3706, 58.1-3727. This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2001. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of __ to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Mr. Bowerman Mr. Dottier Ms. Humphris Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Ms. Thomas Aye Nay Clerk, Board of County Supervisors 7 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 M¢lntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 September 26, 2000 R. Reynolds Cowles, Jr P O Box 278 Free Union, VA 22940 RE: SP-2000-40 Blue Ridge Equine Partners, Tax Map 30, Parcel 1 q 0 · Dear Mr. Cowles: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 19, 2000, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following condition: The clinic shall be for equine care only and shall be operated in accordance with the plan described in the applicant's description (attached to the staff report for SP 00-040 as Attachment D), and the information contained in the letter dated July 23, 1997 (,sent to homeowners and attached to the staff report as Attachment E), with the addition of the operation of the isolation barn described in the application for this permit Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on October 11, 2000. Any new or additiona~ information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of ~he Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. The Commission also approved a waiver of Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Senior Planner Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse Bob Ball BOARD OF SUPERVISORS STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Scott Clark September 19, 2000 October 11, 2000 SP 00-040 BLUE RIDGE EQUINE PARTNERS Applicant's Proposal: The applicant, Blue Ridge Equine Partners, proposes to build a new barn to allow separation or isolation of some patients as part of their equine veterinary service. Petition: The petition is for the amendment of a special use permit (SP 97-032) to allow the addition of the new barn to the permitted equine veterinary operation (see Attachment B). Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant states that the new barn is needed to provide improved care for the animals. Their case load is not planned to increase, and the new facilities will not increase traffic to the site. Character of the Area: The area is largely rural, with a mix of farms, forests, and residential developments. The facility is located within the Hickory Ridge PUD. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval. P!annin? and Zoning Historv: Blue Ridge Equine Partners was permitted to operate an equine veterinary service in this location by unanimous vote of the Board of Supervisors on September 2, 1997. At the same time, the Board waived Section 5.1.1, paragraphs (a) and (c) of the Zoning Ordinance, which relate to soundproofing of animal-related uses. The measures required by those paragraphs were deemed unnecessary for a facility dealing only with horses. Section 20.4.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance states that, on properties zoned PUD, "uses permitted by special use permit in section 22.0, commercial, C-l," shall be permitted only by special use permit. Section 22.2.2.5 allows "Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11 )". The applicant has submitted a letter requesting a waiver of section 5.1 for this permit amendment (see Attachment C). SP 00-40 1 Comprehensive Plan: The area is designated as a Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. Equine services, such as this veterinary hospital, are supportive of rural industries and land uses, and are appropriate to this area. Staff Comment: Staff will address each provision of Section 3 1.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, The construction of this new barn will not change the character or level of use of the veterinary facility, and will not create any significant new impacts on adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, This project will not detract from the rural character of the district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance. Section 1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance states that one intent of the ordinance is to ensure that "the needs of agriculture...be recognized in future growth." This project will further a use that supports agricultural needs. with the uses permitted by right in the district. Veterinary hospitals are not permitted by right in the PUD district (hence the need for the original special use permit for this facility). However, the Hickory Ridge PUD was created before the current RA district came into existence; under current policies. The character of the area is rural, and the majority of the land in the area is zoned RA. Staff opinion is that this addition is appropriate to the area, and will not significantly increase impacts of the already.permitted use. SP 00-40 with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, The original permit for the equine hospital required a waiver of Section 5.1.11 of Zoning Ordinance, which requires soundproofing and other measures for general veterinary clinics. The Planning Commission granted that waiver. The applicant has applied for the same waiver for this new barn (see Attachment B). As this horse-only facility has minimal noise impacts, staff supports this waiver request. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. As the levelof use on the site will not increase, this project should have no health, safety, or welfare impacts. SUMMARY The requested permit amendment would allow only the construction of an additional facility, and would not increase the activity levels on the site or the impacts of the use. This use and its attendant impacts have already been determined to be appropriate for this location. Also, this addition will not substantially change the conditions that made the original waiver of Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION Two actions will be required of the Planning Commission: (1) approve (with conditions) or deny the special use permit; and (2) approve or deny the request for a waiver of Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the following condition, adapted from condition # 1 from the original approval of SP 97-032: The clinic shall be for equine care only and shall be operated in accordance with the plan described in the applicant's description (attached to the staff report for SP 00-040 as Attachment D), and the information contained in the letter dated July 23, 1997 (sent to homeowners and attached to the staff report as Attachment E), with the addition of the operation of the isolation barn described in the application for this permit. 00-40 3 3 Staff also recommends approval of the request to waive Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Applicant's sketch plan of site, showing general location of proposed barn C - Letter from applicant requesting waiver of Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance D - Applicant's original plan description for application for SP 97-032 E - Letter to sent to homeowners by applicant, explaining application for SP 97- 032. SP 00-40 4 "'~/%~,~/' · -,,, \ 'il ATTAC~MENTA i?:" I., '~ "" /' .~_.~: _ ~ ~ ~ S~'100040 Blue md~e Equine Pame~ ~ . / / ~ ~4 e~ 14A ,/' I sc.~, ,. ~ss, WHITE:, HALL, JACK JOUETT SECTION 30 ................. AND Rt 0 DISTRICTS tee' MOORtdAN4S I~'V~:R ;,G,RICULTURA, L R, FOXES T.~4, OISTTrsCT · ,, · Im OmO~ o~z- -mo~ zoz~ ~o~ ZF F · 'r C ""~O m C, ~rrl FF-( ZO mFq~, Z H C0 N) -- F C~ F 0 z / Cz Z rq-l-1 z::lg Op-1 '~3Z F 0]> _ 0'0 0;0 --~l--4IZ - _ -< FIT100~C/) ]>OF-TU --{CF-< C)-<COE~ C) ;01-q2~rq O;0__I ]> ATTACHMENT B / 'Ti~ OO ',<: ',~,, --_,.., 0 ~ (.)'1 , ./ .. · / m --n % '...i.,, m °° G) G),-- r- CZ z h,' o o C J. C)'YO z o ~m~m~c zTz? ~ ~o~o~ < ~0 F o ~o 0 ~ OzO <-< IT1 -I zo_m rrl --rI>o ]>r';0 --ic1-1 o--q EzC moon xz'r ~cnm -4' C r--z m - mO -I C c_ \ mm or'- 0 ~o~ Z -1~0 ~ / ~o / 0 ~ ii iI II ii ~~0 o- 0 0 0 0 m~o~ Z NO~ o~o z~ O O~ ~O mmO ~ z OOZ Oe Om ~O~ F F O~ ~O ' z 0 '-4 O'OO m I--7 ~m om rrl m. Blue Inc. ATTACHMENT C Albemarle County Pl~mning Commission Albemarle County Zoning - Planning Department 401 Mclnrlze Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 July 20, 2000 Dear Sirs: In our request for a special use permit to build a bar~ for our equine clinic at 4510 Mockemut Lane, Earlysville, Va, it is necessary to request a waiver of Section 5. I. 11 of t~e Albematle County Zonin~ Ordinance. TIffs ordinance provision addresses soundproofing for animal confinement and was written for small animal facilities. We are hospitalizing only horses. These horses ate generally confined to the stal/entirely and are not vocal a~imals a~ct therefor~ we would request such a variance. Wc believe 'this is in keeping x~itb, the rural nature of the clinic and does not create any public nuisance. R. Rey~o~d~ CowIts, J'r., DVM for Blue Ridge Equine Partners F.O. Box 278 · l~ree Union, Virginia 22940 · (804) 973-7947 ATTACHMENT D Paul R. Stephens. and R. Reynolds Cowles, Jr., dba a partnership, request a special use permit for Lot 68 in the Hickory Ridge Subdivision to allow operation of an equine veterinary hospital and office. The original building was constructed as a horse drawn carriage showroom and repair facility. The adjoining stable is a customary center aisle a horse barn. The carriage building lends itself to easy conversion to an equine veterinary office and surgery. The existing landscaping beautifully screens this building from Mockernut Lane. Currently the building needs extensive outside repair and maintenance. It now houses a boot last shop and landscaping equipment. The barn is now rented as an equine facility. Adjoining paddocks are also in use. Blue Ridge Equine Clinic- our veterinary practice and hospital now operales under a special use permit at 4699 Catterton Road, 2 miles away from the Hickory Ridge site. We have expanded to our limits on the present property and need room to fully service the needs of our clientele. We currently have four equine veterinarians and operate a full service surgical and hospitalization facility. We conduct a large ambulatory practice from our site. There are several horses seen as outpatients at the clinic each day. We believe that the Hickory Ridge site lends itself to such a conversion without affecting the character and beauty of the site and makes full use of the original intended use as an equine facility. t tue ntage n...qu nec.t tm c, lnc ':: .',-.,~. ~ ' ATTACHMENT E July 23, 1997 To: Hickory Ridge Homeowners Paul Stephens and Reynolds Cowles - equine veterinarians propose to move our equine veterinary clinic to the Hickory Ridge Carriage Facility and barn -. Lot #68 in the PUD, This lot was originally used as an equine facility and is zoned for business, Our use would be congruous with the initial plan. Blue Ridge Equine Clinic is composed of four veterinarians- Drs. 'Stephens, Cowles, Dagner and Casinella. 80% of our practice is ambulatory on the farms of Albemarle, Orange, and Nelson counties. We enjoy an active equine referral practice to our surgical and hospilalization service now based on Catterton Road. This would be housed in the barn and carriage (clinic) building at Hickory Ridge. Our referrals are for the diagnosis of complex lamenesS and surgical problems, along with medical cases. Surgery and lamehess is the bulk , of our case load and we operate a wide variety of orthopedic and gastrointestinal conditions. Dr. Paul Stephens is a board certified surgeon and chief of that service. Our plans for Hickory Ridge are as follows: 1 .) The existing buildings would be utilized as is. 2.) The only interior changes will be made in the carriage building and this consists of creation of a surgery suite in the back great room, 3.) Both the carriage building and the barn will be resided to beautify and protect the buildings. 4.) Existing fences do not conform to lot boundaries. These fences would be replaced. 5.) We will have only two small port-a-paddocks for hospital cases and will not utilize the existing paddocks running out to 665. 6.) We would propose that the Bowers Trust allow us to reseed, fertilize and create an esthetic turf on these areas. - 7.) We will use existing plantings as is. , 8.) The small while barn in the lower SW corner is split with the properly line. We propose ~o the homeowners that it be painted and repaired as we would use our hall' as a tractor shed. 9.) We will create a small 40 x 80 level area in back ol the building where existing mulch piles now stand. This will be an exercise ring for evaluation of lamehess cases. This area will be tightly I'enced. The surface will be well maintained and watered. As you are currently aware the existing buildings at Hickory Ridge are in disrepair. We will beaulily and maintain this area in a manner fitting for a referral equine hospital. We feel our present facility speaks for itself and invite everyone to come and observe the present clinic. There are a number of common questions that we would anticipate and would offer these comments for your consideration. Q. What kind of traffic will use the facility? A. We have four practice vehicles and four lay employees who would drive to the clinic each day. We have an average of two horse trailers visiting daily Monday through Friday. On the average we have a nighl visit once every two weeks for an emergency surgery. These are usually concentrated in the spring during foaling season. Q. How will animal waste be handled? A. We will containerize all stall waste and it will be disposed or off the property. Q. What about dead animals? A. There are occasionally carcasses to dispose of whether due to euthanasia or an animal that died. We have a disposal service that picks up such cases. A dead animal will be enclosed completely in a holding area until picked up. Q. What about chemical wastes? A. We comply fully wilh all environmental and OSHA regulations. We are strong environmentalists. Our disinfectant use is primarily chlorhexidene which is extremely safe. Plain soap and water does most of the job. We use about 1 gallon of a cold sterilization agent - glutaraidehyde - a month for surgical instruments and this goes in the normal septic system in very small quantities. Q. How about X-rays or nuclear wastes? A. Our X-ray machines are used mainly on the farms and are portable. We will have one machine in the clinic building and all radiation safety standards required by Ihe state are followed. There would be no scatter outside the area. We use a radionucletide as licensed by the NRC for diagnosis o1' bone problems in the horse. This is about 4 cases per month. These animals are isolated for 48 hours in our barn until they return to normal background levels. The stall bedding is held for 4 days until normal and then dispensed of in a normal fashion. These procedures are strictly monitored and all regulations are complied wilh. to anyone ol~ll site. There is no danger to our workers or Q, What about exterior lighting? A. We will use existing courtyard lights at night when a case is coming in and then {he lights will be turned off. In lhe barn, lights will be on it we have technicians there at night taking care o1' cases. We will need a small lighted sign at the entrance of 665 {o guide horse Iratiers at nighl. This sign will be lurned on when a case is expected and turned off after arrival - perhaps on for 2 hours a[ a time. Our proposed sign would be 18" x 32" and tastefully simple. Please see our current sign at Catterton Road. in summary, we are all excited wilh the prospect oi' utilizing the wonderful carriage l'acility al Hickory Ridge to house Blue Ridge Equine Clinic. We strongly believe that you will illrid us to be good neighbors and that our renovations and enhanced esthetics will add beauty and value to our community. 11~ you have questions do not hesitale Io call Brian or Sam or Drs Cowles and Stephens directly. We would love the opportunity to show you what we do and what our plans are and to answer any questions or concerns that you might have. A free flow of communication usually dispels problems and we welcome such. Sincerely Yours, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development .......................................................... ~0 !_ .M._CI_[!t!~¢.Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, virgi'h'ii:~:~9o-iLY4'59-~i (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 October 12, 2000 Valefie Long, Esquire McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, LLP P O Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-2000-46 Winston (Triton PCS CVR 363C); Tax Map 106, Parcel 7 .... REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL .... Dear Ms. Long: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 19, 2000 unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The height of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall not ever exceed seven (7) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty five (25) feet of the facility at or below the same base elevation as the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The wooden pole shall be natural dark brown color; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number eleven (9) herein; d. The ground equipment cabinets and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the plan entitled "SnOw Hill-Winston Property!'; e. A grounding rod, not exceeding two feet above the top of the pole, and with a width not to exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole. f. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one. g. Within one month after the completion of the pole installation, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground and also measured Above Sea-Level. Page 2 October 12, 2000 h. The pole can never extend above top of the tallest tree, except as described in condition number one of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an amendment of this special use permit. The facility shall be located as shown on the attached. plan entitled "Sow Hill-Winston Property". Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled "Snow Hill- Winston Property"; b. Satellite and microwave dishes are prohibited; c. The pole can never extend above top of the tallest tree, except as described in condition number one of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an amendment of this special use permit. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment building,. including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and shall identify each user of the pole and identify each user that is a wireless telecommunication service provider. No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls; revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a luminary is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. i0. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted. Page 3 October 12, 2000 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit for this facility, the applicant shall submit a revised set of construction plans to the Planning Department, for approval. The revised plan shall reflect all of the conditions of the special use permit. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on October 1 t, 2000. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. The Commission also approved a site plan waiver associated with SP-2000-46 subject to the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; Provision of one parking space; A site plan application shall be required if activity on slopes of 25% or greater is proposed; and, Staff review and approval to ensure that all conditions of the special use permit are reflected in the final revisions of the construction drawings, prior to issuance of a building permit. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Stephen Waller Planner sw/jcf Co: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse Bob Ball SP 00-46 Winston (Crown Communications) View of balloon at 86 feet from Route 53 when traveling west (Balloon is flying approximately 30 feet east of proposed location of the monopole due to a dense tree canopy) CVR 363C View of proposed access road looking west toward proposed location CVR 363C View of proposed access road looking east away from proposed location CVR 363C View of proposed access road looking west toward proposed location COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 September 26, 2000 Valerie Long, Esquire McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, LLP P O Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-2000-46 Winston (Triton PCS CVR 363C); Tax Map 106, Parcel 7 Dear Ms. Long: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 19, 2000 unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: , The height of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall not ever exceed seven (7) feet above the height of the tallest tree, measured Above Sea Level (ASL) from the same base elevation as the pole, within twenty five (25) feet of the facility. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The wooden pole shall be natural dark brown color; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein; d. The ground equipment cabinets shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the plan entitled "Snow Hill-Winston Property"; e. The antennas shall be painted dark brown in color, m match the color of the pr~le; f. Only flush mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole shall be permitted; g. Within one month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground and in elevation above sea-level (ASL); h. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a registered surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as measured both in feet above ground and also elevation ,'~,bove Sea Level from the same base elevation within twenty-five (25) feet of the po!a; Page 2 September 26, 2000 = The pole cannot ever extend above tree heights, except as described in condition number one of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an amendment of this special use permit:. The pole shall be located as follows: a. The pole shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Snow Hill-Winston Property"; b. The proposed facility shall be located not more than 25 feet from the existing access road. Equipment shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a. Antennas shall be limited to the sizes shown on the attached plan entitled "Snow Hill-Winston Property"; b. Satellite and microwave dishes are prohibited; c. No portion of the pole, including the antennas, shall extend more than seven (7) feet above the highest part of the tal!est tree within 25 feet of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level. d. A grounding rod, whose height shall .not exceed two feet and whose width shall not exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole; Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment building, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and. Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued, The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the pole and that each user is a wireless telecommunication service provider. No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable tothe County Engineer are employed. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary shall be fully shielded such: that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a luminaries is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or Page 3 September 26, 2000 lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. 10. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on October t 1, 2000. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. The Commission also approved a site plan waiver associated with SP-2000-46 subject to the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; Provision of one parking space; A site plan application shall be required if activity on slopes of 25% or greater is proposed; and, Staff review and approval to ensure that all conditions of the special use permit are reflected in the final revisions of the construction drawings, prior to issuance of a building permit. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Planner SW/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack .Kelsey Steve AIIshouse Bob Ball STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: STEPHEN WALLER SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 OCTOBER 11, 2000 SP 00-046 Triton PCS (Winston) Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to install a telecommunications facility consisting of a self supporting wooden monopole at a height of seven (7) feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet. Three flush- mount panel antennas (approximately 5 feet in height), and lightning rod would be attached to the pole. Ground equipment will be housed in a six feet - nine inches tall metal cabinet on a 10- foot by 12-foot concrete pad. According to the applieant's request, approval of this facility would increase wireless coverage along State Route 53, near the Fluvanna County line (Attachment A). Crown Communications, a company which constructs facilities for various wireless service proriders, has leased a 15,625 square feet area on this parcel. A 200 square foot portion of the larger lease area has been subleased to the applicant, Triton PCS, Inc. Crown Communications also intends to sublease to other proriders, given the opportunity in the future. Some of the trees that have been used as justification for the Triton pole height are located within the Crown lease area. The general conditions of approval with requests for wireless facilities would limit cutting of trees within 200 feet of the proposed facility. Therefore, any of the trees within the larger lease site that are not related to this specific request, or for establishing access to the facility would be protected. For the purpose of this review, only the information relating to this specific request has been considered. Any additional facilities would require new special use permits. Additionally, any proposed changes in this application would require an amendment to the special use permit conditions, or the requested site plan waiver. Staff notes that the following information was provided by the applicant as an addendum to the original request and application (Attachment B): The applicant's original request was for approval of a special use permit which would have allowed a monopole approximately 92 in height. However, the applicant has amended this request and now seeks approval for an 86-foot tall pole. This is because the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet was originally thought to be approximately 87 feet tall, but has since been surveyed at 79 feet tall. A letter from the surveyor indicates that the average height of the trees surrounding the site was first surveyed at 76 feet, and then later surveyed at 99 feet. Based on correspondence with the applicant, staff notes that the average height provided in the updated request is the average of the heights that were measured at both surveys. The tops of some trees that are not shown on the plan were also taken into consideration for these measurements. ,1 A set of plans showing the specific location and design of the proposed facility is provided in Attachment C. Petition: Triton PCS, Inc. maintains several facilities within the County of Albemarle as part of a system intended to provide wireless service coverage throughout the area. This request is for a special use permit to allow the construction of a personal wireless service facility in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio wave transmission and relay towers. The proposed site for the facility is a 200 square feet lease area located within a larger lease area which has been obtained by Crown Communications. The 79 foot tall Poplar tree, which is being used as the basis for the requested height is located approximately 5 feet from the proposed pole and situated at nearly the same base elevation designated for the pole itself-- approximately 427 feet above sea-level (ASL). The property, described as Tax Map 106/Parcel 7, contains approximately 18.18 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Scottsville District (Attachment D). This Comprehensive Plan designates this site Rural Area 4. Character of the Area: The property is located on the east side of the Route 53, approximately 1/2 mile north and east of the Fluvanna County line. All adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas. The lease area for the proposed facility is located closest to the eastemmost property line, which is Shared with a portion of the property identified as Tax Map 106/Parcel 4A. The tower, itself, would be approximately 26 feet from the nearest property line, and 200 feet from the right of way margin for State Route 53. Many large and mature trees are located between the site and Route 53, this includes a long line of tall evergreens situated on the embax~cment along the side of the road. There are no dwelling units within 200 feet of the proposed facility. The nearest dwelling unit to the lease site is a house which is located on the same parcel and is currently vacant. With the exception of an existing clearing which was created to accommodate an electrical power transmission line, located nearly 55 feet away from the site, the remaining portions of the property are heavily wooded. The proposed location of the tower site is indicated on a topographic map which is included as Attachment E. Access to the lease site will be provided from an existing gravel road, shared with Tax Map 106/Parcel 7A, which would be extended north and then west to the facility site. The existing grave! road will be improved from Route 53 to the point where it intersects with the old driveway which was created as access to the house on the property, and the drive will then be extended to the lease site. The proposed 12-foot wide gravel service drive will be located within a 20-foot wide access easement. According to the applicant's plan, a 39-foot tall Black Pine tree, 8 inches in diameter will have to be remove in order to accommodate the service drive at the location shown on the plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. Planning and Zoning, History: No planning or zoning history is available for this parcel. A single-family dwelling unit currently exists on the property. Comprehensive Plan: Staff notes that the proposed lease area and a service road will require some clearing for construction of the proposed facility and its access. Therefore, the impacts of those items and have been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The Comprehensive Plan currently contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunications facilities. However, staff analysis includes an assessment of this proposal's compliance with the guidelines set fourth in the draft Wireless Policy Manual which is currently under development for adoption as a future component of the Comprehensive Plan. This tower is intended, primarily, to provide service along the State Route 53 Entrance Corridor. The Architectural Review Board addresses development within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District for aesthetic impact. The intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District, as stated in the Zoning Ordinance, is in part, "to implement the Comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county' s natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources, including preservation of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose," and, "to protect the County's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits accruing to the County from tourism." Although the top of tower will be visible, it is anticipated that the tower's visibility will be minimal as a result of both its design and location within a stand of trees that are comparable in height. The ARB has reviewed and approved this proposal with conditions (Attachment F). The proposed facility site lies within the area designated as Rural Area 4 by the Comprehensive Plan, and aside from the Entrance Corridor none of the other resources that are identified on the Open Space Plan Concept Map are present in this location. Some of the surrounding properties contain with critical slopes that are designated on the Concept Map. However, with the exception of slopes which are associated to the Rivanna River floodplain and located nearly a mile away from the site, none of the critical slopes are associated with any of the Open Space Plan resources, such as stream valleys, ridges or mountains. Staff analysis focuses on the visibility of the site from the surrounding properties and roads. The tower site is surrounded by trees that are similar in height and located at a lower elevation than the state right-of-way, nearly 200 feet from the northbound lane of State Route 53. At a recent field visit to this site, a red balloon was floated at the proposed height of 86 feet. During this visit staff observed that the balloon was visible from Route 53, through a gap brief gap between tops of the tall evergreen trees located between the site and the road for a distance of approximately ~t'cy feet. Staff also attempted to locate the balloon from several of the properties located nearby, but observed that the only other place at which the balloon was visible from off of the subject parcel was on Tax Map 106/Parcel 4A, beside Route 53, and through the same space between the trees. Based on these observations, staff does not anticipate that the brown monopole pole and ground equipment would be highly visible from Route 53, or from the surrounding properties. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address he issues of this request in four sections: 2. 3. 4. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; Section 704 (a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; The draft Wireless Policy Manual; Reduction of setback in accord with the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance; and, Waiver of a site plan in accordance with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the fight to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. The proposed facility will be located within a heavily wooded area, in a grove of trees, approximately 26 feet from the nearest property line (Tax Map 106/Parcels 4A), and more than 200 feet from the nearest public road. According to information submitted by the applicant, the trees surrounding the facility site have an approximate average height of 87 feet. Therefore, the top of the monopole would be comparable in height to the top of the surrounding tree. Based on a field visit at which a balloon was flown at the 86 feet high, staff has determined that the top portion of the tower, 7 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet, would be minimally visible from Route 53 and one of the properties adjoining to the subject parcel. Additionally, there is an existing buffer of large, mature evergreens between the road right-of-way and lease site, which will help provide year-round screening of the facility. Therefore, it is staffs opinion that this tower will be a minor feature that is not highly distinguishable from adjacent properties in the area and blends well into the existing natural landscape. The applicant's request indicates that Triton service personnel would normally travel to the site once a month for routine maintenance and service visits. It is anticipated that some unscheduled visits will be necessary on occasions when electrical power to the site is interrupted by weather 4 or other unexpected factors. The applicant will upgrade a portion of the existing driveway which will provide a shared access for the facility and the residence located on Tax Map 106/Parcel 7A. However, once the tower has been constructed and is fully operational, staff does not expect this schedule of site visits to create a significant increase in activity or traffic within the area. Based on the above-cited factors, staff finds that the proposed tower will not impose any substantial detriment to adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The presence of various types of utility uses in the Rural Areas is not uncommon, and there are several wooden utility poles located within the area surrounding this site. This includes poles that are appurtenant to a power line which crosses the subject parcel, passing within 60 feet to the east of the lease site for the proposed facility. Although those power poles are all similar in color, the monopole would be larger in height and diameter to that ofthe proposed tower in height than common utility poles, and constructed of metal instead of wood. However, staff also recognizes that the amount of disturbance required for in preparation for the placement of a wireless facility is .very minimal when compared to that required for power lines. A key purpose of the County's draft Wireless Design Policy is to site tower facilities in locations where they have a lower sense of intrusion upon on the surrounding area. This facility would be located within a densely wooded area and accessed from an extension of an existing private driveway. With the exception of the portion of the tower which would extend slightly above the canopy, the presence of the existing trees should be effective in obscuring the view of most of the components of the facilities. This has been a favored approach in the County's attempt to site wireless facilities in areas where they will have limited visual impact. Therefore, staff finds that the relatively low visibility of this facility will not result in a change in the character of the district. 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 Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections 10, 1.4, 1.4.4, and 1.5. All of these provisions address, in one form or another, the provision of public services. Mobile telephones clearly provide a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use. Based on the provision of a public service, staffs opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of these sections of the Ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community". The provision of this facility does increase the availability and convenience for users of wireless phone technology. Section 10.1 Zoning Ordinance lists limited service delivery as one of the intents for the Rural Areas District. By providing a larger range for telecommunications, this request and similar requests for wireless communication facilities would act to increase the level of services that are provided in the Rural Areas zoning district. However, the increase is not in conflict with the agricultural and forestal objectives, nor any of the other rural objectives set forth for the district. Therefore, staff opinion is that this request complies with this provision of Section 3 1.2.4.1. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The proposed tower will not restrict the current uses on the subject parcel, or by-right uses on any other property within the district. But, order to maintain proper screening of the facility on this site, the proposed conditions of approval will act to limit tree cutting (a by right use in the Rural Areas). with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.1.12 of the Ordinance contains regulations goveming tower facilities and appropriate conditions are proposed to ensure compliance with this provision of the Ordinance. and with the public health. safety and general welfare. The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health and safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in the event of emergencies and increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following language, "No state or local govemment or insmentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commissions' regulations concerning such emissions". In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This requirement will adequately protect the public health and safety. 2. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: The regulation of the placement. construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless service. Staff.does not believe that the special use permit process or the denial of this application has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless service. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other locations within the proposed area of service currently available for new tower construction. For this reason, staff does not believe that denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. 6 Prior to development of the draft County' s Wireless Policy, which is currently under consideration for adoption, oppommities for collocation on existing towers were recommended as an alternative to the construction of new facilities. However, it is staffs opinion that opportunities for collocation on existing facilities may, in some cases, have the undesirable effect of increasing visibility of existing facilities by requiring greater tower heights. Altemate sites for the construction of a new tower for this service area have not been discussed, and staffs review of the request is specific to this site alone. Therefore staff review of this proposal has been based largely on the applicant's ability to demonstrate that compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, Comprehensive Plan at the proposed tower height of 86 feet. Staff notes that the applicant has also voluntarily attempted to comply with the guidelines of the draft Wireless Policy. 3. County of Albemarle Draft Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy Although the Board of Supervisors has not adopted the Wireless Facilities Policy, the wireless providers are voluntarily using the Policy as a guiding instrument. In concert with the Policy, the proposed communication facility would implement the following summarized guidelines: Limited visibility: If constructed at the recommended height of six feet above the highest tree within 25 feet, the proposed pole would be located at a height that would limit the visibility from adjoining properties, as well asfrom nearby State Route 53. The proposed monopole is a natural wooden structure, and all of the ground equipment and the concrete utility pad would be painted dark brown, to blend with its surrounding environment. The panel antennas would flush mounted to the pole and painted a dark brown color to match the wooden pole, in order to be as inconspicuous as possible. No permanent lighting would be used on the site or the pole. Protection of ridgetops and ridgelines: The proposed site is located at a lower elevation than the road and the adjacent properties. Therefore, no ridgetops or ridgelines would be adversely impacted by the monopole at its restricted height of 7 feet above the top of the highest tree within 25 feet of the structure. Utilize existing structure: Due to the proposed height of the structure the applicant has advised staff that there are no existing facilities or structures within this area that would accommodate the additional equipment; therefore, collocation on another facility is not feasible, according to the applicant. Appropriateness in any zoning district: The height of the pole would be limited by the tree heights surrounding the facility. The unlighted site and the natural, earthen colors used on the equipment, the antennas, and the limited height would be as unobtrusive as possible. Aside from limiting the locations where trees can be cut on the 'subject parcel, the proposed unmanned facility would not act to restrict any of the existing by right uses within the Rural Areas, nor would it establish a use that is any more intensive than those 7 7 uses allowed by right within district. Ground based equipment in keeping with the area character: The proposed ground equipment would be six feet and nine inches in height, and the dark brown color of the cabinets and the concrete pad would aid in blending the ground equipment in with the surrounding environment. Limited visibility of the antennas: The brown painted antennas would be approximately 44.7 inches long, 6.3 inches wide, and 2.7 inches thick. By virtue of the generally recommended conditions, the distance between the outside face of the pole to the face of the antennas can not exceed 12 inches. Reduction of setback in accord with the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: Section 4.10.3.1 states: "The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings, residential chimneys, spires, flag poles, monuments or transmission towers and cables; smokestack, water tank, radio or television antenna or tower, provided that except as otherwise permitted by the commission in a specific case, no structure shall be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure; and, provided further that such structure shall not exceed one hundred (100) feet in height in a residential district. This height limitation shall not apply to any ofthe above designated structures now or hereafter located on existing public utility easements". ' The proposed monopole is located approximately 26 feet ~'om the nearest property line (the boundary shared with Tax Map 106/Parcel 4A). The site is located such that the facility would meet the standard required setbacks from all adjacent property lines. However, due to the height limitations and setback requirements for residential districts, set forth in Section 4.10.3.1, the applicant is requesting approval of a waiver which would allow the monopole to be built closer to the nearest property line, in feet, than its vertical height. By the requirements of this provision the proposed monopole would need to be located at least 86 feet from all property lines. This assumes a 79 foot height for the tallest tree within 25 feet, whereas the tallest portion of any part of the monopole could extend more than 7 feet above that tree. Although the pole would be located approximately 26 feet from the property line, there are no structures within its 86-foot "fall radius" and it would be nearly 200 feet from the fight-of way margin for Route 53. The Virginia Department of Transportation has reviewed this proposal and expressed no objections to this waiver request or the special use permit. Staff opinion is that this setback 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 8 approved subject to a condition requiring approval of a tower designed to collapse in the lease area in the event of structural failure. This condition protects the public safety, but is not possible with wooden poles. Relocation of the tower may be an option, but any adjustment away from the property line might result in the facility being moved away from the trees. Staff notes that the County has approved reductions in setback for similar proposals for towers adjacent to roadways. That the portion of Tax Map 106/Parcel 4A which is adjacent to the proposed facility site vacant and too small in area to contain any potential building sites. If the Commission is able to support this request on the basis of its evaluation for compliance with the provisions of Section 3 1.2.4.1 approval of this modification is appropriate. Staff opinion is that approval of the modification does not result in undue crowding of the land and does not represent a safety hazard. Therefore, staff is able to support this request for modification of setback. Request for a site plan waiver, in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Commission may waive the drawing of a site plan if requiring a site plan would not forward the purpose of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. Generally the site review committee has endorsed the use of site plan waivers for the establishment of telecommunications facilities. This general endorsement is based on the relatively small area impacted by the proposed use and the ability to obtain the required information through an erosion and sediment control plan and the building permits. In this case the construction of the facility will require activity related to construction of a service road, connection of utilities which are currently on site, and the placement of the tower and ground equipment. Based on the minimal activity necessary for installation, staff is unable to identify any purpose which would be served by requiring the submission of a site plan. Staff recommends approval of a full site plan waiver subject to the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; Provision of one parking space; A site plan application shall be required if activity on slopes of 25% or greater is proposed; and, Staff review and approval to ensure that all conditions of the special use permit are reflected in the final revisions of the construction drawings, prior to issuance of a building permit. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: The facility will provide increased wireless capacity, which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1;4.4 and 1.5; 9 The facility will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties; The design and siting of the facility is such that it will have limited visual impact on adjacent property and public roads, Access to the tower will be provided by extension of an existing driveway Staff has identified no factors that are unfavorable to this request. The following factors are relevant to this consideration: There is an existing reasonable use of the property; and, Some of the trees within a 200 foot radius of the monopole are located offof the subject parcel.. Staff opinion is that this request generally complies with the provisions of the Ordinance and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff opinion is that while this site is located within the Rural Areas, and visible from offof the property, the existing trees reduce the impacts such that approval would not be inconsistent with the goals set forth in the draft Wireless Policy. Therefore, staff recommends approval of SP 00- 46, subject to the following conditions: (In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to retum to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.) Recommended conditions of approval: The top of the pole, as measured Above Sea Level (ASL), shall never exceed seven (7) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty five (25) feet of the facility at or below the same base elevation as the pole, measured Above Sea Level (ASL). No antennas or equipment, with the exception of the grounding rod, shall be located above the top of the pole. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The wooden pole shall be natural dark brown color; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted. c. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as provided by condition number nine (9) herein. d. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas and all equipment attached to the pole shall be dark brown in color and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the attached plan entitled "Snow Hill-Winston Property". 10 g A grounding rod, not exceeding two feet above the top of the pole, and with a width not to exceed one-inch diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the pole. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department by a licensed surveyor certifying the height of the tallest tree, as identified in condition number one. Within one month after the completion of the pole, the applicant shall provide a statement to the Planning Department certifying the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground and also measured Above Sea Level. The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in condition number one of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit. The facility shall be located as shown on the. attached plan entitled "Snow Hill-Winston Property"; Antennas shall be attached to the pole only as follows: a Antennas shall be limited to those shown on the attached plan entitled "Snow Hill- Winston Property"; b. Satellite and microwave .dishes are prohibited; c. The pole can never extend above the top of the tallest tree, except as described in condition number one of these conditions of approval, without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole or the equipment cabinets, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, a tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist, specifying tree protection methods and procedures and identifying any existing trees to be removed on the site both inside and outside the access easement and lease area shall be submitted to the Director of planning and Community Development for approval. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment building, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree :conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment building. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility. The pole shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator one time per year, no later than July 1 of that year~ The report shall identify each user of the pole and certify that the height of the pole is in compliance with condition number one. No slopes associated with construction of the pole and accessory uses shall be created that 11 are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminary shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane nmning though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaries. For purposes of this condition, a luminaries is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. 10. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted. 11. Prior to issuance of a building permit for this facility, the applicant shall submit a revised set of construction plans to the Planning Department, for approval. The revised plan shall reflect all of the conditions of the special use permit. ATTACHMENTS: B- C- D- E- F- Application and Request for Special Use Permit Additional Information Site Information and Construction Drawings "Snow Hill-Winston Property" Tax Map Topographic Map Section ARB Approval Letter (dated July 17, 2000) 12 ;' ' pplk tio for peci ' """"' -'" Project Nalne(~,~,,t~,~~ ..................... - = .......... ' .......... ~7'- ....... -' ':'" '7'~.'7Y?. . ..... (*s~ will ~you ~ffi:ffi~ i~):~.=.:~:::~':L~-' ..~. ::: -' '-:' .' '~ ........-~'~ ." :::::~ & ~ :~ ,~'.' ~ -:?~ '~:~, :'. dcr.~'~ ': ' . ~ tln~ an am~dment ~ an ~ng S~al Use Pe~t? .................. · , Q Y~ No ...~ Are you s~bmit~ngn ~te devdopi~t plan wiffi -- · · COn~ctPerSOn~h~sh~id~tccon~ingth~ojc~?): V~e. ~n~, ~, ~e a ~ T.r.p~:- .: .~.",~ ~"~,.-, ..=:.- ~ . · -.. '-.,:. Address ~_O. ~V ~788 ' ' ' City ~o~~e Smt~ ~ ~p ~Pg0~ Daytime Phone ( 804 )977-2545 'F~ ~804-98d'2265 E-m~l ~long~mwbb. Eo~ .. OWner .Of land (As listed in the County's r~cords):f'-T~cj~ry A, ~i~n~z~=t'm / Address '16202 Pen~ Way= ;:' .'- ~ .'=:=' :Mi~IZ-v.i~:' :: !~ .. MD r :' Zip 2073.6: App licnnt (who is the contact person representing? Who is requesting ~c special use?): (~ ~CC~.'~LOrIS ~ II'IC. Address 5372 Fallowater Lane, Suite C City Rtmnol~ state VA Zip 24014 Daytime Phone (' 940 )' 7~.5-6069 Fax # 540-725-7773 E-mail Tax map and arcel .10600-00-00-00700 ' Physical Address (if assigned) .__' LOCntiOnOfprOperty(landmnzks, interscctions, otether) LOCa~ Off ~e 53, -lust after sharp "S" c~-v-~ ~n road, close to Fluvanna County line. . Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numbers N/A OFFICE USE ONLY History: ~ S~cial Use · ': L ~ ZMAs and Proffc~: ~ V~anc~: ~~/ ~cr of Authoriation ~C 5 ~ Con~nt mvicw of Site Dcvclopmcnt Plan? ~ O No 401 Mclntire Road -:- Charlottesville, VA 22902 + Voice: 296-5832 + Fax: 9724126 · .:' SeCtion'31.2~4~l"'of ~eAlbeni~le'CoU/~ty Zo/il~O~{~c~"states ~t~ ATTA~:::~T A · ,"' hereby reserves unto itself-the'right to issu'~:!S~ial use l~rrni~s · l~rmir~ for uses as'provided in this ordinan~. m~y ~ ~ued upon a ~i~ding by ,.__ r"" that such use will not b~ of substantial detrlrn~nt td;adjilcent'propcn~ that .the character of the district will not be c'hangcd thcreby and that such Use Will be in harmony with thc purpose and intent of this ordinance, with the uses permitted by fight in the di~u'ict, with additional regulations provided in section The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your requesL Please Complete this form and provide' additional' information which' will assist tile Codnty in i~S r~ view' of your request. If'you ncexi ~sistance' filling out these items', starf~i~avaihlble~:"~:~:!L~,"~.i~f What is the Comprchcnsivc Plan dcsignadon for this propPay? How will thc proposed spccial usc affCct adjaccat~ropcrty? Seea~-ta~ H~wwi~thcpr~p~scds~ccia~usca~cctthccharactc~.thcdistrictsurr~undingthcpr~pcny? See aL-tad'led How is the usc in harmony with thc purpose and'intcnt of the Zoning Ordinancc? How is the usc in harmony with thc uses pcrmittcd by right in the district? See at:t.a~ What additional rcgulations providcd in Scction 5.0 of thc Zoning Ordinancc apply to this usc? See a~-ta.cil~d HoW will this usc promotc thc public hcalth, safcty, and gcncral wclfarc or thc community? See a1:tac,hed 14 ATTACHMENT A PAGE 3 ............... , Recorded platOr boundaz7 survey of the' property requested., for the rezoning, I/r there is no recorded 91~ or boundaz7 survey, please provide legal description of th.¢ property anct Note: If you am 'requesting a special use pertnit only for a portion of the property, it needs to be described Or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any ~ of legal ' entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, parmershlp or'association, Or in the name. of a trust, 'or in a 'fictitious name, a document acceptable tO the Coat~ty.' must be SUbmitt~ ~ttifying that the person signing below has the authority -:'" If the applicant is s contract purchaser, s document acceptable to the County m~t submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application.. " If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a documen,t acceptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHlVIENTS: Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. Additional Information, if any. I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Signature Printed Name Date ' Daytime phone number of Signatory 15 Triton PCS 363C (Winston) SpeCial Use Permit Application Questions: I. What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? ATTACHMENT A PAGE 4 How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? The proposed 92' wood pole will not adversely affect adjacent property, as the pole and antennas will only extend a few feet above the tree canopy in the area, and will be only minimally visible from adjacent property. In addition, the pole, antennas and ground equipment will all be either naturally brown colored' or painted brown to blend in with the natural vegetation, further minimizing its visibility from adjacent property. The property contains a number of other tall trees of similar dimensions, enabling the facility to blend in well on the wooded parcel. Row will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? The proposed facility is not inconsistent with the existing development in the area, since it will not generate additional traffic or development, and preserves the character of the area. Because the property and the area surrounding the property are both wooded and because the proposed pole and antenna will be within the trees, the facility will be only minimally visible from the nearby roadways and other properties within the district, and thus character of the district surrounding the property will not be affected. How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? The proposed facility is consistent with the County' s preference for wood pole structures, which extend slightly above the treetops. In addition, wireless telecommunications services provide a public service to the community by creating a "convenient, attractive and harmonious community," consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. This proposal would increase the convenience and availability of wireless telephone service, in a manner that is only very minimally visible to the community and is fully consistent with the County's proposed wireless design manual. How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? ATTACHMENT A PAGE 5 The proposed tower will not restrict the current uses or other by-right uses available at this site or by-right uses on any other property. What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply here? Section 5.1.12, which outlines public utility structures and uses. ° How will this use promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community? The proposed facility will provide increased and improved wireless telecommunications services to this portion of Albemarle County, especially emergency communications, and will increase overall communications services in the area. This proposal will comply with the Federal Communications Commission's guidelines for radio frequency emissions, which will adequately protect the public health and safety. Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the number of persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: Crown Communications Incorporated ("Crown") proposes to construct, maintain and manage a wireless telecommunications facility on property owned by Gregory A. Winston, identified as tax map parcel 10600-00-00-00700 on behalf of Triton PCS, Inc. ("Triton"). Crown is a facility management company with an ongoing relationship with Triton. Crown would own, construct and maintain the facility, leasing space to Triton. The facility would be comprised of wooden pole and attached antennas flush-mounted to the pole, along with the necessary transmitting and receiving equipment. Triton operates a Personal Communications Service (PCS) system, providing the latest in wireless communications throughout the Southeast. Triton and AT&T Digital PCS have undertaken a joint venture to expand the AT&T digital PCS network to over 11 million people in Virginia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia. Triton is a member of the AT&T Digital Wireless Network, which is licensed to cover more than eighty percent of the United States. AT&T Digital PCS provides convenient and secure mobile communications, combining voice, messaging and paging communications in a single phone. Crown has entered into a lease agreement with the property owners for a 125x125 lease area. Triton's lease area would be a 10x20 area within the larger lease area. The facility will be located entirely within the lease area. The facility will be accessed by an existing gravel driveway, which will be extended reach the lease area, which is located in a grove of mature trees. The facility will emit no noise, glare or odor. Nor will it interfere with television and radio reception in the surrounding areas. The facility will not be lit, unless required by the FAA. 2 ATTACHMENT A PAGE 6 To develop its network, Triton has divided the Basic Trading Area region into small geographic sections or "cells." Each cell site holds the equipment that provides the air interface to the subscriber units and must be precisely located relative to other "cells" to create a reliable communications grid system. This grid system must reflect the topography and traffic (user population and building density) of the "cells" as well as the radius of the respective antenna's reliable transmission area. Triton' s. FCC license requires it to operate its system in a defined service region using designated radio frequencies. Each site must be precisely located relative to other facilities within the network to ensure that Triton complies with the terms of its license. The network requires a facility at this location to avoid a gap in service to this portion of Albemarle County. Triton carefully selected and designed the proposed facility to provide a structure that provides adequate height and range of coverage, while meeting the goals of the community by minimizing the impact of the proposed facility on adjacent or nearby properties. The facility will be located within a grove of mature trees and designed to blend in with the surrounding vegetation. Following Tfiton's thorough investigation of the properties in the geographic area, we have concluded that there are no existing structures within a reasonable distance of the location that are feasible for collocation and would also meet Tfiton's engineering requirements. The subject parcels are zoned Rural/Agricultural. The surrounding properties within 2000' of the proposed facility are primarily used for rural residential and agricultural purposes. The tract of land on which the site is located contains 18.18 acres. The average tree height within a 25' radius of the facility is 87'. The surveyor ~cc measured the tallest tree within 25' of the facility to be 99' (a 16' wide poplar). ' Unfortunately the drawings we have today are incorrect and show the tallest tree being 76'. I will submit a certified stamped letter from the surveyor clarifying this information and will submit revised zoning drawings as soon as they are available. We are proposing a facility at a height of 92', which will result in the top of the facility extending just above the treetops. The facility was designed to strictly comply with the County' s proposed wireless design manual. The antenna panels will be flush-mounted to the pole and will not extend above the top of