HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-01-20 David P. Bo~verr~an
Rio
Charlotte Y. Humphds
Jack ,JouSt
Formst R. Marshall, Jr.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Vtr§inia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
January 14, 1999
Charles S. Martin
Riv~nna
Walter E Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Ms.
Mr.
Mr.
David P. Bowerman
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Charles S. Martin
Walter F. Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Larry W. Davis
Dear Ms. Humphris, Ms. Thomas and Gentlemen:
This is to notify you that the Chairman, Mr. Martin, has called a special
meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for the purpose of conducting
a work session on a wireless telecommunications policy which includes a presentation
from Kreines & Kreines. The meeting is called for Wednesday, January 20, 1999, at
6:00 p.m., Meeting Room 241, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 Mclntire
Road.
Sincerely,
Ella W: Carny, Clelk, CMCI
Printed on recycled paper
David R Bowerman
Charlotte Y. Humphr~
Formst R. Marshall, Jr.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter F. Perkins
White Hdl
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
JANUARY 14, 1999
TO: NEWS MEDIA
FROM: ELLA W. CAREY, CLERK
THE FOLLOWING NOTICE HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR INFORMATION
Printed on recycled paper
From: Laurie Hall
Sent: Monday, January 25, 1999 1:39 PM
To: Amelia McCulley; Anne Gulati; Beverly Taylor; Bill Mawyer; Bob Tucker; Bruce
Woodzell; Charles Martin; Charlotte Humphris; David Benish; David Bowerman;
Diane Mullins; Ella Carey; Forrest Marshall; Jan Sprinkle; Jeff Blank; John Grady;
Juandiego Wade; Kevin Castner; Larry Davis; Laurie Hall; Lee Catlin; Melvin
Breeden; Michael Thompson; Pat Mullaney; Richard Wood; Rick Huff; Roxanne
White; Sally Thomas; Sharon Taylor; Steven AIIshouse; Walter Perkins; Wayne
Cilimberg
1/20/99 action letter
Subject:
Attached is my action letter from the 1/20/99 BOS meeting. Laurie
012099.ACTION
LETTER.DOC
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of January 20, 1999
January25,1999
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
Call to Order. Special Meeting.
Work Session: Wireless Telecommunications POlicy,
Presentation by Kreines & Kreines. ADOPTED resolution
of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include a
Wireless Telecommunications Policy.
Call to Order. Regular Night Meeting.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public.
NONE
Adopt Resolution to approve issuance of tax exempt
bonds by the Industrial Development Authority for
Westminster-Cantebury of the Blue Ridge. ADOPTED.
Appropriation: Additional Operating Expenses in the
Sheriffs Department, $8,439 (Form #98049).
APPROVED.
Amendment of the jurisdictional area map to allow
provision of water and sewer service to the proposed
Fontana Subdivision, Phase IIA (SDP-98-273), Tax Map 78,
Parcel 57 (portion of). ADOPTED.
SP-98-59. Pegasus Motorcar Co' APPROVED w/2
conditions.
SP-98-61. Triton Communications/Virginia Po~ver.
DEFERRED until 2/3 consent agenda.
SP-98-62. Triton Communications/Virginia Powerl
APPROVED w/7 conditions.
PH to consider request for funding under the
Commonwealth of Virginia's Transportation Enhancement
Program (TEA-21 ) for the following projects:
1. A sidewalk/walkway construction program.
2. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority is
requesting funds for bikelanes, sidewalks &
landscaping/scenic beautification along Airport Road (Route
649) from Route 29 to Route 606.
3. For additional work on the Thomas Jefferson Parkway.
ADOPTED resolutions.
Other Matters from the Board.
- Ms. Thomas asked why Mr. Terry Sieg's name was
dropped from Public Recreational Facilities Authority's
roster.
ASSIGNMENT
Meeting was called to Order at 6:00 p.m., by
the Chairman. All BOS members present
except Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
Clerk: Forward resolution to Planning
Department.
Meeting was called to order at 7:25 p.m. by
the Chairman. All BOS members present
except Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
Clerk: Send resolution to applicant's
attorney.
Clerk: Send appropriations memo to
Finance and Sheriffs Department.
Clerk: Include in Planning's letter.
Clerk: Include in Planning's letter.
Planning Staff: Work with applicant to
determine maximum tower height to be
allowed. Ask applicant to present photos of
examples of the proposed tower base.
Clerk: Include in Planning's letter.
Clerk: Forward resolutions to Juan Wade,
who will forward them to applicants.
Clerk: Add Mr. Sieg's name to the
Authority's roster. Send letter apologizing for
oversight.
.Wireless Telecommunications Policy
,Worksession with the Board of Supervisors 1/20/99
The County has been working with its consultant, Ted Kreines, in an effort to develop a Wireless
Telecommunications Policy. To date, two public meetings have been held with the consultant.
The first meeting was with representatives of the Personal Wireless Service providers. The
second meeting was with members of the general public. In addition to these meetings staff has
met with Ted Kreines to discuss various issues to increase staff's overall knowledge of the
industry and trends in regulation.
The initial concept for a Wireless Telecommunications Policy for the County centered on
determining a minimum level of service for the County. This minimum level of service was to be
based on either signal strength or call capacity. By using this minimum level of service approach
the County would be able to determine the areas of the County where improved service was
required. After determining the areas of the County where improved service was needed the
location and number of required new facilities could be determined.
Following the review of recent advances in technology, induslry trends and various Court
decisions from around the country, staff no longer supports the minimum level of service
approach. As Personal Wireless Service providers seek to increase subscription they will be
moving into higher call density areas. These areas will include developed and developing
commercial and industrial areas and, most importantly, developed and developing residential
areas. Trends in the industry indicate that Personal Wireless Service providers are aiming to
replace the conventional land line phone provider in the residential market with both voice and
data (internet) service. In order to provide this service, facilities providing connection to the
wireless system will become smaller, lower and closer to residential areas. This trend indicates
that service providers will require improved service throughout the entire county. The number of
sites that will be required to achieve the objectives of each service provider is, therefore, difficult
if not impossible to determine.
A reasonable approach to a Wireless Telecommunications Policy will be to state that all portions
of the County should have reasonable access to Personal Wireless Services provided that the
facilities providing those services satisfy development standards. The first step in developing
standards will be the identification of resources that should not be impacted by Personal Wireless
Services facilities. Some of the resources which have been identified for protection are shown on
maps which are on display tonight. These maps show the following resources:
Historic, Agricultural/Forestal District, Entrance Corridor Districts, Wetlands, County Parks and
lands in Conservation Easements. Following the identification of these resources design standards
can be developed that will allow for the construction of facilities that do not adversely impact the
County. Design standards could allow the service providers to select sites that meet the criteria
for facility.location, and allow the service providers to develop their networks.
Staff will identify and map additional resources to be considered in the placement of facilities.
These additional resources which have been identified but not yet mapped include:
Mountain Resource Areas (as identified in the Comprehensive Plan), Wildlife Habitats, streams,
forested areas, public property, existing wireless service facilities and structures which can
support new facilities.
During tonight's worksession Ted Kreines will discuss various types of facilities that are feasible.
Any or all of the discussed facilities types may be included in standards developed for the
County. In preparing standards staff will incorporate the concerns that were stated at the two
meetings previously held with the consultant. Staff has received comments from the public
indicating that they rely upon wireless phone service for business and that they want reliable,
affordable service. Staff has also heard members of the public who do not want service at all in
rural portions of the County. To balance these conflicting opinions staffwill propose
development standards that allow for the provision of service throughout the County while not
adversely impacting the general population. Staff is aware that these design standards will
require the industry to utilize technology that is not commonly used in some markets, like
Albemarle County, and that the use of this technology may have the effect of increasing the cost
of personal wireless services.
Following tonight's worksession staff will work with the consultant to generate development
standards. Following preparation of draft development standards staff will hold a more formal
worksession or public hearing with the Planning Commission. Following this Planning
Commission meeting, the consultant and staff will prepare and present development standards to
the Board. The consultant will at that time also present all work required by the contract. Staff
will present a Wireless Telecommunications Policy for the Board's consideration in a public
heating either at this public hearing or at a later date.
C:\WPDOCS~RFP\bosworksession.doc
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby adopt a Resolution of
Intent to consider amending the Albemarle County Comprehensive
Plan to include a wireless telecommunications policy; and
FURTHER REQUESTS the Albemarle County Planning Commission to
hold a public hearing on said intent to amend the Comprehensive
Plan, and does request that thC Planning Commission send its
recommendation to this Board at the earliest possible date.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is true, correct copy of a Resolution of Intent adopted
by the Board of CounEy Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,
at a regular meeting held on January 20, 1999.
/
j/
SOtS
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Leurie Hell
Mondey, Jenuery 25, 1999 3:26 PM
Amelie McCulle¥; Bill Mewyer; Bruce Woodzell; Den Mehon; Jenice Ferrer; John
Gredy; Lern/Devis; Sheron Teylor; Weyne Cilimberg
Leurie Hell
'1/20/99 Plenning Conditions Letter
Atteched is the Plenning Conditions letter for the '1/20/99 Boerd of Supervisors Meeting.
(Weyne, the ettechments heve been pieced in the meilbox to be picked up by your steff.) Leurie
012099.CON
I N T E R
AlbemarlcBoard of County Supervisors
Office of the CMo to lbo Board
401 Mclmir Road
Chariot t csvillc,Virginia 22902-4596
804-296-5843
0 F F I C E
MEMO
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development
Laurel B. Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk
January 20, 1999 Board of Supervisors Meeting
January 25, 1999
The following actions were taken by the Board at its meetings on
January 20, 1999:
Special Meeting
Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Wireless Telecommunications Policy,
Presentation by Kreines & Kreines. ADOPTED attached resolution of intent to
amend the Comprehensive Plan to include a Wireless Telecommunications Policy.
Regular Night Meeting
Item No. 5.3. Amendment of the jurisdictional area map to allow provision
of water and sewer service to the proposed Fontana Subdivision, Phase IIA (SDP-
98-273), TM78,P57 (portion of). ADOPTED.
Agenda Item No. SP-98-59. Pegasus Motorcar Co (Sign #59). PUBLIC HEARING
on a request to establish automobile dealership w/in a designated Entrance
Corridor. 1.75 acs loc on S side of Rt 250 E (Richmond Rd), approx 1,000' E of
Rt 20 inter. Znd HC & EC. TM78,P15. Rivanna Dist. APPROVED w/2 conditions
as follow:
Outdoor storage and display parking shall be limited to all areas
designated as such on the site plan dated November 23, 1998.
Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness, which includes:
a. ARB approval of landscaping;
b. Vehicles for display shall not be elevated;
c. Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas shown on the site
plan; and,
d. ARB approval of a lighting plan.
Agenda Item 7. SP-98-61. Triton Communications/Virginia Power (Signs
#61&62). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow installation of panel antennae
on existing electrical transmission tower in accord w/ ~24.2.2.6 of Zoning
Ordinance. Loc near 101 Riverbend Dr (St Rt 1116) near inter of Rt 250 E
(Richmond Rd) & Riverbend Dr. Znd HC&EC. TM78,P17F2. Rivanna Dist. DEFERRED
until 2/3 consent agenda. Staff to work with applicant to determine maximum
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Page 2
January 25, 1999
tower height to be allowed. Applicant was alSO asked to present photos of
examples of the proposed tower base.
Agenda Item 8. SP-98-62. Triton Communications/Virginia Power (Sunset
Avenue) (Signs #72&73). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow installation of
panel antennae on existing electrical transmission tower in accord w/ §18.2.2.6
of Zoning Ordinance, resulting in add'l 20' in total power pole height. 9.6 ac
parcel loc on SE side of 1-64/Sunset Ave inter. Znd R-15 & EC. TM76,P46C.
Scottsville Dist. APPROVED w/7 conditions as follow:
The attachment, including insulators~ connectors and wires, shall
be shielded and painted in color to resemble the existing power
pole;
The attachment shall not exceed the diameter of the existing power
pole;
The attacment shall be limited to the total of two (2) panel
antenna, whose height shall not exceed a maximum of 130 feet above
ground level;
Construction of the telecommunications tower within the existing
power line tower shall be in general accord with the plan titled
"CV-1-308C Sunset Vepco Utility Site" and initialed ELM 12/28/98;
The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator
once per year, by not later than July of that year. The report
shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user
that is a wireless telecommunications service provider;
The antenna on the tower shall be disassembled and removed from the
site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless
telecommunications purposes is discontinued; and,
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness.
Agenda Item No. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS to consider request for funding under
the Commonwealth of Virginia's Transportation Enhancement Program (TEA-21) for
the following projects:
(1) A sidewalk/walkway construction program with multiple
projects at various locations in the development areas. The
project(s) will construct new sidewalk/walkway or complete
gaps in the existing sidewalk/walkway systems in the
development areas. Albemarle County will provide all non-
Federal matching funds.
(2) The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority is requesting
funds for bikelanes, sidewalks, and landscaping/scenic
beautification along Airport Road (Route 649) from Route 29
to Route 606. Albemarle County will provide all non-Federal
matching funds.
(3) For additional work on the Thomas Jefferson Parkway.
Previous phases have been supported by the Board of County
Supervisors and funded under the enhancement program. The
V, Wayne Cilimberg
Page 3
January 25, 1999
additional money would apply to items envisioned in the
original conCeptual but not covered under previous grant
applications. ADOPTED attached resolutions.
Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters from the Board.
Ms. Thomas asked why Mr. Terry Sieg's name was dropped from the Public
Recreational Facilities Authority's roster. The Clerk has added Mr. Sieg's
name to the Authority's roster and sent him a letter apologizing for the
oversight.
Attachments: 2
/lbh
CC:
Larry Davis
Amelia McCulley
Bill Mawyer
Bruce Woodzell
Dan Mahon
Sharon Taylor
John Grady
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Resolution to approve issuance of tax exempt bonds by the
Industrial Development Authority in an amount not to exceed
$14,000,000.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. TuckedHuff/Davis
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA DATE:
January20,1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Resolution; background information
Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge is requesting approval of up to fourteen million dollars of revenue bonds by the
Industrial Development Authority to finance the construction of a 50,000 square foot catered living building, fifteen additional
cottages, and related project expenses for expansion of th e existing retirement community located at Pantops. The IDA held
a public hearing and adopted a Resolution on January 11, 1999 to approve the proposed issuance of the bonds. Background
information and the Fiscal Impact Statement are attached for your additional information.
DISCUSSION:
The Internal Revenue Code requires that the County approve the proposed financing in order for the revenue bonds to be
treated as tax exempt private activity bonds: No public hearing is required except for the ~ublic hearing by the IDA. County
approval of the proposed issuance of the bonds does not constitute an endorsement of the bonds and does not create any
liability for the County in regard to the issuance or payment of the bonds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution approving the issuance of up to $14,000,000 of revenue bonds
by the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County to finance the proposed expansion ~3roject of Westminster-
Canterbury of the Blue Ridge to be located at the site of its existing retirement community on Pantops Mountain Road.
99.005
David P. Bowerman
Charlotte Y. Hurnphris
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
COUN'FY OF Al IqEMAR! F
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mdnfire Road
Charlottesville, Vn*ginia 22902-4596
(804} 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Charles S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
Sall~ H. Thomas
January 25, 1999
Ms. Cynthia L. Hendren
McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe, L. L. P.
One James Center
901 East Cary St.
Richmond, VA 23219-4030
Dear Ms. Hendren:
At its January 20, 1999 meeting, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution on the
Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle Conty, Virginia Revenue Bond Financing for
Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge. I have enclosed the original signed resolution.
Please call me if you have any questions. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Laurel B. Hall
Senior Deputy Clerk
Attachment
Printed on recycled paper
RESOLUTION OF THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $14,000,000
REVENUE BONDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF
WESTMINSTER-CANTERBURY OF TM]E BLUE RIDGE
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County,
Virginia, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia
("Authority"), is empowered by (a) the Albemarle County Code to finance
facilities for the residence and care of the aged, and (b) the Industrial
Development and Revenue Bond Act, Chapter 33, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of
1950, as amended ("Act"), to issue its revenue bonds for the purpose of
assisting in the acquisition, construction, equipping and refinancing of
facilities for the residence or care of the aged in order to provide modem and
efficient services to them, in accordance with their special needs;
WI~EREAS, the Authority has received a request from Westminster-Canterbury
of the Blue Ridge, a non-profit, non-stock corporation ("Borrower"),
requesting that the Authority issue its revenue bonds to assist in financing
(a) the acquisition, construction and equipping of an approximately 50,000
square foot catered living building, (b) site work and other costs related to
construction of approximately 15 cottages, (c) preliminary costs related to
future facility expansion, (d) a debt service reserve fund, and (e) costs of
issuance and other expenses related to the bonds ("Project") all of the
foregoing to be located at the Borrower's continuing care retirement community
("Facility") at 250 Pantops Mountain Road in Albemarle County, Virginia;
WHEREAS, such assistance will benefit the inhabitants of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia and the Commonwealth of Virginia, by promoting and
protecting their health and welfare and assisting in the provision of modern
and efficient medical services;
WHEREAS, preliminary plans for the Project have been described to the
Authority and a public hearing has been held as required by Section 147(f) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, ("Code") and Section 15.2-4906
of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Borrower has represented that the estimated cost of the
acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project and all expenses of
issue will require an issue of revenue bonds in the aggregate principal amount
not to exceed $14,000,000.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY TEE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. It is hereby found and determined that (a) the acquisition,
construction and equipping of the Project will be in the public interest and
will promote the health and welfare of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the
County of Albemarle, Virginia and their citizens, and the County of Albemarle,
Virginia and their citizens, and (b) the activities to be conducted at the
Facility are facilities for the residence and care 0f the aged as contemplated
by the Albemarle County Code.
2. To induce the Borrower to locate the Project in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, and particularly in the County of Albemarle, the Authority hereby
agrees to assist the Borrower in financing the acquisition, construction and
equipping of the Project by undertaking the issuance of its revenue bonds in
an amount not to exceed $14,000,000 upon terms and conditions mutually
agreeable to the Authority and the Borrower. The bonds will be issued pursuant
to documents satisfactory to the Authority. The bonds may be issued in one or
more series at one time or from time to time.
3. It having been represented to the Authority that it is necessary to
proceed immediately with the acquisition, planning and construction of the
Project, the Authority agrees that the Borrower may proceed with plans for the
Project, enter into contracts for land, construction, materials and equipment
for the Project, and take such other steps as it may deem appropriate in
connection with the Project, provided, however, that nothing in this
resolution shall be deemed to authorize the Borrower to obligate the Authority
without its consent in each instance to the payment of any moneys or the
performance of any acts in connection with the Project. The Authority agrees
that the Borrower may be reimbursed from the proceeds of the bonds for all
expenditures and costs so incurred by it, provided such expenditures and costs
are properly reimbursable under the Act and applicable federal laws.
4. At the request of the Borrower, the Authority approves McGuire,
Woods, Battle & Boothe LLP, Richmond, Virginia, as Bond Counsel in connection
with the issuance of the bonds.
5. Ail costs and expenses in connection with the financing and the
acquisition, construction and equipping of the Project, including the fees and
expenses of Bond Counsel and Authority Counsel, shall be paid by the Borrower
or, to the extent permitted by applicable law, from the proceeds of the bonds.
If for any reason such bonds are not issued, it is understood that all such
expenses shall be paid by the Borrower and that the Authority shall have no
responsibility therefor.
6. In adopting this resolution the Authority intends to take "official
action" toward the issuance of the bonds and to evidence its "official intent"
to reimburse from the proceeds of the bonds any expenditures paid by the
Borrower to finance the acquisition, planning and construction of the Project
before the issuance of the bonds, all within the meaning of regulations issued
by the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Sections 103 and 141 through 150
and related sections of the Code.
7. The Authority recommends that the Board of Supervisors of the County
of Albemarle, Virginia, approve the issuance of the bonds.
8. No bonds may be issued pursuant to this resolution until such time
as the issuance of the bonds has been approved by the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a
true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of County Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a meeting held on January 20, 1999.
Clerk, Board of Co~y Supervisors
/
/
The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia ("Authority") certifies that the foregoing is a true, correct and complete copy of
a resolution adoPted'b~ a majority of the Directors of the Authority present and voting at a
meeting duly called and held on January 11, 1999, in accordance with law, and that such
resolution has not been repealed, revoked, rescinded or amended but is in full force and effect on
this date.
1999.
WITNESS the following signature and seal of the Authority, this 1 lth day of January,
Secreta[y o¥ the In~l"'ustrial Develc[pment Authority
of Albemarle CountY, Virginia
January 11, 1999
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County, Virginia
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia
Proposed Financing for Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge
Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge ("Borrower") has requested that the Industrial
Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia ("Authority"), assist the Borrower in
financing (a) the acquiskion, construction and equipping of an approximately 50,000 square foot
catered living building, (b) site work and other costs related to construction of approximately 15
cottages, (c) preliminary costs related to future facility expansion, (d) a debt service reserve
fund, and (e) costs of issuance and other expenses related to the bonds ("Project") all of the
foregoing to be located at the Borrower's continuing care retirement community at 250 Pantops
Mountain Road in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, by the issuance of its revenue bonds in an
amount not to exceed $14,000,000 ("Bonds").
As set forth in the resolution of the Authority attached hereto ("Resolution"), the
Authority has agreed to issue its Bonds as requested. The Authority has conducted a public
hearing on the proposed financing of the Project and has recommended that you approve the
issuance of the Bonds as required by Section 147(0 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended, and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended.
Attached hereto is (1) a certificate evidencing the conduct of the public hearing and the
action taken by the Authority, (2) the Fiscal Impact Statement required pursuant to Virginia
Code Section 15.2-4907, and (3) the form of resolution suggested by counsel to evidence your
approval, l(~O"~
Secret/ar~ndustrial Development Authority
of Albemarle County, Virginia
The undersigned Secretary of the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle
County, Virginia ("Authority") certifies as follows:
1. A meeting of the Authority was duly called and held on January 11, 1999, at
11:30 o'clock a.m. in the Executive Conference Room on the fourth floor of the County Office
Building at 401 Mclntire Road, in Charlottesville, Virginia, pursuant to proper notice given to
each Director of the Authority before such meeting. The meeting was open to the public. The
time of the meeting and the place at which the meeting was held provided a reasonable
opportunity for persons of differing views to appear and be heard.
2. The Chairman announced the commencement of a public hearing on the
application of Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge and that a notice of the hearing was
published once a week for two successive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the
County of Albemarle, Virginia ("Notice"), with the second publication appearing not less than
seven days nor more than twenty-one days prior to the hearing date. A copy of the Notice has
been filed with the minutes of the Authority and is attached as Exhibit A.
3. A summary of the .statements made at the public hearing is attached as Exhibit B.
4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true, correct and complete copy of a resolution
("Resolution") adopted at such meeting of the Authority by a majority of the Directors present at
such meeting. The Resolution constitutes all formal action taken by the Authority at such
meeting relating to matters referred to in the Resolution. The Resolution has not been repealed,
revoked, rescinded or amended and is in full force and effect on this date.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Authority, this 1 lth day of January, 1999.
S ecrethry,X'Indus~ri~"0g~evelop~ent Authority
of Albemarle County, Virginia
,.
E~,hibits: ~'
A - ,.;opy of' Certified Notice
~immary Of Statements
C - Inducement Resolution
-2-
C~'L~R.LO'TTES'V'JZ,L£, V'~GL'N-L.~. 2290~
EXHIBIT
CERTIFZCATION OF PUBLICATION
hereby ce~O/that the aveached nor/ce w~s pubF. shed in "The D~/~y Pro~ess
newswver in Ch~tor~es~le, V/r__~3~/a,. and appe~ed in the issues(s) dated
Given Under My H~nd
'~H~mlnIMf~ln~r°Ury ~' tM Int~re~t~ in ~ Mlua~e ~ ~,
end equ~Plng a~ Il o~n for ~n ~ ~-
,l~pr~lmately ~,0~ ~riW~e ~ at ~1
~r~mm~ 16 ~g. (c) INDUgTHI~L DEVELO~M'E~'
~panllo~, (0)' a ALgEMAH~ ~U~,
re.we fu~, a~ . VIRGINIA
m~O Pl~l Mourn
eonltflu~ a ~e~ or
~ and ~ ~
C~. M Al~m~, VIr:
~omm~e~ ~
1~, b~om ~
EXHIBIT B TO CERTIFICATE
Summary of Statemems
Representatives of Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge and McGuire, Woods,
Battle & Boothe LLP, bond counsel, appeared before the Authority to explain the proposed plan
of financing. No one appeared in opposition to the proposed bond issue.