the pole. The pole will retain its natural wood color (dark brown) and the antenna panels, equipment cabinet and cables will all be painted to match the color of the pole. In addition, the concrete pad will be tinted earth tone to blend in with the surrounding wooded area. The design and the siting of the facility will minimize its visibility from surrounding properties, as it will blend in with the existing tree canopy in the area. ATTACHMENT A PAGE 7 Once constructed, the facility will be visited approximately one time per month for routine maintenance checks. The facility will not impact the provision of services by Albemarle County. As a telecommunications facility, this proposal will serve the community by fostering increased communications, especially emergency communications. Most importantly, due to its design and precise location, the facility will be visible along Koute 53 for less than 2/1 0th of a mile when driving west toward Charlottesville. It will not be visible from Route 53 when driving east toward Palmyra, In addition, it will be nearly invisible from all other roads and residences. x\RE A\29017.1 Court Square Building 310 Fourth Street Suite 300 P.O. Box 1288 ,adottesville, VA 22902-1288 Phone: 804.977.2500 Fax: 804,980.2222 www. mcgu irewoods.corn Valerie W. Long Direct: 804.977.2545 i%,'!cC,. U IRE 'V \/COD RECEIVED AU6 0 3 2000 PLANNING ANC ~,;CMMUNIT'f DEVELOPMENT ATTACHMENT B PAGE 1 vlong<~mcguirewoods.com Direct Fax: 804.980.2265 August2,2000 VIA FACSIMILE 972-4012 Ms. Joan McDowell Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Triton PCS Special Use Permit Applications SP2000-41, 42, 44, 45 and 46 DearJoan: Pursuant to our telephone conversation earlier today, I am writing to clarify the revisions to our applications for the above-referenced Triton sites. As we discussed, after we submitted our applications on June 26th, Triton's surveyors provided additional information about the height of the trees within 25' of the proposed facilities that necessitates these revisions. I apologize for any confusion this may cause, and appreciate your assistance with our request. The new requests for each application are as follows: 1. SP 2000-41 (CVR 349H Herring) - height of wooden monopole: 63 feet 2. SP 2000-42 (CVR 350C Bailey) - height of wooden monopole: 115 feet 3. SP 2000-44 (CVR 361A Moyer) - height of wooden monopote: 80 feet 4. SP 2000-45 (CVR 362B Sweeney) - height of wooden monopole: 90 feet 5. SP 2000-46 (CVR 363C Winston) - height of wooden monopole: 86 feet (this is not a change from the most recent set of zoning drawings we submitted to you dated July 7, 2000, but is a change in the narrative of our application). I should have replacement zoning drawings to deliver to you no later than Monday, August 7th for SP 2000-41. Please let me know if this will not be sufficient in order for us to stay on schedule for the Planning Commission on August 22, 2000. For the other applications (42, 44, 45, & 46) I will have replacement drawings to you no later than Friday, August 11, 2000. Please let me know if this will not be soon enough for us to stay on schedule for the Planning Commission on September 19, 2000. August 2, 2000 Page 2 ATTACHMENT B PAGE 2 Again, I appreciate your assistance with these applications. Should you require anything further, or have any additional questions about these issues, please do not hesitate to contact me 977-2545. Very truly yours, Valede W. Long cc: Stephen Waller, Albemarle County Dept. Planning & Community Development Dale Finocchi, Crown Communications Inc. (via fax) ATTACHMENT B VdedeW. Loq ~10fourdlSlzee~N.B..Sdte~00 Pu'tOtceBoz1288 Chulonerd~e, Vir~nis 2290Z-ZZ88 Tdephone/TDD (804)977-3~00 · l~u (804)980-2222 June 26, 2000 VIA FACSI~K,E: 972-4126 ZOzd copy to follow via h~d dellv~ Direct Did: (804) 9774S4S DirectF~ ~9W~i5 PAGE 4 Sheton Y. Bridges Office Associzte 13I Atbemarle County Dqoartment of Buildin~ Code & Zoning Services 401 McIntire Charlo'ctesville, VA 22902-4596 Triton PC,~ 363C {Winston) [SP 2000-046} Dear Sharon: Enclosed is a letter from John R. McAdtm, a surveyor who measured the heights of trees at the property owned by Gregory A. Winston ~at is the location of Triton PCS's site 363C. This is one of the special use permit applications I submitted earlier ?.his afternoon (SP 1000. 046). This letter is an attempt to clarify some information tlnX was incorrectly stated in zoning drawings that was included with our application. I hope to have revised drawinSs to submit in the comin~ days, but wanted to get this letter to you as soon as possible. With that in mind, I would appreciate it if you would add this letter to the file for SP 2000-046. Should you have any questions regarding the enclosed letter or any of Triton's applications, please do not heskate to contact me at 977-2545. I appreciate your assistance. Sincerely, Valerio W. Long VWL/hll Enclosure cc: Dale Finocchi, Crown Communications IncorporaZed (with enclosure) tent By: BAt. ZER & A&gOCIATES, ZNC.| Jun-ae~oo ATTACHMENT B PAGE 3 26, 3000 ~r. Msdc Clear C~~ S372FsllowsurLa~SuitoC R~xnok~,VA SlAI~j~,,~,. 00lm..00{17.00 I I I I / / 717100 / e,g'~v~"'^t I ~ / / / / / / TRUE NORTH ,/ / / / % % q \ \ '2..-------- 7/rVoo OVERALL TOWER HEIGHT INCLUDING LIGHTNING ROD = 90'-0" TOWER HEIGHT = 86'-0' NOTE (~) PROPOSED TRITON PCS RAD CENTER HEIGHT = 86'-0" · ' ~' 14"~ WHITE OAK "<, .:.~ ,, ..,...,,-,;- z : 6"e HICKORY ::~L ..,.-.., .: .... . ~.?./? .- '.. :.-...~. ~,. ': <,~ 10'~ ~ffE OAK ~ ,, 's...,, , . - , :. = ,-:,.,'~'., 14-'I WHITE OAK " '. '~" ,":7:,.'~' '-', ':\'' ..-: ". ~ TREE HEIGHT = 67' TREE HEIGHT = 48' TREE HEIGHT = 79' TREE HEIGHT = 52' 12"e BLACK PINE 16'e RED OAK · TREE HEIGHT = 72° · .;, ~,E ® e, 1 ,./ / ,? I..' 4 /! I '1 ,,I !/ t t ,1 428.7 431.8 434.0 433.84 434.2 433.79 ~ o - BVO~ 04-83.38 . BVCE: \ 426.82 420.8 424.42 422.8 424.90 i"~ L'VCS: 1-183.38 EVC~ 43t.94 ~/CS: 2+50 BVCE~ '26.82 L'VCS: 3+50 EVCE: 424.90 ALBEMARLE COUNTY ~J4 ~. ~3 SP 00-046 Triton PCS (Winston) \.\.~, / , '\,'~, // ATTACHMENT E / // y , , SCOTTSVILLE AND RIVANNA DISTRIGTS SECTION I01~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 ATTACHMENT F July 19, 2000 Valede W. Long McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe, LLP P O Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ARB-P(BP)-2000-15 Triton PCS CVR 363C 0Ninston) Dear Ms. Long: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday, July 17, 2000. The board unanimously approved the request, pending staff administrative approval of the following conditions: 1. Indicate that no trees shall be cut within a 200' radius of the pole. 2. If possible, re-position the pole and equipment so that on-site vegetation screens the views of the pole from the 1-64 Entrance Corridor. Vegetation in the right-of-way should not be relied upon for all screening. 3. The height of the pole shall not exceed 10' above the tallest tree within a 25' radius, as certified by a surveyor. Please provide revised drawings or other information addressing these conditions at your earliest convenience. When staffs review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Pickart Design Planner MP/jcf t/g'~: File Joan McDowell PROFFER FORM Original Proffer: Z2VlA- 96 - 22 Amended Proffer: ZMA- 2000 - 06 (Amendment# 1 ) Date: September 26, 2000 ZMA~ 2000-06 Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) TM 61 W0-01-00-001 through 004 1.691 R4 CO 2.774 Acres to be rezoned from C1 to CO 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 re'zoned. These eonditi0ns 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 request. (1) The Owner will install and maintain an opaque privacy fence along the property line between the property and adjoining residential district, at the points indicated on the drawing attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The fence will be six (6) feet tail and will be constructed of treated lumber. (2). No more than 43,200 gross square feet of office space, consistent with CO (Commercial Office) zoning will be constructed on the property. An additional 4,080 gross square feet of storage space (the "storage space') may be included within the building iden~ed as 'One Story Building No. 4, wi Partial Basement, 1460 Greenbrier Place,' as shown on the plan entitled 'Minor Amendment Fii~al Site Development Plan Showing Greenbrier Drive Ofr~a Park," approved June 11, 1998 ("Building No. 4'). The storage space shall be designed and constructed for storage purposes only, rather than as habitable or occupiable space for o~e or any other use. The storage space shall be an accessory use, and shall be used exclusively by the occupants of Building No. 4 for the storage of equipment, supplies and records associated with the tenants' activities within Greenbrier Ofr~e Park. The term 'designed and constructed for storage purposes only' shall mean that the storage area shall be approved by the building o~ial for storage use only and not for habitation or occupancy, shall contain a minimum number of overhead lights and electrical outlets for such use as determined by the Zoning Administrator, and shall have no computer hookups or wiring. (3) A minimum separation of ray (50) feet will be maintained between any dumpster on the property and the adjoining residential district. (SEE continuation sheet, attached) Proffer Form (continued) ZMA #2000-06 TM 61 W0-01-00-001 through 004 (4) All exterior light fixtures will be fully shielded. A fully shielded fixture means an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that light emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal, (5) No single building shall have a floor area (footprint) greater than 12,000 square feet. (6) The Owner recognizes that certain residential property owners and the County of Albemade desire to see certain improvements made to existing drainage facilities downstream from the subject property .To provide assistance in this undertaking, the Owner will contribute the sum of $9,334.00 to the County for application toward such improvements. Payment by the Owner shall be made when the Owner is advised in writing by the County that it is ready to commence with the construction of such improvements. (7) The Owner will construct on the property a storm water detention facility satisfying design criteria to maintain the current rate of storm water run-of from the property into the adjoining Wynddge subdivision dudng a 'two-year storm" and to reduce the rate of run-off during a "ten-year storm" provided, however, that the Owner shall have received approval from Albemade County to construct such detention-pond by grading to the joint property line between the property and the Wynddge subdivision. Signature of Owners: Greenbrier Office Park, LLC By Robert Hauser Homes, Manager Robert M. Hauser, President XG - 7,, - O<D Date COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 September 26, 2000 Frank R. Stoner P O Box 5487 Charlottesville, VA 22905 RE: ZMA-2000~06 Greenbrier Office Park Tax Map 61W, Section 1, Parcel 4 Dear Mr. Stoner: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 19, 2000, unanimously recommended to the Board of Supervisors approval of ZMA-2000-06 to amend a pre-existing proffer, with proposed language to be clarified and provided in final form before the Board of Supervisors consideration of this item. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on October 11, 2000. 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, ,/, ,1 /b. . ' Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse Bob Ball BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Greenbrier Office Park L.L.C. Application for Amendment of Proffers (ZMA 00- 006) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Application to amend existing proffer to allow for the inclusion of 3040 square feet of storage space in building ~ for the use of tenants within Greenbrier Office Park. Property, described as Tax Map 61W0-01-00-(1 through 4), is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Greenbrier Drive at it's intersection with Whitewood Road. This property is zoned CO (Commercial Office), with proffers (ZMA 96-22). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density in Development Area 1. STAFF CONTACT(S): Ted Glass AGENDA DATE: September 19, 2000 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: Yes INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: VWC BACKGROUND: This proposal is to amend the existing proffer #2 of ZMA 96-22, which states: "No more than 43, 200 total square feet of space, consistent with CO (Commercial Office) zoning, will be constructed on the property." The applicant seeks to amend proffer #2 to read: '"No more than 43,200 net square feet of office space, consistent with CO (Commercial Office) zoning will be constructed on the property. This proffer shall not prohibit the construction of an additional 3,040 square feet of storage space for the use of tenants within Greenbrier Office Park." See Application for Amendment of proffers dated 5/22/2000 ( Attachment A). The request above follows an appeal by the applicant of a determination by the Deputy Zoning Administrator, which states "In stmunary, it is my offmial opinion that proffer number two of ZMA 96-22 limits the TOTAL square footage of building area on this site to 43,200 square feet gross floor area". See attached Staff report AP- 00-04 (Attachment B). The Board of Supervisors heard this appeal on August 1, 2000, resulting in the determination being upheld. DISCUSSION: A' site plan was approved (January 22, 1998, Minor Amendment June 1, 1998) originally with Building 4 having a "partial basement" and the gross square footage for the entire project stated as 43,200 square feet. A Zoning plans reviewer missed the fact that the building permit application showed a full basement, even though the site plan had not changed. That building permit was issued on October 25, 1999. Subsequently, a Minor Site Plan Amendment was submitted on December 7, 1999 to show various revisions to approved site elements. The "Intended use or justification for request" section of the amendment application states, in part: "Altered building 4 footprint but square footage remained the same at that building" (See Attachment C). The site plan attached to this application shows Building 4 having a notation "w/Full Basement", the additional square footage being a discrepancy with the written application. This Minor Site Plan Amendment was not approve& The applicant was sent a letter containing plan review comments requesting revisions on January 6, 2000. These comments were never addressed, and the~--, plan was placed in a permanent file labeled "Revisions Not Submitted" on May 12, 2000. Consequently, Greenbrie. Office Park, as constructed, is not in accord with the last approved site plan. Following the memorandum from Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration dated 9/05/00 (Attachment D), Staff notes that the applicant' s proposal would, in effect, allow storage transferred to this basement to be converted to additional office space. (Please see this memorandum~ for a more complete analysis). This space, as calculated in the above-mentioned memorandum, would require an additional sixteen parking spaces. The site has 173 parking spaces, the minimum required for the 43,200 square feet allowed by the existing proffer #2. There is no area apparent on the site that would accommodate an additional sixteen parking spaces. Additionally, zoning has ~"'~let~ed that use of the storage area by anyone other than the occupants of building number four would constitute a warehouse use. Warehousing is not a permitted use in the Commercial Office zoning district. Also, there are no loading spaces to access the storage area. If anyone from a location other than the same building tried to access the space, they would most likely have to use required parking, thereby possibly creating a parking shortage. RECOMMENDATION: Due to the lack of available area to accommodate the additional parking noted by the Department of Building Codes and Zoning Services as being necessary for this request, staff recommends denial of the request to amend proffer #2 of ZMA 96-22, as stated. Attachments: B- C- D- Application for Amendment of Proffers dated 5/22/00 Staff Report AP-00-04 dated 8/1/00 Minor Amendment Application Justification dated 12/7/99 Memorandum from Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration dated 9/05/00 2 ATTACHMENT A APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF PROFFERS Justification of Request 5/22/2000 Owner: Greenbrier Office Park L.L.C. Project: Greenbrier Office Park The applicant seeks to amend a preexisting proffer to allow for the inclusion of 3040 square feet of storage space in building ~4 for the use of tenants within Greenbrier Office Park only. The existing proffer stipulates that "No more than 43,200 total square feet of space, consistent with CO (commercial office) zoning, will be constructed on the property." We propose to amend the proffer to read, '~o more than 43200 net square feet of office space, consistent with CO (commercial office) zoning will be constructed on the property. This proffer shall not prohibit the construction an additional 3,040 square feet of storage space for the use of tenants within Greenbrier Office Park. We believe this request is justified for the following reasons: 1. There is clear precedence for allowing space that cannot be used for office space to be constructed and designated as storage. In fact, just before we started the Greenbrier Office Park project we were permitted to construct storage space in the basement of our offices at Sachem Village. While there was no proffer involved, there was a limitation on available parking. Zoning administrators have indicated that no proffer was required or encouraged regarding the limitation on the total square footage. Our proffer was ordy intended to address office space and was generated based on projected parking limitations. 2. There is ample parking to support 43,200 net square feet of office space and storage for tenants within the park. 3. There would be no additional impact to adjacent residential properties. 4. This project is located in the designated growth area. Provided parking is adequate, a mix of uses and increased density is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the DISC recommendations. 5. Our initial proffer was never intended to apply to storage space, hence the qualification of space as CO (commercial office). Storage is allowable in any zone. 6. Albemarle County approved a building permit for the shell of building 4 which included a full lower level. It would be impractical, imprudent and unfair to now ask us to fill in 1/3 of one floor so that it can't be used for any purpose. We respectfully ask that you allow us to amend our earlier proffers in accordance with the language proposed above. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (804) 974-7588. STAFF PERSON: Jan Sprinkle BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING: August 1, 2000 STAFF REPORT AP-00-04 ATTACHMENTB PETITIONER / APPELLANT: REGARDING PROFFERS OF TAX MAP: Greenbrier Office Park, LLC, owner and petitioner (Frank Stoner, contact person) ZMA 96-22 061 W0-01-00-00400 The petitioner appeals the Deputy Zoning Administrator's determination in accordance with Section 15.2-2301 of the Code of Virginia. This section of the Code states that persons aggrieved by a decision of the zoning administrator related to Section 15.2° 2299 may petition the governing body for review of the decision. Section 15.2-2299 spells out the Zoning Administrator's authority on behalf of the governing body to administer and enforce conditions attached to a rezoning. Therefore, the Board of Supervisors rather than the Board of Zoning Appeals must hear this appeal of an interpretation of a proffer. BACKGROUND OF APPEAL: Robert Hauser Homes applied for a building permit (BP99-1843NC) to build thd 4th and final building at Greenbrier Office Park. The site. plan submitted with the permit application showed a one story building with a partial basement and noted that the total square footage on the site was 43,200. When an inspector went to the site, it was discovered that the building had a full basement, thereby exceeding the total square footage. This limit on size is directly from a proffer signed by the owner during the rezoning of the property. In discussion, Mr. Stoner said that the limit was not intended to include areas of storage such as the additional basement area. PLEASE NOTE: This is an interpretation of the language of a proffer. It is not a determination of what should or should not be permitted based on the best use or most desirable uses on this property. The appellant has filed an application to amend the proffer of ZMA 96-22 and should the Board of Supervisors find cause to allow additional area to be utilized for storage, approval of that request will enable it. DEPUTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION: See the determination letter dated May 18, 2000 for the official determination. (ATTACHMENT A) The main points are noted as follows: 1. Proffer #2 of ZMA 96-22 states: "All of the buildings constructed on the property will have one level visible from Greenbrier Drive, and not more than two levels visible from adjacent residential properties, with a maximum roof pitch of 6/12. No more than 43,200 total square feet of space, consistent with CO (commercial office) 4 Appeal Report, AP 00-04 Page 2 ATTACHMENTB Boa~ofSupeN~o~,August2,2000 zoning, will be constructed on the property. The primary exterior finish materials shall be split-face block, or brick, and stucco." [Highlight added for emphasis.] Three buildings totaling 33,040 square feet have already been constructed, leaving a total of 10,160 square feet for the fourth building. The building footprint of the 4th building uses 7120 sf of the 10,160 sf thereby leaving only 3040 sffor the partial basement [10,160 - 7120 = 3040) rather than the 7120 sf of full basement that was constructed (7120 + 7120 = 14,240). DEPUTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENT: Where competing and incompatible uses conflict, the Code of Virginia provides a flexible and adaptable zoning method to cope with differing land uses: conditional zoning. In such a zoning reclassi~cation, the applicant may proffer certain conditions that are not generally applicable to land similarly zoned for the protection of the community surrounding the site. During the 1996 rezoning (ZMA96-22), RHH Development Corporation made several proffers to limit this development and make it more compatible with the existing character of the residential neighborhood. Proffer #2 above is the subject of this determination. This was a highly disputed rezoning. Many neighboring property owners objected to various aspects of the application. The most-discussed items were the size, scale, architectural appearance, and the drainage issues in the area that could potentially be exacerbated by being covered with impervious surfaceS. The proffers were revised several times in an attempt to tie down and mitigate as many of the predicted problems as possible. The initial application requested "approximately 41,000 square feet of office space on 4.38 acres." This was later revised to 43,200 sf as stated in the proffer; At the Planning Commission's public hearing on February 25, 1997, Robert Hauser read a prepared statement that was made part of the recorded minutes. It stated on page 3, "Further, we have proffered to limit the total development to 43,200 square feet, with no single building containing more than 12,000 square feet." Limiting the development on the site was very important to the adjacent property owners, our staff, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. It is my position that them is a commonly accepted definition of the word "total". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary states: 1: comprising or constituting a whole: ENTIRE, <the ~ amount>. It also notes, "an entire quantity: AMOUNT." In addition, the word "space" is commonly accepted to be all area within a buildingwnot just the primary use area. The zoning ordinance contains definitions of both "Floor Area, Gross" and "Floor Area, Net." The term "gross floor area" means all space under roof, including basements, elevator shafts, stairwells, interior balconies, mezzanines, et cetera. Net Floor Area is defined as: The sum of the total horizontal areas of the several floors of a~ buildings on a lot measured from the interior faces of exterior walls and from the centerline of walls separating two (2) or more bu~dings. The term "net floor area" shaft include ..: but shall exclude areas designed for permanent uses such as toilets, utility closets, C:U~4y DocurnentsUAN'S~Variance Reports~APO0~04. cloc Appeal Report, AP ,00-04 Page 3 ATTACHMENT B Board of ~upervisors, August 2, 2000 malls enclosed or not, truck tunnels, enclosed parking areas, meters, roof top mechanical structures, mechanical and equipment rooms, public and fire corridors, stairwells, elevators, escalators and areas under a sloping ceiling where the head room in fifty (50)percent of such area is less than six (6) feet, six (6) inches. [Emphasis added.] In this definition, storage is not excluded. These gross and net definitions show that storage is considered part of the office use. This is partly because storage areas are generally convertible to office space at any time, and therefore do not meet the definition of "areas designed for permanent uses.''~ As applied here,.total space is the entire and complete building square footage. By adding the qualifying phrase, ,'consistent with CO (commercial office) zoning", in this rezoning request, the applicant only clarified the use of the space within building--not the square footage to be limited. Since the rezoning request was for CO zoning, no uses other than those consistent with CO would be permitted on the site. Storage as an independent use is not permitted in the CO district. Storage is considered to be part of a primary use and can be in the CO district only as accessory to a permitted use. There was never any discussion or indication that the cap on square footage was intended to only include the area of a building devoted to actual office use.- However, the appellant's position is that they never considered "storage" to be part of the "total" square footage or the "space". If this were the case, there would be no limit to the number of square feet of buildings allowed on the property--every square inch not required for parking or landscaping could be constructed with storage structures. The buildings could all be considerably larger than they are and every inch of. building area not involved in actual office use could be excluded from the "total" promised in the proffer. Under the appellant's interpretation, the stairwells, bathrooms, utility rooms and file rooms could all be discounted from the "total" since they are not "CO office space". The appellant's position could result in an impractical and absurd result. The Deputy Zoning Administrator's determination that "total" means total, avoids that egregious consequence. APPELLANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR APPEAL: See the appellant's submittal. (ATTACHMENT B) The main points are noted as follows: · The 43,200 square foot limitation set forth in the proffer is modified by the clause "consistent with CO (commercial office) zoning." Had the parties intended to place an absolute limit of 43,200 square feet on the entire amount of space that could be constructed on the site there would have been no reason to include the limitation "consistent with CO (commercial office) zoning" in the proffer. Instead, the sentence would read simply "No more than 43,200 total square feet of space will be constructed on the property". The presence of the modifier "consistent with CO $ As a temporary remedy for this Greenbrier Office Park basement, we allowed the building construction to continue on the basis that the 4080 sf of surplus basement be limited to having no more than one elecn-ical outlet, no telephone or computer access, and further, be accessible only by an internal crawl-space sized door. We feel that this limitation insures that the area is permanently unusable for offices or storage, and thusly can be excluded from the net office area calculation. P,.HH has also applied for a ZMA to amend the proffer to allow the space to be used for office storage. If approved, we will allow the crawl-space door to be replaced by a full sized door and other minimal improvements to make the storage area usable. C:V,4y DocumentsUAN'S~Varfance Reports~APOO-O4. doc 6 Appeal Report, AP 00-04 Page 4 Board of ~upervisors, August 2, 2000 (commercial office) zoning" necessarily implies that additional space not excluded by the terms of the restrictive modifier may be constructed on the property. Basement space is not "commercial office space". The building permit has already been issued with the basement on the plans. STAFF RESPONSE: The following summarizes the Deputy Zoning Administrator's position. 1. The commonly accepted definition of "total square feet" when related to a building means gross floor area and includes all space:under the roof and on all floors of a structure. 2. The addition of the modifier "consistent with CO (commercial office) zoning" means that all uses within the square footage limitation will be.consistent with the zoning district. Storage can only be allowed as an accessory to a permitted use in this zoning district. 3. The appellant claims, "The presence of the modifier 'consistent with CO (commercial office) zoning' necessarily implies that additional space not excluded by the terms of the restrictive modifier may be constructed on the property." This would lead one to believe that since there are several by-right uses in the CO district, any of those including a church, library, day care, et cetera, could be built in addition to the 43,200 sf of office space. 4. To exclude storage would leave an unlimited number of square feet available to be constructed on this site and that would render the proffer completely worthless. 5. The building permit application plan and the site plan are inconsistent. Had there not been a proffer involved, we would have to permit the building permit appf:oval to stand. However, the applicant offered the proffer and received the benefit of a rezoning approval from it. That proffer represents a binding contract between the developer and the County, and as such, we have the right to uphold it. ATTACHMENT B C:WIy Docurnents~JAN'S~Variance Reports~APOO-O4.doc Appeal Report, AP 00-04 Attachment A Board of Supervisors, August 2, 2000 Deputy Zoning Administrator's Official Determination ATTACHMENT B May 18,2000 Robert Hauser R.HH Development Corporation P L Box 5487 Charlottesville, VA 22905 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION of Proffer #2 from ZMA 96-22 Dear Mr. Hauser: This determination is in regard to your Greenbrier Park project, specifically Building 4 as shown on Building Permit 99-1843 NC. It is my opinion that proffer two of ZMA 96-22 limits the TOTAL square footage of building area on this site to 43,200 square feet of gross floor area. A change was made between the time of the signing of the site plan and the building permit application that increased the total square footage on the site beyond that allowed under the proffer. This letter explains the situation and how the determination was made, aS well as possible resolutions. In 1997, the Board of Supervisors approved ZMA 96-22 with proffers. RHH Development Corporation was the applicant and contract purchaser, although others owned the property. The scope of the rezoning was then 4.465 acres rezoned from R-4, Residential and C-1, Commercial to CO, Commercial Office. The proffers applied to the total acreage that were then identified as tax map 61W2, parcels 45, 46 and 47. The current tax identification is 061W0-01-00-(1 through 4). The second proffer of ZMA 96-22 is the subject of this determination and it states: (2) All of the buildings constr-aeted on the property will have one level visible from Greenbrier Drive, and not more than two levels visible from adjacent residential properties, with a maximum roof pitch of 6/12. No more than 43,200 total square feet of space, consistent with CO (commercial office) zoning, will be constructed on the property. The primary exterior finish materials shall be split-face block, or brick, and stucco. The site plan for Greenbrier Park was approved June 11, 1998 and showed four office buildings consistent with the CO district, and noted that the "building gross floor area is 43,200 s.f.' and the "building net floor area (80% of