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR PROPOSED BOND FINANCING
Date: January 11, 1999
To the Board of Supervisors
of Albemarle County, Virginia
Applicant:
Facility:
Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge
Continuing Care Retirement Community
1. Maximum amount of financing sought.
14,000,000
Estimated taxable value of the facility's real property
to be constructed in the municipality.
12,000,000
Estimated real property tax per year using present tax
rates.
86,000
Estimated personal property tax per year using present
tax rates.
0
o
Estimated merchants' capital tax per year using present
tax rates.
0
6. (a)
Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be
purchased from Virginia companies within the
locality.
100,000
(b)
Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be
purchased from non-Virginia companies within the
locality.
200,000
(c) Estimated dollar value per yea~ of services that will be
purchased from Virginia companies within the localitY.
500,000
(d)
Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be
purchased from non-Virginia companies within the
locality.
100,000
Estimated number of regular employees on year round
basis.
30
8. Average annual salary per employee.
Information provided relatates to new construction only.
$ 17,000
Chairm~¢~fi~C~r~tr~velopment
Autho 'ty~j~Albemarle County, Virginia
At a regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
held on the 20th day of January, 1999, the following members were recorded as present:
PRESENT:
On motion by , seconded by
, the attached Resolution was adopted by a majority of the
members of the Board of Supervisors by a roll call vote, the votes being recorded as follows:
MEMBER VOTE
MCGUIREWOODS
BATTLE &Bo(JII-tE ~,LP
One James Center
901 East Cary Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219-4030
Telephone/TDD (804) 775-1000 · Fax (804) 775-1061
Direct Dial: (804) 775-7773
January 12, 1999
FEDERAL EXPRESS
Ms. Ella Carey
Clerk, Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle, Virginia
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia
Revenue Bond Financing for
Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge
Dear Ella:
In connection with the upcoming January 20, 1999 meeting of the Board of Supervisors,
enclosed are the papers that were signed at the Authority's meeting on January 11.
Specifically, I have enclosed (1) a transmittal letter to the Board of Supervisors signed by
the Secretary of the Authority, (2) the Secretary's Certificate which attaches the Certificate of
Publication, Summary of Statements and the Resolution passed by the Authority on January 11,
(3) the Fiscal Impact Statement signed by the Chairman, and (4) the form of resolution for the
Board of Supervisors to consider at its meeting on January 20.
Please let me know if you need anything further or if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
?
Cynthig&<qtendren
Legal Assistant
Enclosures
www. mwbb.com
ALMAIY · BAL¥IMORE · BRUSSELS · C}'ag, LOTTE · Clt~,LO~ · CBICAGO · JACKSONVILLE · MOSCOW · NORFOIA · RI~MOND · TYSONS CORI~R · WASnlI~GTON · Z01UCtt (OF COL~SF~)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation -Additional Operating Expenses in the
Sheriff's Department
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of APpr0priat[(~ #98049 in the amount
of $8 439.00.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messers. Tucker, Breeden, White
AGENDA DATE:
January 20,1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
II ~-M 'NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
Yes
BACKGROUND:
During the FY 98/99 Budget Process, the Sheriff's Office requested $7,846 in additional funding for police supplies and
uniforms. Staff recommended that the Sheriff purchase these one-time expenditure items with carry over funds from the
current year. The Board of SuperVis°rs subsequently approved this recommendation, although the Sheriff's Office
neglected to send in a carry-over request at the end of the year and, therefore, this was not Part of the county-wide
reappropriation request submitted to the Board in October.
DISCUSSION:
This request Would fund the purchase of $8,439 in additional police supplies and uniforms for the Sheriff's Office, using
$8,439 from the General Fund Balance, as per the budget recommendation. The $593 increase over the $7,846 initially
requested funds one-time uniform expenses for the temporary juvenile court bailiff approved last October, but which were
not included in the bailiff appropriation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation #98049 in the amount of $8,439.00.
99.004
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance
Laurel B. Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk ~
Appropriation Approved on January 20, 1999
January 25, 1999
Attached is the original appropriation form for the following item which was approved by
the Board at its meeting on January 20, 1999:
1) Appropriation: Additional Operating Expenses in the Sheriff s Department, ($8,439)
(Form #98049).
Attachment
CC:
Roxanne White
Richard E. Huff, II
Terry Hawkins
Robert Walters
FISCAL YEAR: 98/99
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION:
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
FUND:
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
NUMBER
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
YES
NO
GENERAL
FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL OPERATING EXPENSES IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.
X
X
98049
EXPENDITURE
CODE DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
1 1000 31020 601000 POLICE SUPPLIES
1 1000 31020 601100 UNIFORMS &APPAREL $7,753.00
686.00
REVENUE TOTAL $8,439.00
CODE DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
2 1000 51000 510100 GENERAL FUND BALANCE $8,439.00
TOTAL
'TRANSFERS $8,439.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER: ..... * ......................... * ...................
SHERFIFF
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Albemarle County Jurisdictional Area request for water and
sewer service - Nichols Accountancy Corp. (Fontana
Subdivision)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Provision of water and sewer service to proposed Phase IIA
(SDP 98-273), Fontana Subdivision, Tax Map 78, Parcel 57
(portion of)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish
AGENDA DATE:
January 20, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
ACTION: Yes INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: ~'~'~'""-
A public hearing was held April 1, 1998, to consider a request by Hurt Investment Company (previous owner) for water and
sewer service to 119 acres located on Tax Map 78 Parcel 57 (portion). The subject property is part of Fontana Subdivision,
which received preliminary plat approval on December 19, 1997, which in turn was part of the original "Luxor" parcel. It is
located on the east side of Route 20 North, north of the Wilton Subdivision and Garnett Treatment Center, within a designated
Development Area (Neighborhood 3).
Phase IIA consists of three lots (comprising a total of 1.33 acres) located at the west end of Fontana Court, in Fontana
Subdivision. Amendment of the jurisdictional area boundary is required before final subdivision approval can be granted.
DISCUSSION:
At its April meeting, the Board approved an amendment of the serviCe area boundaries for water and sewer service to Fontana
Subdivision, as recommended by staff, provided that a note be included on all plats indicating that no public water will be
provided on those lots above the 600 foot elevation, which serves as the Development Area boundary. Two of the subdivision's
lots along the eastern edge of the property straddle the Development Area boundary, and have both RA and R-4 zoning.
Consistency with County policy permits extension of service only to that portion of these lots lying within the Development Area.
Phase IIA is located entirely within the Development Area, in the portion of the property zoned R-4, below the 600-foot contour.
Extension of water and sewer service has been approved to Fontana Recreation Center, located immediately east of these
lots.
It is anticipated that requests similar to this one will be submitted for future phases of the subdivision.
RECOMMENDATION:
This request is consistent with the Board's April 1 action approving amendment to the Jurisdictional Area boundaries
for the Fontana Subdivision. With the Board's concurrence, staff will amend the Jurisdictional Area map to allow
provision of water and sewer service to Phase IIA, and require that notes be included on the final plat limiting service
to building sites within the designated Development Area.
ATTACHMENTS:
A- Location Map
B - Project Phasing Plan
Cc:
Bill Brent, Albemarle County Service Authority
Steve Driver, PE, LS
McKee Carson
301 East High street,
Charlottesville, VA 22902
99.003
ALBEMARLE
COUNT'r
ATTACHMENT A! °
?~
~._._/ r
Monticello boundary lines represen~
perimeter road or tree lines (as ~
se~rl
on Air Photograph i cs Dec. ]980 Aeriajl
Photo of TM 78) to include all /
existing buildings. /~.~/
· -'~.~-~ ~:w'
~~11 I ~ n~,~
I~per t¥ Bo~tdary 1"=1000
~ .-:.W ...-~
FONTANA
SUBDIVISION
PHASING PLAN
La~d Use Summat?
/I/Ir.'
December 21, 1998
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4035
John Gorman
Sheeran Architect
226 East High St
Charlottesville, VA 22902
SP-98-59 Pegasus Motor Company and Pegasus Motorcar Company Preliminary Site Plan
Tax Map 78, Parcel 15
Dear ~v~'. Gorman:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 15, 1998, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that
this approval is subject to the following conditions:
Outdoor storage and display parking shall be limited to all areas designated as'such on the
site plan dated November 23, 1998.
Architectural Review Board issuance ora Certificate of Approptiateness, which includes:
a. ARB approval of landscaping;
b. Vehicles for display shall not be elevated;
c. Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas shown on the site plan; and,
d. ARB approval of a lighting plan.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on January 20, 1999. Any new or additional
information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled heating date.
The Planning Commission also unanimously approved a waiver to allow for construction on
critical slopes [4.2.3.2] and a waiver to allow for cross-slope parking grade [4.12.6.3b] in excess
of 2%. With approval of these waivers, SDP-98-147 Pegasus Motorcar Preliminary Site Plan can
be administratively' approved.
Page 2
December 21, 1998
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Eric Morrisette
Planner
EM/jcl
Cc~
Ella Carey -
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
Virginia Land Trust
Pegasus Motor Car Company
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Eric L. Morrisette
December 15, 1998
January 20, 1999
SP 98-059 PEGASUS MOTORCAR COMPANY and
SDP 98-147 PEGASUS MOTORCAR COMPANY PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to display automobiles for sale and operate two new automobile
dealerships on this site, which currently has three residential structures. The three existing
residential structures on the site will be removed and two new auto dealership buildings [One
approximately 1,800 square feet and the other approximately 17,000 square feet] will be
constructed. The proposal includes a total of 97 parking spaces, with all of the 49 exterior
display parking spaces situated in the front of the building. In association with this project, the
applicant proposes to construct on existing critical slopes and to construct a parking lot cross
slope in excess of 2%. Attachment A is a reduced copy of the site plan.
PETITION:
SP 98-059 Pegasus Motorcar Company - Petition to establish two automobile dealerships
within a designated Entrance Corridor [30.6.3.2] located on 1.75 acres zoned HC, Highway
Commercial, and EC, Entrance Corridor (Attachment B). Property, described as Tax Map 78,
Parcel 15, is located on the southern side of Route 250 East [Richmond Road], approximately
1,000 feet east of State Route 20 intersection (Attachments C & D). This site is located in the
Rivanna Magisterial District and is recommended for Regional Service Use in Urban
Neighborhood 3.
SDP 98-147 Pegasus Motorcar Company Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to demolish three
existing dwelling structures to construct two retail auto dealerships, totaling approximately
18,500 square feet in building'coverage. The property described as above petition.
CHARACTER OF AREA:
The property is located on the southern side of State Ronte 250 East [Richmond Road]
(Attachment D). All adjacent property is zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Adjacent
automobile dealerships are located to the west and across the street to the north. An existing
house exists to the east. The Albemarle County Service Authority is adjacent to the south.
This site is partially graded and contains three detached residential structures. The applicant
proposes to demolish three structures and supportive parking. The proposed property entrance is
directly off of Richmond Road [State Route 250 East].
COMPREHEN
This area is reco
Comprehensive
this proposal is
PLANNING A
~IVE PLAN:
mmended for Regional Service Use in Urban Neighborhood 3. The
?lan lists auto dealers as a primary use for this service designation. Therefore,
onsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
D ZONING HISTORY:
No Planning or ~oning history available for this site.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REvIEw:
In accord with Section 30.6.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, outdoor display of automobiles for sale
requires special t~se permit approval by the Board of Supervisors. The applicant also seeks
Planning Co ~nu~ ilssion approval of: (1) a waiver to allow for construction on critical slopes
[Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance] AND (2) a waiver to allow for cross slope parking
grade in excess of 2°A [Section 4.12.6.3b of the Zoning Ordinance].
STAFF COMMENT:'~
Staff will address the both applications separately.
SP 98-050 DiviSlon of Motor Vehicles
Staff Analysis:
Staff will address~ each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use
permits p6rmitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance
may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisor~ that such use will not be of
substanti~ detriment to adiacent property..
It is anticipated ,at the addition of automobile display and sales will have no negative impact on
the surrounding uses or on the site itself. The proposed site is located' within an intense
commercial area
the proposed site
automobile deale~
automobiles, it is
property.
hat is designated as Regional Service Use in the Comprehensive Plan. Because
is located within an intense commercial area, and the fact that the adjacent
ships experience no traffic conflict with their outdoor storage and display of
anticipated at the use will not create a substantial detriment to adjacent
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The site is located within an actively developing commercial district. Automobile dealerships
and associated outdoor displays are consistent with other uses in the district. The potential
impact of the use on the character of the district has been addressed by the Albemarle County
Architectural Review Board [ARB], which has expressed no objection to the use based on the
Entrance Corridor guidelines (Attachment E). The ARB "unanimously expressed no objection to
the special use permit", with conditions that have been incorporated into the recommended
conditions of approval for the special use permit.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance of Section 1.4, Section 1.5, and Section 1.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance and finds no conflict with those provisions. Staff has also reviewed this
request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Based on the recommendation by the ARB, this use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of
the EC district.
with the uses permitted by-right in the district,
Outdoor storage and display of automobiles is accessory to a by-right use and isin harmony with
other by-right uses located in this primarily commercial district.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance provides no additional regulations for uses involving drive-
through windows.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The Site Review Committee has identified no adverse affect on public health, safety, and general
welfare. Issues related to the EC Overlay District will be addressed by appropriate conditions of
approval.
Summary_:
This use is by special use permit due to the use of outdoor storage and display of vehicles within
the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This use is permitted by right in the underlying Highway
Commercial district. The ARB has reviewed this request for its impact on the Route 250 East
Entrance Corridor. Their action, which is included as Attachment E, expressed no objection to
the proposed use and indicated that conditions of the Special Use Permit should not limit the
ARB review of the final Certificate of Appropriateness. It is staff's opinion that with the ARB's
approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, this use is consistent with the intent of the Zoning
Ordinance and
Staff has identifi
1. The use
2. The use
Staff has not ide
proposed use of
accessory to an
Recommended
~e Comprehensive Plan.
ed the following factors which are favorable to this request:
s consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan;
consistent with Section 32.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
~tified any factors which are unfavorable to this request. Staff finds that the
5utdoor storage and display of automobiles is an acceptable and expected
utomobile dealership.
kction:
Staff recommen~
conditions.
Recommended
1. The total
nine [49];
2. Architect
a. Al
b. V,
c. V,
d. Ai
SDP 98-147 Peg:
The Site Review
Planning Commi:
[Section 4.2.3.2 c
grade in excess o:
The applicant pro
of the Zoning Orr
allows Planning
of the restriction
were created duril
Service Authority
provisions of Secl
Staff has reviewe~
.s approval of the proposed outdoor storage and display of automobiles with
londitions of Approval:
number of outdoor storage and display parking spaces shall be limited to forty-
wal Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness, which includes:
?,_B approval of landscaping;
,~hicles for display shall not be elevated;
;hicles shall be displayed only in areas shown on the site plan; and,
LB approval of a lighting plan.
tsus Motorcar Company Preliminary Site Plan
2ommittee has reviewed this site plan and may grant approval subject to the
;sion approval of: (1) a.waiver to allow for construction on critical slopes
f the Zoning Ordinance] AND (2) a waiver to allow for cross slope parking
2% [Section 4.12.6.3b of the Zoning Ordinance].
)oses to grade and construct on critical slopes (Attachment F). Section 4.2.3.2
inance restricts earth-disturbing activity on critical slopes and section 4.2.5.2
· mm~ss~on modfficat~on of this restriction upon finding that strict application
gould not forward the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The critical slopes
~g grading of the existing site and improvements to the Albemarle County
property to the south. The Engineering Department has addressed the
ion 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance and supports this request (Attachment G).
. this reqUest and finds no aesthetic resources in the man-made slopes that are
not visible from Ronte 250 East. Therefore, Planning Staffalso recommends approval of the
applicant's critical slope waiver request.
The applicant is also requesting a modification of Section 4.12.6.3b of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow for cross slope parking grade in access of 2% (Attachment F). A maximum 5% grade in
the parking area is proposed. The Engineering Department has reviewed the applicant's request
to determine if the proposed design is consistent with sound engineering and design practices and
has recommended approval. The comments of the Engineering Department are included as
attachment (G). Modification of the site plan to modify the parking slope would not result in an
inferior site design. Planning Staff concurs with Engineering's analysis and also supports this
request.
Recommended Action:
Approval of the critical slope [4.2.3.2] and cross slope parking grade [4.12.6.3b] waivers. With
approval of these waivers, SDP 98-147 Pegasus Motorcar Company Preliminary Site Plan can be
administratively approved.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Site Plan
B - Applicant's Special Use Permit Request and Justification
C - Tax Map
D - Location Map
E - Architectural Review Board Comments
F - Applicant's Waiver Request
G - Engineering Comments Dated December 04, 1998
Pantops Service Cent~'
Rlcky L. Baumgardener
Tax Map 78, Parcel 15B(I)
D.B. 774-510
Zoned HC/EC
Z
Rlclry L. Baumgardener
Tax MIlI~ 78, Parcel 15B
D,B. 881-426
Zoned HC
Albemarle County Service Authority
Tax Map 78, Parcel 15C
Zoned HC
fnn Chalet Land Trust
Tax Map ~'8, Parcel 15E
Zoned HC/EC
N
mm m
mm m
-E
General Notes
........... ,orang ervlces
~ · .... *Zoning
( staff will assist, you w~th thee items) ...~ ~;:.? ~!:~ ,~. ~ ~.' ~¢'~ ~. ?: .; :? ~' :d. ~ :-.-~' ..... ,~. ~ ~-~.~ '~ ~
~ ........ ;.. '', ~ 'F: ''',?~, ':-~.',d~ ¥:. ~''~ '~'-. ~'~ ~ . .~;~ '"
~ ';" ~ber of a~s ~ ~ ~ver~ by Speo~ U~ Pe~t (if a ~ it m~ ~ ~i~ ~ pht)'~ .... ': ''
h&iS ~'amend~nt ~ ~ USe Pe~t? ~
~e'~ou ~b~n~ :~"~de~l~m~nt pla~'~ ~ appfi~gon?
AppliC~nt~Vho~'the¢onat~son~prescn~gVWhoisrextuestingthest~cialuse~).' ~Ci'~O~ ~ia~'~O,~..~fl~
Address r~"aocl :'"~T~I,~' ff~,~lr'' ~ City ~'~'~( State ZipZZ~II
e on F~ ' - ' ~' E-m~l -" .- :-'~,'/
. ...,:.: :;. ~:~ ' ..?., ~:. ~ ,, .
Tax map and parcel -Tl°~, ~l"°o ~1~6g~ !~'~ Physi,~.aiAddresS(if~i~ed)'
Do~s the owner of this property Own (or have any ownership interest in) any~abU~ng ~r06e~?':lf yes', please list
those taX map and parcel numbers A'~ . .. -.. ._ :. '....:: .,i..- ,: ....... ~ :..-.: ,. -.-~...,.?..i,:~:~ :'-,; ~:.:-~'..~.::/,,.. ....'
- - I ~ ' ' ' · - ' ' ' "" ~' :', / ' :A '-:; ~t" -.-4.~ ;¢c..." :_<~¢%'~: '/r -. ,. ~ ..*.. '-
reserves
uses
not be of subs~U~ de~en~ to'~jacent pro~;' ~at"~e ChmCter of ~e
How will the
How is the use in hah
How is the use in hah ~ony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
What additional regul
How Will this use pro:
~7 . . '.'.
.' 'ils,: ;..:..: .'..',':
,ote the public health, safetY;'~ind ge~al w,ifare
i .~i:'.: '. -
.- pronde two(2) copies of eaCh: ...: ".:i:;.:{!i.;.;';
1. - --Recorded plat or boundary, survey of the property req~ the rezoning/If there
...-.- :' no recorded. ~ plat Or boundary sm-vey';ple~e ProVide legal deC,rip,ion of the Property and
'- - the Deed ~ook and page number Or Plat ~ok and page number¢
[21 2. Ownership information- if ownership 0f th;'pr°p~rty i'd-in
the name
If the applicant is a co,ntract purchaser, 'a'docUment acceptable to the county must be
" Sub~tted e0htai~hg th~ 6wner's Writte~t cOnSent to the'al;plic~fi'~':'~:.I :;""~',?.'-:~,':~' ? ......
If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency.
OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS:" '
~,', ~ 3. Drawings or con~eptuaI plans, if any. . ~
:':'- [2] 4. -';' Additional Information, ff any: ':"!-' :"' . i" ,i".'::.;':~:~.i:~'.,i.:?.!?.':', ,; ..... -i'
""'. "I hereby cenifYthat I own the sUbjeCt property} o~ have the legal i~0wer'{o act 6i~: ¢;h~ ;~ th; °~nei in
filing this
I also. ~rtify that the' infol'matidn' Pro~ided is' ti:ue and a~rat~ t'~~~g'b~{ of
..... '"' Y., '~,' '.- ..~ "".~.: ~-~;~ .". ~ ~ ' '~ '. ".'?~-' ~'~."~
"."."-... .~ . Date"-;" ~' ~.:.."'-:::: ..: .... '...
phon&'~n~m~r
Departm~
401 Mclnt
ChaHottes,
Re:
Appi
Rout~
Tax
Magi:
Locat
of US
To WhoTM
Peg;
]'.,and Trust?
Land Trust:
display area
should you
Thank you.
Dr, Charles
Trustee
i,~1998
:..:: i: : :J TACHHENT B
t of Bulldin{ Code and Zoning Service~
re Road '
,ille, Virginia 22902
ms Motorcar Company
ication for Special Use Permit.
: 250 ,East, Pantop$'Mountain
Zap 78, Parcel 15
g: Highway Commercial (HC/EC)
terial District: Riva~ana
:on: One thousand feet east of intersection of US 250 and VA 20 on south ~id¢
250.
~May Concern:
sus Motorcar Company haz entered into a pmx:hase agrecment with P, I.P.
~r the property identified as Parcel 15 on Tax Map 78. They llave .¢ecured the
consent to submit an application for a Special Use Permit for an exte.riot
:o be tocated on the property. Please contact Mrs. Fisher or. mc. at 979-8 [81
ave any qu~tions regarding this matter.
Hun
MONT[CFLLO
SDP 98-147
Pegasus Motor Car
ALBEMARLE
62
ST(:;
COUNTY
/
/
/
/
'"r- '""~/
SGOTTSVlLLE AND
RIVANNA 'DISTRIOTS
IATTACHMENT C I
5lB
SF.C ,'~,O,N 78-~
....... SECTION
,?
0
U
;S'
ii. VILLE : .
ATTACHH ENT D']--
o
C
%
SDP 98-147
Pegasus Motor Car
~rellminarv
November 19, 1998
Dept.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
IATTACHMENT E ]
John Gorman
Sheeran Architects
226 East High St
Charlottesville, VA 22902
ARB-P(SDP)-98-36 - Pegasus Motor Car Company Showroom
Tax Map 78, Parcel 15
Dear Mr. Gorman:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on November 16,
1998 conducted an advisory review ora special use permit for the outdoor display of
vehicles in the Entrance Corridor, and a preliminary review of a phased plan to construct
automobile dealership showrooms in 2 buildings with 49 display spaces and 47 parking
spaces. The Board unanimously expressed no objection to the special use permit
(SP-98-59) with the following conditions:
1) ARB approval of a landscaping plan.
2) Vehicles for display shall not be elevated.
3) Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas shown on the site plan.
4) ARB approval of a lighting plan.
The Board offered the following comments for the benefit of the applicant's final
submission:
1) Provide color perspective sketches from both directions on Rt. 250 to clarify the
visibility of the overall development and the vi sibility and appearance of the roof
forms.