gross) is 34,560 s.f." This in my opinion is consistent with the proffer. The following table shows the first three buildings that have been completed. Building #1, one story Building #2, two story Building #3, one story TOTAL 11,680 sf 14,240 sf 7,120sf 33,040 sf Appeal Report, AP 00-04 Attachment A Board of bupervisors, August 2, 2000 Deputy Zoning Administrator's Official Determination Simple subtraction allows that building #4 cannot exceed I0, 160 sf if the total square feet of space allowed is 43,200 sf. The approved site plan also notes that building number 4 is "one story with partial basement." The building that is currently under construction has a full basement, thereby increasing the total square footage to more than 43,200 sf. The building footpnnt is 7120 sfwhich would allow only 3040 sf for the partial basement (7 120 + 3040 = 10, 160). To resolve this issue, the remaining 4080 sf of existing basement must be made inaccessible. In our discussions of this violation of the proffer, your staff has stated that "total" was intended to mean usable space. In my opinion, that usage is inconsistent with simple, everyday meaning of the word and inconsistent with the zoning ordinance. This determination is therefore based on the use of the word "total". The simple definition of "total" as related to this issue and found in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary states: 1: comprising or constituting a whole: ENTIRE, <the - amount>. It also notes, "a product of addition: SUM," and, ."an entire quantity: AMOUNT." The zoning ordinance contains definitions of both "Floor Area, Gross" and "Floor Area, Net." The term "gross floor area" states in part that it, "shall include basements; elevator shafts, and stairwells at each story; floor space used for mechanical equipment with structural head room of six (6) feet, six (6) inches or more; penthouses, attic space, whether or not a floor has actually been laid, providing structural head room of six (6) feet, six (6) inches or more; interior balconies; and mezzanines." In summary, it is my official opinion that proffer number two of ZMA 96-22 limits the TOTAL square footage of building area on this site to 43,200 square feet of gross floor area. As discussed with your auorney, Roben'J. Kroner, to remedy this situation, you may amend your building permit (BP 99-1843 NC) to add a wall in the basement of building number fourthat would render 4080 square feet inaccessible, and bring the total square footage on the site into compliance with the proffer. Other options would be to appeal r. his determination to the Board of Supervisors, or, simply file another ZMA to amend the existing proffer to increase the allowable square footage on the site. As we discussed, you may request amendment to allow storage in the 4080 sf and therefore affect neither your parking requirements nor the neighboring residential area. If you choose to amend the building permit, it must be initiated no later than Wednesday, May 31 or we will rescind the zoning approval of the existing building permit thereby cause. a stop work order to be issued immediately. In addition, we would not be able to process any other building permits witin the building. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have the fight to appeal it within thirty (30) days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2301 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealabte. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Supervisors a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. In order for an appeal to be considered complete, it shall include a completed application and $95 fee. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter ....... Sincerely, ATTACHMENT B Jan Sprinkle Chief of Zoning Administration Jay Schlothauer, Building Official Robert J. Kroner, Attorney - Scott and Kroner, PC John Grady, Manager of Zoning Inspections C:V~fy DocumentsUAN'S% Varfance Reports~APOO-O4.doc Appeal Report, AP D0o04 Attachment B Board of ,,,,pervisors, August 2, 2000 Appellant's Grounds for Aggrievedhess ATTACHMENT B SUBJECT OF APPEAL: Official Determination of Proffer #2 from ZMA 96-22 issued by the Zoning Administrator on May 18, 2000. EXPLANATION OF ERROR IN DETERMINATION AND JUSTIFICATION OF APPLICANT=S POSITION: The Zoning Administrator interpreted the following language in the proffer: "No more than 43,200 total square feet of space, consistent with CO (commercial office) zoning, will be constructed on the property." The Zoning Administrator, relying solely on the definition of "total," determined that basement space in a commercial office building constructed on the subject parcel resulted in the square footage built exceeding the limit established in the proffer. This determination is erroneous. The 43,200 square foot limitation set forth in the proffer is modified by the clause "consistent with CO (commercial office) zoning." The Administrator's determination fails to take this crucial modification into consideration. Had the parties intended to place an absolute limit of 43,200 square feet on the entire amount of space that could be constructed on the site there would have been no reason to include the limitation "consistent with CO (commercial office) zoning" in the proffer. Instead, the sentence would read simply "No more than 43,200 total square feet of space will be constructed on the property". The presence of the modifier "consistent with CO (commercial office) zoning" necessarily implies that additional space not excluded by the terms of the restrictive modifier may be constructed on the property. Proffers are contracts and a primazy rule of contract interpretation is that the contract must be construed so as to ~ve meaning to all of its.terms. The Zoning Admims'trator's determination violates this core principle. The additional basement space which has been constructed on the property is simply that, basement space, and is not "commercial office space." As such it is not subject to being included within the 43,200 limit and the Zoning Administrator's determination to the contrary should be reversed. Moreover, the Zoning Administrator's determination is inconsistent with the prior actions of County staff. When the application for the building permit was submitted, the plans for the structure were attached and indicated that a full basement would be constructed. The application was subsequently granted and the building permit issued for construction of a full basement. As the developer relied on the County's approval of the plans and constructed a full basement, the County should not now be permitted to attempt to undo its prior approval. Intended use or justification for request: ATTACHMENT C zg, c-~c crUv~ u~ 0~0 '~ o C. Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign This site plan as submitted contains all of the information required by Section 32.5 (Preliminary Plan) or Section 32.6 (Final Plan) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. I understand that plans which lack information required by said sections shall be deemed incomplete and shall be denied by the agent within ten (I0) days of submittal as provided in Section 32.4.2.1 or Section 32.4.3.3 as the case may be. For Final Plans Only: To the best of my knowledge, I have complied with Section 32.4.3.1 and obtained tentative approvals for all applicable conditions from the appropriate agencies. Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser~g_e Printed Name L7---['7 Date Daytime phone number of Signatory 9/! 4/98 Page 2 of 2 FAX (804) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832 ATTACHMENT D TTD (804) 9724012 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Ted Glass, Planner Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration/~ 09/05/00 Greenbrier Office Park, ZMA 2000-06 This site plan was approved originally with Building 4 having a "partial basement" and the gross square footage for the entire project stated as 43,200 sf. Our zoning plans reviewer missed the fact that the building permit application showed a full basement, even though the site plan had not changed. The discrepancy was caught when an inspector went to the site and found the structure did not mat& the site plan. It was then noted that the proffer would not allow the additional square footage. Since that time, the owner has appealed to the Board of Supervisors who supported staff in saying that the proffer limits all area under roof, not just "net office area," and therefore includes storage. Thus, this application is designed to amend the proffer to increase the total square footage allowed on the site. In considering this increase in proffered square footage, please consider the followin~ 1. In a standard office building review, the Zoning ordinance defmes "gross" and "net" square footage. The gross area includes all area under roof. The net area excludes certain areas that are permanently unavailable for actual office use-- stairwells, bathrooms, etc. Storage is considered to be part of the office use and is not excluded. Therefore, if you remove storage from the "net" equation, you in tum allow additional space for actual office use such as additional personnel. Additional personnel equates to additional parking. 2. This is a very "tight" site. With only the 43,200 sf, the site has only 173 parking spaces, the minimum number required trader our ordinance. If the total square footage allowed is increased by 4080 to include the full basement, we would ordinarily use a factor of 80% to determine the net (4080 x .8 = 3264) and then calculate additional parking for the new office area (3264 + 200.) In this case, that would mean 16 additional parking spaces. 3. To permit this additional 4080 sf to be used for storage and not to be calculated for parking, could be done, but zoning would like some physical restrictions to be placed on the construction so as to eliminate the need for policing the building in perpetuity. If the request stated that they would construct only minimal overhead lights, a minimum number of electrical outlets, no computer hookups/wiring, and absolutely no offices or personnel stationed in the room, this department could support it. Without those assurances, we would not support the request because it would put us in a position of perpetual enforcement. 12 /--.,, ATTACHMENT D Warehousing is not a permitted use in the Commercial Office zoning district. Therefore, if the 4080 sf is to be used as "storage", it should be available only to the tenants of the building in which the storage occurs. Including storage by any others, including other buildings on the same site, would constitute warehousing. Note also that there are no loading spaces to access the storage area. If anyone from a location other than the same building tried to access the space, they would most likely have to use required parking, thereby possibly creating a parking shortage. 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development October 11, 2000 Wireless Manual After the most recent draft of the Wireless Manual was distributed to the Board for the October 11 public hearing, additional comments were received from the County Attomey's Office (listed below). To enable the Board to direct that these comments, as well as any other comments received at the public hearing, be incorporated into the Manual, we request that the Board defer adoption of the Manual until its November 1 meeting (consent agenda). 1. The table of contents page should be revised so all of the page numbers match up with the actual page numbers in the manual. Also, "The Situation in 1999" needs to be updated to 2000. 2. Page 3 states that facilities in avoidance areas should be denied or mitigated. Page 42 observes that treetop designs have been successfully located in avoidance areas. The treetop design is not understood to be one of the three elements of mitigation (camouflage, disguise, concealment) discussed on page 57. If this is correct, the statement on page 3 should be revised (e.g., "denied, mitigated, or sited, located and designed so as to minimize visibility") so that it is consistent with the discussions on pages 42 and 57. 3. Page 7 states that the County supports co-location. Page 21 states that co-location resulting in adverse visual impact is not consistent with the goals of Albemarle County, and that, from a visibility perspective, co-location should be discouraged. Can the statement on page 7 be revised to state something such as "the County supports co-location provided that it has no or negligible adverse visual impact"? Page 2 4. The simulated tower on page 9 appears to be floating in the air. 5. The two sentences at the top Of page 18 are a summary of the "prohibition" test adopted by the 2nd and 3rd Circuit Courts of Appeal, rejected by the 4th Circuit in our case. Perhaps we could eliminate the first sentence. Besides, the County doesn't create significant gaps. 6. There has to be a better photo than the one on page 22. amended." The text in the bottom left-hand comer on page 25 should end "established or 8. Can we change the lattice tower photosimulation on page 31 ? It appears to be 150 feet wide. Also, the simulated monopole in the foreground should be the color of the surrounding trees (a standard condition currently imposed). 9. The word "service" should be inserted into the second bullet on page 36 ("personal wireless service facility"). 10. There is a reference at the end of the last paragraph on page 46 to design "standards". This reference, and every other reference to "standards" when referring to the manual should be changed to "guidelines." "Standards" also appears on page 48. 11. Is the whip antenna array shown in the photograph on the left side of page 47, projecting several feet outward from the pole, consistent with the guidelines? 12. This comment is very picky at this late date, but should the photosimulation at the bottom of page 55 be that of a slender monopole, rather than a flag pole, and offof the ridgeline? It seems that a flag pole would not be appropriate for this natural setting, and we certainly would not want anyone to get the idea that a flag pole on a natural ridgeline satisfies the guidelines. 13. Should the reference to "visual impact" in the second sentence at the top of page 56 be changed to "adverse visual impact"? 14. The first sentence in the paragraph following the "disguise" bullet on page 57 should be revised to state something such as: "The most important rule in mitigating visual impact is to avoid creating even more visual impact through an attempted mitigation." Please contact me if you have any questions. JOHN K. TAGGART, III M.E. GIBSON, JR. THOMAS E, ALBRO PATRIGA D. MCGRAW R, LEE LIVINGSTON LAW OFFICES TRFMBLAY & SMITH, LLP P.O. Box 1585 CHARLO'FI'ESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22902-1585 105-109 EAST HIGH STREET TELEPHONE (804) 977-4455 FACSIMILE (804) 979-1221 HEIDI H. PARKER RACHEL L. RUST CHRISTOPHERJ. ROBINETFE PETERJ. CARAMANIS RETIRED E. GERALD TREMBLAY LLOYD T. SMITH, JR. October 11, 2000 ' Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: Albemarle County Wireless Policy Dear Member of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors: I represent ALLTEL Communications, Inc. I have reviewed the Albemarle County Wireless Policy to be considered tonight by the Board of Supervisors. On behalf of ALLTEL, I respectfully request you take the following recommendations and comments into consideration when reviewing the Wireless Policy at tonight's meeting: 1. The Pol icy should direct the Planning Commission or otherwise clarify that visibility is the most important criterion in the review of Tier II tower applications. The Planning Commission recently emphasized visibility as a criterion in reviewing several ALLTEL applications, but then proceeded to impose arbitrary height restrictions which were not related to visibility and ignored the results of the balloon tests conducted by ALLTEL and observed by Planning Staff. If the most important criterion is visibility, as stated in the Policy and by the Planning Commission, decisions regarding height limitations should be made based on that criterion, and credence should be given to balloon test results in that regard. 