2) Provide material and color samples, including samples for the roof
3) The Board discussed the roof in detail. The relationship between the roof surface and
the parapet raised concern. Increasing the depth of the parapet might be helpful. The
color of the roof will be important. Clarify the visibility of the roof in drawings.
Page 2
November 19,
4) The compat
discussed.
into a base,
compatibilit
5) Provide con
directed. Th
building and
height and s
plan.
6) Provide con,
proposed Io¢
7) Indicate that
8) Please note !
deadline dat~
attached.
Please be advise
added based on
If you have any
Sincerely,
Margaret M. M. P
Design Planner
MMMP/jcf
Cc: File
Michael
Eric Mo~
998
I'ATTACHI~IENT E [
bility °fthe proposal with the histOric architecture of the County was
:was agreed that the masonry detailing and the division' of wall surfaces
niddle, and top were traditional aspects of the design that increased its
r with the County's historic architecture.
>lete site lighting information. Note that all fixtures must be downward
height of the pole fixtures should be compatible with the height of the
the overall development. Pole fixtures should not exceed 10 - i 5' in
tould have a dark brown, bronze, or black finish. Provide a photometric
~lete sign information. Indicate type of illumination. Note that the
ation of the monument sign is not permitted.
window glass will be clear.
aat a complete final submission will be accepted on any submission
according to the County's submission schedule, a copy of which is
t that this summary is preliminary. Comments or conditions may be
arther review.
uestions concerning any of the above, please feel free to cai1 me.
~ge
5ette
SHEERAN
AR C H IT'E C T $
INTERIORS· ARCHITECTURE· PLANNING
ATTACHMENT F }
November 23, 1998
Mr. Eric Morrisette
Department of Planning & Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Re:
Pegasus Motorcar Company
SDP-98-147
Route 250 East, Pantops Mountain
Tax Map 78, Parcel 15
Zoning: Highway Commercial (HC/EC)
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Location: One thousand feet east of intersection of US 250 and VA 20 on south side
of US 250.
Dear Mr. Morrisette,
In accordance with the preliminary plan comments received from the development
departments, this letter is to petition Planning Commission for waiver of the following
requirements of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance for the above referenced site
development plan:
A. 4.2.3.2: "No structure or improvement nor earth disturbing
activity to establish such structure or improvement shall be
located on slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater
except as otherwise permitted under section 4.3.01."
(Amended 11-15-89)
B. 4.12.6.3 (b): "...and cross slope grade shall not exceed two
(2) percent.."
The critical slopes that exist on the site are a result of previous fill operations
conducted by the owner of the property and are not the original grades of the site which are
less than 25%. The fill was installed in order to permit the erection of the Albemarle County
Service Authority service building and associated parking lot located immediately south of
this site.
We request relief from the 2% cross slope limit for the parking because compliance
with this requirement would require substantial amounts of fill and/or excessively high
retaining walls, as the existing grades on-site, as well as those on the adjacent properties,
are relatively steep. All proposed cross-slopes will be at 5% slope or less.
Please contact me at 979-1830 if you have any questions or comments
above. Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing this request.
on the
TEL: 804 · 979 · 1830 226 EAST HIGH STREET · CHARLOTl'k.31/n I F. · VA 22902 FAX: 804 · 979 · 5681
COUNTY Og AL m4ARL
Department of Engineering & Public Works
MEMORANDUM
IATTACHPIENT G I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
"x
Eric Mor}'isette, Planner ~,~)0 '
Andr6 S. IWilliams, Senior Engineer
4 December 1998
Pegasus 4~lotor Company - Preliminary Site Plan & Critical Slope Waiver & Cross Slope
Modification Request (SDP~98-147)
The Preliminary Site
been addressed. The,
plan.
Final site plan approv
requirements and the
Zoning Ordinance un
A. [32. 6.1.] Th~
surveyor witk
Virginia.
B. [32.6.6. a.] a
C. VDOT appro'
D. [19.3, Article
approval of a
Contact this c
ordinance.
E. [32.7.4.3.; 19
approval of a~
The Critical Slope Wi
November 1998 have
date. The critical slo
property line. The si,
Albemarle County S~
this site (1.754 Ac), .al
Section 4.2 of the Zon
Rapid and/or large sc~
The critical slopes
New 2:1 slopes wil
to the nature of the
movement of soil
prevent excessive s~
Plan received on 29 October 1998 has been reviewed. All previous comments have
&ore Albemarle County Engineering recommends approval of the preliminary site
al shall be subject to Albemarle County Engineering approval of final site plan
following conditions: [Each item is preceded by the applicable reference to the
!ess otherwise specified. J
plan shall be sealed, signed and dated by an architect, professional engineer, land
3(b) license, or landscape architect licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of
lbemarle County Engineering approval of grading plans and drainage computations.
,al of plans. Per VDOT, drainage computations may be required for review.
HI Stormwater Management and V/ater Quality] Albemarle County Engineering
Stormwater BMP Plan, in accordance with the "Water Protection Ordinance".
ffice at (804) 296-5861 for information concerning the implementation of the new
3, Article II Erosion and Sediment Control] Albemarle County Engineering
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
.iver and request for modification of Section 4.12.6.3.b (Cross Slopes) received 23
been reviewed in conjunction with the preliminary site plan received on the same
es under consideration run from the Center of the existing site, southWe'st to the rear
pcs, covered by thick grass, are man-made fill slopes Created by improvements to the
vice Authority property to the South. Covering apPrOximatelY 9775 SF (13%)of
of the critical slopes will be disturbed. Below, each of the concerns specified in
ng Ordinance is addressed:
le movement of soil and rock
rill be eliminated by fill placed for the construction of the parking area and building.
be established, from the edge of the parking area to the western property line. Due
filling activity proposed on these critical slopes, no rapid and/or large scale
expected. Engineering will require the installation of erosion control meaSureS to
fil loss.
Eric Morriset~e, Planner
Pegasus Motor Company - Preliminary Site Plan & Critical Slope Waiver & Cross Slope Modification
Request (SDP-gg- 147)
4 December 1998
Page Two [ATTACHMENT Gi
Excessive storm water run-Qff
Filling on the critical slopes is not expected to generate rUn-offvolumes beyond what is reasonably
expected from developed sites. The increased runoff associated with the construction of the parking
area and building will be collected into a storm sewer system and the areas outside of the pavement will
be seeded.
Siltation of natural and man-made bodie~ of water
Siltation will be controlled through an erosion and sediment control plan for the site. As a condition of
this erosion control plan, the site will be permanently stabilized prior to completion.
Loss of aesthetic resource
The critical slopes being addressed are man-made and not visible from Route 250. They are located
towards the rear of the property. A site visit, found the slopes covered by thick grass. As noted above,
all of the slopes are proposed to be disturbed.
A greater travel distance of septic effluent
This is not an issue, as the site will be serviced by public water and sewer.
The cross slope modification request is to allow 5% cross-slope (bumper to bumper) grades in parking
spaces where the ordinance now requires 2%. Currently the section of the Zoning Ordinance cited above
requires a 5% maximum parking slope (door to door) grade and 2% maximum cross-slope (bumper to
bumper) grade.
The forementioned site plan shows that all of the parking area cross-slopes range from 2.3 - 5%. All
parking and aisle slopes measure less than or equal to 5%. Due to proposed filling on the site adherence to
the 2% maximum cross-slope grade would require additional fill, creating slopes greater than 2:1 from the
edge of the parking area to the property line or the construction ora retaining wall. Either option causes
significant changes to the proposed site plan.
Albemarle County Engineering recognizes the City' of Charlottesville allows a 5% maximum slope in any
direction within parking areas [Charlottesville City Code Sec. 34.879(I)J and previous consultation with
the City Engineering and Planning staff indicate that no significant complaints or problems have resulted
from the use ora 5% maximum grade. Also the Design Review Council (a group of local consultants and
developers) has targeted this requirement in their recommendations for ordinance changes. The City
requirement of 5% in any direction is a likely consideration for future County Ordinance revisions.
Based on the review presented above, Albemarle County Engineering supports the critical slope waiver
and recommends modification of the request to allow a 5% maximum slope in any direction in parking
areas with in the Pegasus site.
If yo.u have any questions concerning this subject, please contact Jack Kelsey or me at 296-5861.
ASW/
File: and~fl~OASUS I.PSP
Staff agreed to work with the applicant to address lighting and screening/tree buffer issues.
Public Hearing:
Review of Buck Mountain AgriculturalfForestal District
Proposal to continue the buck Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District for ten years. The Buck Mountain
Agricultural/Forestai District is located in the White Hail Magisteriai District on State Routes 664 and
671. Buck Mountain Agriculmrai Forestal District is located in the Rural Area, as designated by the
Comprehensive Plan, and consists of approximately 660.243 acres.
Ms. Scaia presented the staff report, and reported that the Buck Mountain district was the first one
created, in January of 1989 for ten years, and said that this is the first time it has been reviewed. She
said the district contains 649.942 acres in eight parcels, and staff recommends continuation of the
district for a ten-year time period. Ms. Scaia indicated that one request for withdrawal from the district
(Gibson property) has been submitted, changing the size of the district to 488 acres. The advisory
committee recommended continuation of the district for ten years, and that the Gibson's be ailow to
rejoin the district before the review goes to the Board of Supervisors if they desired.
Public comment was invited; none was given.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of continuation of the Buck Mountain
Agricultural/Forestal District for a ten year time period. The motion passed unanimously.
Review of Yellow Mountain AgrieulturaFForestal District
Proposai to continue the Yellow Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District for ten years. The Yellow
Mountain Agricultural/Forestal District is located in the White Hail and Samuel Miller Magisterial
Districts near the intersection of Interstate 64 and Route 250 West aiong State Routes 637, 692, and 691.
Yellow Mountain Agriculturai/Forestal District is located in the Rural Area, as designated by the
Comprehensive Plan, and consists of approximately 700 acres.
Ms. Scala reported that the district was creating in March of 1989 for ten years; a by-right withdrawal of
the center parcel occurred in 1996, when one of the property owners died and the heirs decided to sell
their parcel. She said that while that parcel is no longer a part of the district the 17 remaining parcels
comprising approximately 704 acres continue to make up the district. Ms. Scaia presented a letter from
an adjacent landowner who owns three parcels bordering the district (Attachment "A); she is in favor of
continuing the district and would like to join, but the county has a policy prohibiting subdivision lots
from joining Ag/Forestal Districts. Ms. Scala said there has been a lot of interest in an addition to this
district, and said that staff recommends continuance of the district for ten years.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr: Rooker seconded approvai of continuation of the Yellow Mountain
,,.~AgriculturalfForestal District for a ten year time period. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-059 Pegasus Motorcar Company
Petition to establish an automobile deaiership within a designated Entrance Corridor [30.6.3.2] located
on 1.75 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial, and EC, Entrance Corridor. Property, described as Tax
Map 78, Parcel 15, is located on the southern side of Route 250 East [Richmond Road], approximately
1,000 feet east of State Route 20 intersection. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and
is recommended for Regional Service Use in Neighborhood 3.
SDP 98-147 Pegasu Motorcar Company Prelimina~ Site Plan
Proposal to demolish three existing dwelling structures to construct two retail auto dealerships, totaling
approximately 18,500 square feet building coverage. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 15
is located on the souflaem side of Route 250 East [Richmond RoaSt],. approximately 1,000 feet east of
State Route 20 inters =orion. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is recommended
for Regional Service
Mr. Morrisette prese
existing dwellings o~
dealership with park
He reported that the
zoning ordinance rec
seeking approval of~
parking grade in exc
Commercial District
Route 250 East Entn
indicated that the co~
certificate of approp~
He said that with the
Comprehensive Plan
proposed use is an az
approval of the speci
that "Outdoor storag
dated November 23,
certificate of approp~
He said that staff rec
cross-slope parking
the existing site, and
located in the rear.
· planning staff has re
not visible from Rou
Morrisette reported
not greater than 5%.
The applicant's repre
drawings which illus
proposed on the site
has been presented tt
had no objection to t/
the design guidelines
areas have been dis
Buffers on the east a~
the display areas. M
the same one present
Use in Neighborhood 3.
~ted the staff report, stating that the applicant is proposing to demolish the three
· the' property to build in two phases: Phase I to construct a 1,700 square foot auto
rig, and Phase II to construct a second dealership building of 17,000 square feet.