2. The definition of "treetop tower' in the Manual should be clarified to incorporate ground elevation. During the application process for ALLTEL's recent applications, the maximum allowable height under the proposed definition was frequently changed to include or exclude certain trees within a certain radius and to take ground elevation into consideration. The definition, as proposed, provided little or no guidance to ALLTEL and Planning Staff as to what is permissible under the Policy. 3. ALLTEL is pleased to note the elimination of the County's claim on page 18 of the February draft that towers placed within trees work. However, the Manual still claims the tower pictured on page 6 of the current draft works. The County cannot make that claim on behalf of the wireless provider which operates that tower. 4. The photo simulations depicted on pages 9 and 23 of the current draft are still distorted and misleading. They should be revised to indicate tower heights which are consistent with those typically requested by wireless providers. TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP Albemarle County Board of Supervisors October 11, 2000 Page 2 In addition to the above-mentioned concerns, ALLTEL maintains its overriding concern that the Policy frustrates the central purpose of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("the Act"). The central purpose of the Act is to insure that all citizens have access to increasingly sophisticated telecommunications facilities in order that they might participate fully in the information age. The Policy makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for wireless companies to accomplish this purpose. For example, ALLTEL has, for several years, been attempting to provide good wireless service along Route 29 south of Charlottesville. That coverage could be accomplished by either a single 100' tower at a higher elevation on Dudley Mountain or potentially by approximately 24 treetop poles along the read. The single 100' tower has already been denied by Albemarle County and would not be allowed under the Policy. The Policy requires at least 24 treetop poles along the side of the road to approximate the coverage objective. The typical capital and operating cost for a single cell site (tower/pole, antennas, equipment, utilities, site improvements, maintenance and 25 year lease) is approximately $900,000. The amount is approximately the same whether the system is analog or CDMA (digital) and whether the facility is a 100' tower or a treetop pole. The cost for 24 cell sites is therefore $21,600,000. This is $20,700,000 more than the cost for a single cell site. Thus, the solution to the lack of coverage along Route 29 south of Charlottesville dictated by the Draft Manual is $20,700,000 more than the solution based on sound engineering practices and sensitivity to the visual landscape. This is irrational and a waste of resources by any objective measure. Given the cost of the Policy alternative, one or more of several things will happen: A wireless carrier will not invest the resources necessary to provide coverage and the area will continue to suffer from poor to non-existent wireless service; A partial solution will be deployed and the problem will still exist, to a lesser degree; The Kreines solution will be deployed and the cost will be borne by the consumer, citizens of and visitors to Albemarle County, through increases in rates. Each of these three results frustrates one or more of the goals of the TelecommuniCations Act in providing good wireless coverage to consumers at competitive rates. Best regards. Very truly yours, M.E. Gibson, Jr. CC: Heidi H. Parker, Esquire Peter J. Caramanis, Esquire Piedmont Environmental Council" Pron'loting oncl l:?rotecting the f>iedn )ot ]tL,~ rLtrol econon~y, natL4ral reso~lrcczs, historU and bea~.ty Wireless Design Manual CPA'2000-01 Proposal to Adopt the Design Manual for Personal Wireless Service Facilities Statement to be delivered to the Board of Supervisors October 11, 2000 My name is Jeff Wemer and I represent the Piedmont Environmental Council. We support the proposed manual as a good step and we commend the County and Ted Kreines for their efforts. We do, however, ask the County to consider the following clarifications: While administrative approvals are appropriate in certain situations such as conformance with existing structures, the County should not waive its right to use the special permit process for new facilities on new structures that are in or near identified Avoidance Areas. We recommend amending the tiered approach to include the requirement of a special use permit request at these locations. This is recommended for several reasons. · The County will stand on stronger legal ground for any denials. As we learned from the recent Calvet Virginia proposal on Hydraulic Road, the loss of legislative power can, in hindsight, come at a cost. · Without a special-use permit process the County will be relying entirely on the applicant' s information. Without the process, there is no requirement for notification of adjacent owners. In the past, adjoining landowner have often provided information regarding visibility concerns. At the least, the manual should recommend staff site visits to confwrn and document existing conditions. · The manual suggests that land under easement and/or in ag/forest districts be considered Avoidance Areas. We suggest that this restriction include the parcels directly adjacent to these protected areas. Requiring a special-use permit--or, at least, inviting comment from adjacent owners--could mitigate the concerns of ~ property owners that have donated easements by offering them an opportunity to speak. · Finally, if the policy intends to deter the siting of facilities within Avoidance Areas then any facility proposed in an Avoidance Area should be subject to the stricter Tier 111 review and the Special Use. Permit process.. Otherwise, what exactly is the purpose of designating Avoidance Areas? We commend the Planning Staff for adding language to recent Staff Reports that requires tree protection programs for towers located within a stand of timber. We urge the Board to adopt this practice as standard and insert language to that extent withinthis policy. The PEC again commends the County and the Consultant for developing these guidelines with the intent of protecting the beauty and character of Albemarle County. We feel that these additional comments will provide for an appropriate and necessary level of public scrutiny in these sensitive rural areas. Additionally, the County and the public will maintain further control over unanticipated loopholes in the policy and over insensitive design or careless construction and their potentially detrimental impacts on our County' s proven asset: it's natural beauty. ' P.O. Box 460 · Warrenton, Virginia ' 20188 · 540-347-2334 · Fax 540-349-9003 I I 11 Rose Hill Drive · Suite One * Charlottesville, Virginia · 22903 · 804-977-2033 · Fax 804-977-6306 130 West Main Street · Suite 206 * P.O. Box 266 · Orange, Virginia 22960 · 540-672-0141 · Fax 540-672-6265 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AG EN DA TITLE: CPA 2000-01 Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy AGENDA DATE: October 11, 2000 ITEM NUMBER: ACTION: X INFORMATION: SU BJ ECTIPROPOSAL/REQU EST: Public Hearing to consider the proposed Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy. CONSENT AGEN DA: ACTION: INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benisli, Fritz BACKGROUND: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: The Planning Commission recommended approval of the attached Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy at their meeting on July 18, 2000. The Board held a work session on August 2, 2000 to review the proposed Policy. The development of a policy for the accommodation of personal wireless facilities is a recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan and has been under development since August of 1996. DISCUSSION: Attached are: 1 ) the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy recommended by the Commission; and, 2) proposed text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to recognize the Wireless policy as a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board of Supervisors has discussed the concept of having all types of wireless sites adhere to the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy. Staff has prepared the following language which may be added to the Comprehensive Plan should the Board desire. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy is primarily intended to address facilities providing Personal Wireless Service. Other types of wireless facilities are encouraged to adhere to this policy to the extent possible. It is recognized that other types of wireless services may not comply with this policy due to the nature of the service provided, available technology or license requirements. The Board requested the policy include provisions for balloon test. Staff has added the following language to page 67: 14. Where site conditions permit the applicant shall conduct a balloon test within two weeks of application submittal. This test shall consist of raising balloons to a height equal to the proposed tower. The balloons should be of a color or material that provides maximum visibility. The applicant shall inform the Planning Department of the time of the balloon test at least two days before the test is to occur to allow staff to conduct field visits during the test. The Board also requested that it be made clear that the use of land based wirelines be preferred over the use of microwave relay. Therefore, staff has added the following language to page 43: The use of land based wirelines for backhaul is preferred. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy and text amendment to County's Comprehensive Plan. Proposed Amendment to the Text of the Comprehensive Plan The following text will replace, in its entirety, the existing text under the Location of Wireless Communications Facilities section (p. 130-132). The proposed Comprehensive Plan text is essentially the same text provided in the Introduction of the Wireless Policy document (p. 1-5). Location of Utilities (p. 130-f32) Location of Wireless Communications Facilities The County adopted the Personnel Wireless Service Facilities Policy on October 11, 2000 as a component of the Comprehensive Plan. It is published under separate cover and available in the Department of Planning and Community Development. The Policy establishes the County's approach for locating personal wireless service facilities. It is based on the following: The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 preserves Albemarle County's zoning authority to regulate the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities ("cell towers"). Albemarle County has significant natural, scenic and historical resources. Thomas Jefferson chose Albemarle County for his homesite and as the site for the University of Virginia. The reason for those choices is why many others have come to revere this place ... and why County residents must be stewards of the land. Personal wireless service facilities are not well understood by some. This Design Manual is intended to help the County, the public, and the wireless industry understand planning and zoning for personal wireless service facilities. Purpose, Principles & Intended Achievements The purpose of the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy is to establish policies and guidelines and to recommend standards and approaches for Albemarle County to use in the review of personal wireless service facility applications. Wireless carriers are encouraged to follow the ideas in this Policy in preparing applications for personal wireless service facilities. Planning Commissioners, Supervisors and staff should follow this Policy when evaluating personal wireless service facilities applications. · This Policy is intended to allow for the provision of personal wireless service facilities. Regulations based on the following principles are recommended: The most important principle for siting personal wireless service facilities in Albemarle County is visibility. Albemarle County should require that sufficient information be submitted with the application to enable the County to measure its ability to be seen. The less a personal wireless service facility can be seen, the more likely it is that it will be approved. Personal wireless service facilities should not be located in Avoidance Areas. Applications for personal wireless service facilities in Avoidance Areas should be denied or mitigated. Personal wireless service facilities should be located in Opportunity Sites. Applications for personal wireless service facilities sites outside of, but nearby, Opportunity Sites should demonstrate why they couldn't be located in an Opportunity Site. Siting and design standards can be used anytime, but they are particularly useful for reviewing personal wireless service facility sites when they are not in or near an Opportunity Site and not in an Avoidance Area. Application of the wireless policy will achieve the following: · Protection of Albemarle County resources. · A predictable outcome for personal wireless service facility applicants. · Equal evaluation and review for all applicants. · The development of standards to be used as findings for decisions on personal wireless service facility applications. Summary of Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy This Policy allows for the location of personal wireless service facilities throughout the County. The Policy encourages the construction of facilities that have limited visual impact on the community. Visibility is the primary focus in the review of Personal Wireless Service Facilities. Facilities with limited visibility are encouraged. Personal Wireless Service Facilities should not be located on ridgetops or along the ridgeline. Personal Wireless Service Facilities should not adversely impact resources identified in the Open Space Plan or designated as Avoidance Areas. Personal Wireless Service Facilities should utilize existing structures where possible. Personal Wireless Service Facilities, if appropriately sited and designed, may be appropriate in any zoning district. Ground based equipment should be limited in size and be designed in keeping with the character of the area. Antennas should be mounted close to the supporting structure and be designed to minimize visibility. The following is a summary of proposed regulatory concepts outlined in the wireless policy. To enhance the implementation of this policy, the following review concepts are proposed: - Tier One Review. Administrative approval of Personal Wireless Service Facilities located within an existing structure and having no exterior visibility. - Tier Two Review. Planning Commission approval of Personal Wireless Service Facilities attached to an existing structure or a "Treetop Tower'. Tier Three Review. Special Use Permit review by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors of anything other than a Tier One or a Tier Two facility. The following regulatory changes are also recommended: At the time of preparation of this Policy each Zoning District contains minimum setbacks for all structures that can only be varied by the Board of Zoning Appeals. This Policy recommends that the Planning Commission be authorized to modify the setbacks for personal wireless service facility structures. At the time of preparation of this Policy, the Zoning Ordinance requires that towers be setback from the property line a distance equal to the height of the tower unless a modification is granted by the Planning Commission. This policy recommends that service providers be able to acquire easements around the tower a distance equal to the height of the structure. If this easement is acquired no modification of the setback will be needed. If the easement is not obtained, the service prorider would need to request that the Planning Commission grant a modification of the setback. Minimum submittal standards are recommended. I:\dept~planning\share\CPA for wireless policy, LUP text amendment ! 0 ./ ~ ,, o 6 0 x ~°~ 0 0 c~ c~ c~ c~ 0 (D { ,, .....,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~××xxxx>o<x xxX><XXXXXXXX ~-~ ,~ 'F .4., .! C) <~ 'I 'I '1 .'1 ! i 1 I ...'ill < ~ ~ o · -.~ tC 0 0 = I l 11 From: Subject: Date: Reading List for October I I, 200~ October 4, 2000 August 9, 2000 August 16, 2000 Mr. Dorrier Mr. Bowerman /ewc