In response to Mr. R
Road facility, but the
Kia dealerships will
~xterior storage and display of automobiles in accord with Section 30.6.32 of the
.uires Board of Supervisors approval of a special use permit; the applicant is also
waiver for construction on critical slopes, and a waiver to allow for cross-slope
~ss of 2%. Mr. Morrisette said the use is by-right in the underlying Highway-
the Architectural Review Board has reviewed the request for its impact on the
nce Corridor, and their action expresses no objection to the proposed use, and
~ditions of the special use permit should not limit the ARB review of the final
iateness.
ARB's approval, the use is consistent with the intent of zoning ordinance and the
Staff has identified no factors unfavorable to the request, and finds that the
ceptable an expected accessory of an automobile dealership, and recommends
al use permit with conditions as set forth, with alterations to Condition #1 to read
and display parking shall be limited to all areas designated as such on the site pla~.~-'~
998." Mr. Morfisette referenced the ARB's conditions for the issuance of a
lateness as attached to his report.
>mmends administrative approval of site plans subject to the critical slopes and
rade waivers. He reported that the critical slopes were created during grading of
improvements to the Albemarle County Service Authority property, which is
he engineering department has reviewed this request and recommends approval;
dewed the request and finds no aesthetic resource to he manmade slopes that are
e 250 East, and hence recommends approval to the critical slope waiver. Mr.
tat the engineering department has determined that parking slope modification is
and staff has found no conflict with the waiver.
sentative, Mr. John Gorman, addressed the Commission, and presented additional
trated the context of the proposed site on Route 250, and explained that the use
~s consistent with the district and adjacent land uses. Mr. Gorman said the project
the ARB twice; at the preliminary conference, they unanimously voted that they
te exterior display area. He mentioned that the landscaping for the site conforms to
promulgated for Albemarle County in the Entrance Corridor; the exterior display
~rsed 'along the front of the site, so that there are not continuous rows of Parking.
td west ends of the site have been created to help buffer the Entrance Corridor from
· Gorman presented a rendering of the proposed building, and said the drawing is
'~d to the ARB. ~
.oker's question, Mr. Gorman said the new facility will not replace the Stony Point
BMW and Porsche dealership would move to the new location, while the Audi and
emain at the old site.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Nit~hma~'s~conded approval of SP'98-059 with Conditions as
recommended by staff, changing Condition #1 so that it reads "Outdoor storage and display parking
shall be limited to all areas designated as such on the site plan dated November 23rd, 1998." The motion
passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Thomas seconded SDP 98-147 the preliminary site plan including a
waiver to allow for construction on critical slopes and waiver to allow for cross-slope parking grade in
excess of 2%. The motion passed unanimously.
· A brief recess was taken. The meeting reconvened.
CPA 97-05 Brass, Inc.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, and referenced two recent letters from the City which have been
dish'ibuted to the Commission (Attachment "B"). Mr. Loewenstein acknowledged the presence of City
Planning Commission members, and thanked City officials for their input and information regarding the
proposal.
The applicant's representative, Steve Blaine, addressed the Commission, and stated that they wish to
focus their presentation on the matters that were left open at the worksession last June, and address them
in the context of the criteria for the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that as the Commission had
requested additional information on market demand for a large discount retail store at this location and
mentioned that Frank Cox would present results of a formal market analysis survey that was conducted.
Mr. Blaine said that Mr. Cox would also address concerns raised previously regarding possible
environmental degradation as a result of developing the site.
Mr. Blaine also introduced their traffic engineer, Ray Kemp, and two noted new urbanist design
planners, Mr. Robert Gibbs and Mr. Michael Morrissey. Mr. Blaine said that Mr. Gibbs has extensive
experience in retail planning, and said Mr. Morrissey's international design consulting form is highly
regarded in the field of design through the public process. Mr. Blaine indicated they would show
several preliminary design alternatives to begin a design process to work through the Comprehensive
Plan through to a rezoning and ultimately the site plan.
Mr. Cox of Charlottesville's The Cox Company, addressed the Commission, stating that their
presentation attempts to address the questions and concerns posed by the County and the City, as the
project is of crucial importance to the city. Mr. Cox proceeded with a thorough slide presentation.
Mr. Cox's report illustrated the location of the proposed site, and its proximity to 1-64 and 5th Street, and
to Willoughby. He emphasized that they have focused on a plan for regional service that can satisfy
each of the milestones appropriate to comprehensive planning, rezoning and site plan; Mr. Cox
emphasized that their planned land uses strongly correlate with the realities of the marketplace, and
perhaps the light industrial does not in this environment. He said that based on their analysis of the
county's Comprehensive Plan, the project as conceived fulfills a number of the plan's objectives for
infill development, and interstate interchange initiatives. Mr. Cox added that the project would strongly
support the County's underlying desire for adequate public facilities on and off-site, including off-site
transportation concerns.
the ~ f water ~ dealt with in single-phase effort
with a very strong fofius on quality control. He said that their project will include some plans to address
the shared concern ol this property's frontage on Moore's Creek. Mr. Cox said that this site affords
them a rare opportun ty to create "new urbanism" around an anchor facility that will have some
complimentary retail shopping for the community.
He said that while the site is currently zoned light industrial, they are of course hoping to move the site
into the Regional Set rice category, and provided a recap of the previous zoning of the property. Mr.
Cox said the previous rezoning has allowed for manufacturing, distribution, fabricating, and processing,
and informed the Commission that his firm has done schematic site planning oVer the years for clients
who have tried to evaluate the property for light industrial use. Mr. Cox mentioned the convention
center idea, and said that it could be foreseeable under Regional Industrial or RegiOnal Sergiee
designation.
Mr. Cox sta~ed they would ultimately seek PD-SC zoning, which would allow them to maximize the
property's use, although they will not use all 700,000 square feet that would be allowed, and will proffer
an urban design guid.~line to ensure that it becomes a quality development. Mr. Cox said
a
more
appropriate organizat~°n of building spaces would yield no more than 300,00 square feet. He said that
their plan, while cutting building coverage by more than half, will also reduce the building heights from
the 65 feet allowable to under 50 feet, and possibly even 40 feet. Mr. Cox stated this opportunity would
allow them to achiev~ significant amounts of permanent open space; they have developed 6 concept
plans which could pr6serve as much as 29 acres, or 55% of the site.
Mr. Cox illustrated t ssi e building organization and presented line of site views into the property from
1-64 and other points nearby, highlighting the oppommities for significant setbacks and mentioning the
possibility for public elements along the Moore's Creek lowland area. He said that the view from
eastbound 1-64 would be almost completely buffered by the existing vegetation on the contiguous
property, and said tl~t the line of site from westbound 1-64, while visible in the winter, would be above
the maximum buildir~g height they are contemplating.
Mr. Cox provided a n~arket analysis, and stated that they performed an exhaustive analysis of the:
regional, primarily, s~condary, and tertiary retail development oppommities. He addressed the question
previously posed byt~e Commission about the need for any more retail in the area, and presented that
their analysis, which ~as~been reviewed by appraisers and outside economists, has confirmed that the
Charlottesville-Alberflarle MSA has a considerably higher retail sales strength above the state average.
Annual retail sales in 1997 were $1.4 billion; projected retail sales for 2010, that figure would be $1.8
billion.
Mr. Cox presented a ~
for 1.7 million - 2.1!
estimate is low. He s
to change the figures
Commissioners that
development, based c
'etail sales need model based solely on population growth, which showed a need
nillion square feet of gross leaseable area; he said some retail consultants feel that
aid they adjusted the figures taking vacancy and replacement factors into account
to 1.8 - 2.2 million square feet. Using the market analysis, Mr. Cox told
acre would be a need for 155 - 321 acres of land put into use for new retail
n population-driven growth.
He surv.e~ ~esults from 1,000 shoppers, including Wal-Mart on 29 North, K-Mart, Fashion
presented the 5 S~reet ShoPping Center and Downtown Mall:
Square Mall,
lo'cai
Wal-Mart:
52%tg~ resident shoppers; 48% outside the area
58°/-~A shop there 4-10 times per month, but go downtown less than 6 times per year
,',CVD
January 7, 1999
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4035
George A. Cummings
Triton PCS
9211 Arboretum Parkway, Suite 200
Richmond, VA 23236
RE: SP-98-61 Triton Communications/Virginia Power, Tax Map 78, Parcel 17F2
Dear Mr. Cummings:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 5, 1999, by a 4-2 vote, moved to
deny approval of a request for a special use permit to allow installation of panel antennae on an existing
electrical transmission tower. The motion to deny approval includes an amendment recommending that the
Board of Supervisors engage the services of the consultant to give further advice on this matter.
In a 3-3 tie vote, the Commission failed to approve a request for waiver/reduction of the setback requirements
for the aforementioned special use permit proposal.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public
comment at their meeting on January 20, 1999. Any new or additional information regarding your
application must be Submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your
scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely,
//Susan E. Thomas
Senior Planner
SET/jcf
cc: ....Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
The Clean Machine
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
1
STAFF PERSON: SUSAN THOMAS
PLANNING COMMISSION: JANUARY 5, 1999
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: JANUARY 20, 1999
SP 98-61 Triton CommunicationsNepco (River Bend)
ADolicant's Proposal:
Triton Communications is proposing to install 9 (nine) 5-foot PCS antennas at a VEPCO site, at
the top of a monopole to be erected within the existing transmission (lattice) tower, increasing
the tower height by approximately 17-1/2 feet. The site is located on the south side of Route 250
East at the intersection of Riverbend Drive, on the Clean Machine car wash property. The
existing power line is nonconforming, and thus approval of a special use permit is required in
order for an additional use to be established on the tower. The .applicant has provided detailed
information about the siting and design of the proposed facility. (Attachment A is a location
map; Attachment B is a topographic map; Attachment C is the applicant's justification;
Attachment D is the applicant's site plan)
Petition:
Request for a special use permit to allow installation of panel antennae on an existing high
voltage transmission tower in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.2.2.6 and Section
24.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 17F2, consists
of approximately 0.9 acres and is located at i0i Riverbend Drive (state Rou~e 1116), at the
intersection of State Highway 250 East (Richmond Road) and Route 1116 (Riverbend Drive) in
the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC,
Entrance Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Regional Service in
Neighborhood Three.
Character of the Area:
From the west, a high voltage power line hms generally parallel to the Route 250 East, turning at
this location and proceeding in a southeasterly direction. The pOwer line is supported by
monopoles in the vicinity of Hydraulic and Mclntire'Roads and lattice structures from
approximately Locust Avenue eastward, like the one on this site which is 130 feet tall. The
closest dwelling to the existing tower is located approximately 550 feet to the east, 'between the
Mercedes service center and the Dennis Enterprises dealership. These homes are non-
conforming as the area is zoned commercially. A preliminary site plan application for an
automobile dealership has been submitted for that property, and if approved, the existing houses
would be removed and residential use would cease. The closest residential district is located
approximately one half mile to the north along Route 20 North (Stony Point Road). The
surrounding area is designated for Regional Service in the Land Use Plan and largely developed
with highway-oriented commercial, office, and regiOnal and community retail 'uses.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffhas reviewed this request for compliahce with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions.
Planning and Zoning History_:
SDP 87-083 Bascom Final Site Plan (The Clean Machine) approved January 7, 1988.
Comprehensive Plan:
Staff notes that ~n order to construct the proposed facility no clearing for access Or the Provision
· ,~
of electrical service will be required. Therefore, the only impacts reviewed for compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance are erection of the monopole, installation of
the antennas and gr~ound based equipment, and maintenance activity which would result from the
additional use.
This site is located in Neighborhood Three of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, within an
Entrance Corridor as identified in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Currently the
Comprehensive Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers.
The Entrance Corridor Overlay District is addressed by the ARB, Architectural Review Board.
This tower is intenc~ed to prOvide service "to improve the qiiality', capaCity'and 'cOverage of
wireless phone semites in this'area of the county." (refer to Attachment C) It is one component
of a master lease a~reement with Virginia Power which also calls for installation on a second
tower on Route 250' East at State Farm, a location which recently ~was approved by the Board of
Supervisors. Installations on existing transmission towers in the City on Seminole Trail,
Barracks Road, Azalea Park, and Market Street, respectively, are also part of the Triton network.
The visual impact of installing a 12-inch diameter monopole within the lattice tower is
anticipated to be substantially less than that of erecting a free standing tower of equal height,
outside the transmission corridor. (The impact of using multiple "tree top" facilities to serve the
same area as the pohrer line facility cannot be determined at this time. Such a determination
would require the apphcant to submit various site specific proposals.) The applicant has
indicated that the prOperty owner has requested installation of a six foot fence around the base of
the existing tower~ primarily to address visual impacts from the highway. From a land use
standpoint, visual impacts are addressed by the ARB in its review and issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness. Staff suggests that due to the intense level of development and activity
resulting from the c~ wash use on this relatively small site, it is visually preferable to continue
the current practice~t°f "looking through" the base of the tower than to obstruct the "through
view" with a solid fence. Staff does not support inclusion of the fence and would not
recommend approv~ ~ of the. tower.. ,. proposal with it included, on the basis of the negative aesthetic
impacts anticipated from fence installation on this highly visible, small site.
It is the opinion of staffthat the use of the existing power line tower for antenna attachment will
have a limited impact on the Entrance Corridor and, therefore, this request is not contrary to the
intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff offers the following, discussion related to tower siting within utility corridors:
Use of existing structures has generally been endorsed as a means to facilitate the
provision of wireless service with minimal impact to the County. Attachment on existing
structures has occurred "by-right" on some towers, buildings and water tanks. These
attachments to existing conforming structures have not, in the opinion of staff, resulted in
negative impacts. The proposed attachment to power line towers makes use of existing
utility corridors. While existing power line corridors have negative visual impacts in
most instances and these utility corridors have towers which are as tall as the tallest
conventional free standing personal wireless service towers, the use of these towers for
antennas allows for a large service area without significant additional negative visual
impact. The attachment of antenna to these power line towers does not result in
significant additional negative visual impact as the equipment installed by the personal
wireless service provider appears similar/compatible with the nature of the existing power
line and power line tower. Because the height of existing transmission towers allows
provision of service to a large area, the total number of sites required by a personal
wireless service provider can be reduced, therefore, potentially reducing the overall
impact on the County.
Staff offers the following diagram to aid in the review of this application.
/"T'~:ELEYA'~ION
Staff will address the issues of this request in three sections:
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Reduction of setback in accord with the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby 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,
Approval of this special use permit will permit the attachment of additional antennas to a
monopole erected within the existing power line tower. As previously noted, staff opinion is that
the addition of panel type antenna will have limited visual impact. The lower portion of the
existing lattice tower is relatively inconspicuous, in that it has a non-reflective, rusted surface and
is of open construction, both factors allowing it to blend somewhat with the background. It also
has as a backdrop Pantops mountain when seen from the west, the direction from which the
tower can be observed from the greatest distance and most easily. The upper reaches of the tower
admittedly are silhouetted against the sky from this vantage point; however, the 12 inch diameter
monopole with antennas are sufficiently light in construction so as to be minimally visible
against the sky when compared with the existing tower. At human scale, the tower is large
enough to discourage upward viewing from near its base, and thus the monopole with antennas is
not expected to be significant visually from this position.
Additional antenna will result in a change in the appearance of the tower: the tower height will
be increased by a total of approximately 17-1/2 feet (the monopole is 15 feet higher than the
existing 130-foot lattice tower, and the antenna are attached to the pole at their mid-point, which
adds another 2-1/2 feet), for a total height of 147-1/2 feet. Because of the placement of the
monopole within the lattice tower, the panel antenna will tend to appear as part of the existing
tower features (insulators, connectors and wires). No new entrance onto Route 250 East or
Riverbend Road and no additional parking will be necessary (See Attachment D from Zoning).
Staff opinion is that approval would not cause a substantial detriment to adjacent property.
Additional information may be provided by the public during the public hearings on the issue of
potential impacts.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
Based on the limited change in the visibility of this tower and the utility corridor as discussed
above, staff opinion is that this request complies with this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Ordinance.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of thi.q ordinance,
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5
and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections 1.4, 1.4.4, and 1.5. All of these provisions address,
in one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones clearly
provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use. (Triton
Communications represents the 4t~ personal wireless service provider of phone service in the
County.) Based on the provision of a public service, staff opinion is that this request is in
harmony with the purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states as an
intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious
community". The provision of this facility does increase the availability and convenience for
users of wireless phone technology.
Staff in prior reviews for telecommunication facilities has noted that the visibility of the site may
be inconsistent with the intent of providing an attractive community. As approval of this permit
will result in limited change in the visibility from surrounding areas staff opinion is that this
request does comply with this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
The proposal will not restrict the current uses, other by right uses available on this site, or by
right uses on any o.ther property
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.1.12 of the ordinance contains regulations governing tower facilities and no conditions
are necessary to ensure compliance with this provision of the ordinance as this is an existing
facility.
and with the public health, safe _ty and general welfare.
The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the
public health, safety and general welfare by providing increased communication serVices in the
event of emergencies and increasing overall general communication services. The 1996
Telecommunications Act addresses issues .of environmental effects with the following language:
No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with
the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions. In order to operate this facility the
applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This
requirement will adequately protect the public health and safety.
Section 704(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 services. The applicant
has not demonstrated that there are no other locations within the proposed area of service
currently available for new facility construction. For this reason, staff does not believe that
denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services.
Reduction of setback in accord with the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
Section 4.1.0.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a setback equal to the height of the
proposed structure be maintained from the lot line. Under the applicant's proposal, the 'rnon°pole
would be erected within an existing electric transmission tower; the ordinance excludes the latter
type of tower from the setback requirement. Staff supports the concept of installing antennas on
existing transmission facilities, and thus recommends approval of a setback reduction.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this request:
2.
4.
5.
6.
The tower will provide increased wireless capacity that may be considered consistent
with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5.
Additional use of the power line tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent
properties.
This request generally complies with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The addition of antenna will result in little change in the power line tower's visibility or
the appearance of the utility corridor.
Approval of this request allows for collocation on an existing structure and alleviates the
need for the construction of new facilities elsewhere.
Staffhas not identified factors that are unfavorable to this request.
The following factors are relevant to this consideration:
There is an existing reasonable use of the property.
The site is located in the EC, Entrance Corridor district.
7
SUMMARY, RECOMMENDED ACTION:
A similar special use permit application has been reviewed and approved in this area (SP98-52,
State Farm/Vepco). Staff opinion is that the site will accommodate the proposed
telecommunication facilities without creating adverse impacts. Therefore, staff is able to
recommend approval of this request. Should the Board choose to approve this request, staffhas
suggested conditions of approval.
(In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment:
to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests a consensus of
direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff
to return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.)
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
The monopole, supporting cables, and antennas shall be the same color as the existing
power line tower;
The tower shall be limited to a total of nine (9) panel antenna at a maximum height of
147-1/2 feet above ground level;
Attachment to the power line tower shall be in general accord with the plan titled "Vepco
Tower #20-28 CV-1-306A" attached to this report and initialed SET 11/10/98;
The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later
than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify
each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider;
The antenna on the tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety
(90) days of the date their use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued.
The existing lattice tower shall not be fenced.
Staff also recommends approval of a reduction of setback in accord with the provisions of
Section 4.10.3,1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Tax Map
B - Topographic Map
C - Applicant's Justification
D - Applicant's Site Plan
E - 11/17/98 Zoning Memorandum
SP 98-61
'CO River Bend Tower
ALBEMARLE
62
COUNTY
ATTACH M E NT A I
I
[/
49
MONTICELLO
SGOTTSVILLE AND
" "' RIVANNA ' DISTRIOTS
SEGTION
I ATTACHMENT B !
'~ ..... ~ SECTION 78
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property?
IATTACHMENT C I
Recommended for Urban Use.
How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property?
The proposed use will have no adverse effect on the adjacent property. Because the height of the antennas
measures only 60 inches, the height of the tower will be only raised a relatively small amount (the existing
Virginia Power transmission tower will be raised from 130 feet to 145 feet, with the antenna rising another
30 inches). This activity will not create any additional negative visual impact then that of the existing
transmission tower. The applicant proposes to build a wooden fence around the base of the tower, thus
im proving the overall visibility of the existing structure.
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property?
Because the property is already improved with the 130-foot transmission tower and the district surrounding
the property is already improved with a series of similar towers, the character of the district surrounding
the-properoj will not be adversely effected by the addition of the sixty-inch antennas to the tower.
How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance?
Although the property is zoned HC, the Virginia power improvement changed the use of the property to
utilitarian in order to accommodate the public demand for a greater capacity of electricity. The
appurtenance of the antennas allows the applicant to meet the demands of the residents of Albemarle
County for additional coverage, capacity and quality of service for wireless phone use. By utilizing the
existing Virginia Power Structure, the applicant will be able to accommodate this demand without
disrupting raw land or the county's cherished natural resources.
How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
The u~e is not in conflict of other uses permitted by right in the district. The small eqmpment cabinet will
be unmanned. No vehicle traffic or noise will be generated by this use.
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use?
Section 5.1.12 outlines public utility structures and uses.
Subsection (a) requires that "the location will not impair the health and safety of workers and/or residents
in the community and will not impair or prove detrimental to neighboring properties or the development of
same." This site will have no ongoing workers. In addition studies have found that such structures do not
effect the property values in the areas. In this case, there will be relatively no additional impact in the
perception of this property, because the antenna is an appurtenance to an existing transmission monopole.
As required by subsection (c), the applicant will remove or repair our addition to the tower if it falls into a
state of disrepair or threatens the safety of the general public.
How will this use promote the public health. ,;afetv. and ~eneral welfare of the community?
With respect to the ability of the applicant to provide service to the community, this use will allow the
applicant to improve the quality, capacity and coverage of wireless phone services in the county. This will
tend to improve the ability of citizens of the county to conduct business more readily and have use of the
applicant's services for recreational purposes. In addition the applicant's services can be used in
emergency s~tuations and can be utilized when traditional phone lines are out of service.
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such s the numbers of persons
involved in the use, operating hours and any unique features of the use:
The need to place the antenna on the Virginia Power Pole is twofold: First, the antenna will provide digital
cellular service for the applicant's PCS system. This use will allow the applicant to improve the quality,
capac~ and coverage of wireless phone services in this area of the county. Second, this use will allow the
applicant to attach its antenna to an existing utility structure, therefore eliminating the need for the
construction of a new tower in this area of the county, thus preserving the county's natural resources and
preventing the duplication of towers on the county's landscape.
The applicant proposes to add sixty-inch panel antennas to the top of the existing Virginia Power
Transmission Pole. The additional appurtenance will raise the height of the structure to 145 ft., with the
antennas extending another 30 inches. Virginia Power will install all equipment, including grounding and
bracket. The base of the tower will surrounded by a wooden fence to conceal the applicant's eqmpment
and to improve the overall attractiveness of the existing tower.
Richmond, l~rginia 23220
September 21, 1998
VIRGINIA POWER
Mr. William D. Fdtz, AICP.
Senior Planner
Planning Division
County of Albemarle
401 Mclntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Triton Lease
Dear Mr. Fdtz:
Virginia Power and Tdton PCS have executed a master lease agreement that will allow
Tdton to install and maintain telecommunications equipment on Virginia Power facilities.
This work will be done under the direction of Virginia Power. Virginia Power has
approved the installation of this equipment at the following sites:
Triton Site #
CV-1-300-C
CV-1-303-C
CV-1-306-A
CV-1-306-E
CV-1-308-C
CV-1-314-A
Virginia Power Structure
Telecomm-District Office
1719 Hydraulic Rd.
291/32
2028/4
2028/3
91/536.
2028/9
Site Name
Seminole Trail
Barracks Rd.
Richmond Rd.
Richmond Rd.
Azalea Park
Market St.
If you have any questions concerning this mat~er, please contact me at (804) 257-4051.
Sincerely,
Katherine Farmer
Project Manager-Wireless
cc: John Leahy
Y. So
ROUTE
250
2-$TOJ~Y
PARKING LOT
IRO~ I~0 FOUNO
E:L,E'V.381,0T (AgSL)
RAIl.
E~aST OVERHEAD
QSITE PLAN
SCALE: 1' =
Susan Thomas
I'~TTACHI~IENT E I
From:
To:
Subject:
Jan Spdnkle
Tuesday, November 17, 1998 11:53 AM
Susan Thomas
SP 98-61
As discussed, zoning will not require additional parking for the proposed addition of antennas to the Virginia Power tower
at the Clean Machine site.
SP-98-61
TRITON PCS, INC
RIVERBEND DRIVE
January 20, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SP-98-61
1. Elevation and Site Details - Using VEPCO Tower #20-28
2. Example: River Road - West End Richmond
Photographs of Existing VEPCO Tower #20-28
4. 1996 VDOT Traffic Volume Data
5. Propagation Model - Without Site
6. Propagation Model - At 130'
7. Propagation Model - At 145'
8. Charlottesville Project Location Map
9. Site Plan and Site Detail Plan
QELEVATION
m
/";'~POW[RMOUNT PLATFORM DETAIL
~'~,/SC~..~: V"~ -
EOTONI¢ ~ .~
ENTEL RIO'IMONO ~ l~li'ON P~O,J~CT
9211 ARBOR[ ?U'lll
S~TE 2OO
R~HMONO, VA 232.1~
SU~MII'rAI.S
VEPCO TOWER #20-28
CV-1 -506A
101 RMERBEND ROAD
CHARLOTT[SVlLLE, VA 22901
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
ELEVATION &
SITE DETAILS
Z 2
~20
ROUTE
IIUflBER
· U5
-. US 250,US 29
"US 250
tis 25O
U$ 260
US 250
US 25O
US 260
US 250' :,
U~ 25O
IlS 26O
US 260
LIS' 250
il~ 25O
US 25O
US 260
US. 25O
US 25O
US 250
US 25O
US 250
US
V]RGZ~FO~AR~EIIT OF TIMI~PORTATZON
ANNUAl. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUI4E ESTINATE$ BY SE, Z, OF ROUTE
1996
FFtOH
K~'~r N~ IVY
RT 250 6U$1NESS
ECL CHARLOlrTESVZLLE
tiT 20 EAST OF CIIAItLOTTESVILLE
1-64 EAST OF CHARLOTTE$¥ILLE
TO'
K[
#CL CHARLOTTESVILLE
BT 20 EAST OF CHARLOTTESYZLLE
Z-Ii4 EAST OF CHARLOTTESVZLLE
liT 22
FLUVANIM CL
lit 1~ ZZOII CROSS ROM)S
RT 769
RT 659 & RT 206 FERf(CLIFF
FLUYAIINA CL
900¢HLAHD Cl.
RT 605 SHANRON
RICIMO#O
liT
LOUISA CL
RT 522 GUI( SPRINt]
aOOCffLAND CL
m' 670 OILViLLE
RT 623
HENRICO CL
RT 27l SHORT PUl~
1-61
RT 157
BT 22
At. BEP, ARLE CL
ItT 16 ZION CROSS ROADS
ItT 769
659 & RT 208 FERNCLIFF
LO(~ISA Cl.
FLUVANNA CL
Rtr 60:5 5HAN#ON HII..L
Ft ZCid'fONO HAINTENANCE
RT 606
GOOCHt. AHO Cb
RT 522 OUH UR[NO
LOUISA CL
ItT 670 0IL¥[LLE
RT 623
GOOCHLA~D CL
ItT 27t SHOFtT PUI~P
1-64
FtT 157
SEGflENT
LENOTH
L.86
0.20
2,07
4.40
6.Or
2.7!
3.61
2,43
0.71
2,16
0.29
3.23
6.80
0,46
1.63
6,72
6.05
1.75
2.14
!.03
1.67
1.57
AADT
3g,o(~O
36,0OOJ
.16,000
7,400
4,600
2,~00
2,800
3,500
3,600
3,600
3,600
4,100
4,300
4,400
4,60D
(5,900
7,20e
6,600
17,
31,000
36,000
~)9, eoo
PLANET ' V~. ?
Mobile Byaf~ema [nLernoL~ono! Plc.
~'ed ,,t~n ;~0 0g:08~6 1999
I ~n~ar Pertable Level=
in_Building SUB Level, -8§dBm
[n.J~uitdin~ URB Leve[~
~Conneoting_Road
Pr[mary. Rood
~S~¢andory_J~ood
PLANET V~.7
Mobile 8y=Lem~ [nbernoLlon~l Pl~.
Tue don 19 18~9,0~ 1999
Compo~tLe covaroge with 506A ~ 150'
Centre Long, 78 26'05.4'W Lot, 58 01'09.1'N
Scole, 1 ~9949
[] In_Cur PorLeble Level: -89dBm
i!iiiiiiii ln~uildin§ SUB Level: -85dBm
[] In-Building URB Level; -75dBm
m Primory_Rood
-- Seoondory_Rood
--Connecting~C~ood
PLANET V27
Mobile Sy~tem~ [nterne~lonel Ple.
Tue Jan 19 18:56:25 lggg
Compo~iLe coverage wlth 50BA ¢
Centre Lon9: 78 a6'Os.4'W Lot, 38 01'09.1'N
Soole: 1:39949
[] In_Car Portable Level: -SgdBm
iiii:iii:i In_Buitdin§ SUB Level: -85dBm
[] In-Buildin§ URB Leva[:
-- Pr~mory_J~ood
--Secendory~ood
-- Conneo~ln§_Rood
CHAKLOT [ tX.t::,V[1 ........ LE
LO(bqTION MAP
Fo~ a por"tion of the
TR]:TON
CO~UNZCAT/:ON$
IW Rd
US 29
Exll 118
1-64
CV-~-30IC
Univ. V~ge.
240~ 0~i livy Rd
CV~ ~ -30g
,h ti ~ lc'ts MIt_:h(lcd
~1Io Acqu:;fllc~ Spoc~sf
,halo 9Ih ~998
Not I0 gc~o &
Afl Dlmen~s ~e
At~rox~alo
CV- I
IIg00 Jlcl'l'ea'.,m~
Color Key
Exisl'ing Focilities
3
16
Raw land development
TOTAL SITES
Effec'i'ive Date Dec. 98
~'~' 1111 ~i
CV-~-316A
CFW TOWER
750 Ah'~m~t Rd.
CV-I-302A
Tower
C V- 1-3 ~ 2C
wq~z
C V- 11-307
Proposed
Vepco-P,r,~tbo,sed
CV-~-310K
660 ~l-hmters I1~i
US 250
Exit i 24
Ct/- 11-3 l14A I-lunlem t/V'a~
Vepco-gtate Farm
i
1'o Richmond 75 miles
,/
TRITONIENTELIWFI OFFICE
9211 Arboretum Parkway #200
Richmond, Virginia 23236
80¢.325-9500 Ext. 208
N
U.S. ROUTE 250
I~TAMiG VM~ '--%
I
ANTENNA ORIENTATION KEY
GSITE, PLAN
SCALE: ' - 20'
TECTONIC ~ ...
F~ {~) ~_~
(*ri'P, O" I)
/
/
/
/
GSITE DETAIL PLAN
SCAJ. E: I' . '~0'
VEPCO TOWER //20-28
CV-1 -506A
101 RIVERBEND ROAD
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
SITE PLAN
&: SITE DETAIL
PLAN
Z 1
January l3, 1999
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296- 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4035
George A. Cummings
Triton PCS
9211 Arboretum Parkway, Suite 200
Richmond, VA 23236
SP-98-62 Triton Communications/Virginia Power (Sunset Avenue)
Tax Map 76, Parcel 46C
Dear Mr. Cummings:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 12, 1999,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
2.
3.
4.
The attachment, including insulators, connectors and wires, shall be shielded and
painted in color to resemble the existing power pole.
The attachment shall not exceed the diameter of the existing power pole.
The attachment shall be limited t the total of two (2) panel antenna, whose height
shall not exceed a maximum of 130 feet above ground level.
Construction of the telecommunications tower within the existing power line
tower shall be in general accord with the plan titled "CV-1-308C Sunset Vepco
Utility Site" and initialed ELM 12/28/98.
The permitee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by
not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower
and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service
provider.
The antenna on the tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within
ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is
discontinued; and,
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
Page 2
January 13, 1999
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this
petition and receive public comment at their meeting on January 20, 1999. 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 waiver of the drawing of a site plan in accordance with
provisions of Section 32.2.2 subject to the following conditions:
Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a
building permit if the area of disturbance exceeds 10,000 square feet; and
Provision of one parking space.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Eric Morrisette
Planner
EM/jcl
Cc~
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
Mountainwood Properties, LLC
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Eric L. Morrisette
January 12, 1998
January 20, 1998
SP 98-62 Triton Communications (Sun.~et Avenue)
Aoplicant's Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to attach two panel antennas on an existing electrical transmission
tower, located on the southeastern intersection of Interstate 64 and Sunset Avenue. The
additional antennas will be for Triton Communications. The existing power line is
nonconforming and requires approval of a special use permit in order for additional use to be
made of the power line tower. The applicant has provided detailed information about the
location and design of the proposed facility. The applicant's information is included as
Attachment C.
Petition:
The applicant petitions the Board of Supervisors to allow for the attachment of a Personal
Wireless Service Facility on an existing Virginia Power high voltage power line tower
(Attachment A). This requires a special use permit in accord with the provisions of Section
18.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is to locate two panel antennas to the top of the
existing pole, therefore creating an additional 20 feet in height. The tower site is located at the
southeastern side of the Interstate 64/Sunset Avenue intersection, within the Scottsville
Magisterial District (Attachment B). The property consists of approximately 9.6 acres and is
described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 46C, zoned R-15, Residential, and EC, Entrance Corridor. This
site is recommended for Urban Density Use [6.01-34 Dwelling Units/Acre] in Urban
Neighborhood 5.
Character of the Area'
The 9.6-acre site is undeveloped at this time, except for the existing electrical transmission tower
and corridor. Although undisturbed, it is anticipated that the majority of the parcel will be
cleared to achieve the desired neighborhood density as called for in both the Zoning Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan. The property is surrounded by property also zoned R- 15 to the
north, east, and south. Redfields Planned Residential Development is located across Sunset
Avenue to the west, with open space immediately abutting Sunset Avenue in this vicinity.
Interstate 64 abuts the parcel to the north. The tower site is approximately 50 feet from the
Interstate 64 right-of-way.
A high voltage power line crosses the northern side of the parcel, which runs roughly east/west.
The high voltage power line is supported by 110-foot tall monopoles. The attachment of panel
antennas does not warrant any structural improvements to the existing monopole itself.
Therefore, this tower is not currently being used to the limit of its capacity. The closest
dwelling, not located on the parcel under review, is located approximately 500 feet distant. The
nearest telecommunications facilities, both owned by AllTell [Formerly 360 Communications],
are located (1) approximately 2.5 miles east on the Avon Street water tower, and (2)
approximately 2.5 miles west on Interstate 64. Although these two sites may offer co-location
opportunities, the applicant has indicated that they will not functionally serve the existing void in
the Interstate 64 corridor.
Planning and Zoning History_:
SDP 85-41 Sherwood Commons Site Plan - Proposal to construct 360 apartment units that
incorporated the subject parcel. The Planning Commission denied this request on September 10,
1985 because of (1) inadequate road access, (2) inadequate internal circulation design, (3)
inadequate recreational facilities, (4) inadequate drainage facilities, and (5) inadequate sanitary
sewage.
SDP 86-002 Sherwood Commons Revised Site Plan - August 25, 1987, the Planning
Commission granted preliminary approval to construct 360 apartment units. The Planning
Commission also granted a preliminary approval extension. No final site plan was ever pursued
or approved.
SUB 89-? Sherwood Commons Subdivision Plat - April 3, 1989, the Planning Department
administratix?ely approved a subdivision of Parcel 46C into two lots, therefore creating the
existing 9.6 acre parcel.
Comprehensive Plan:
The impact of the tower has been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the
Zoning Ordinance. This property is designated for Urban Density Residential [6.01-20 DU/AC]
in Urban Neighborhood 5 of the Comprehensive Plan. Since this property is undeveloped, any
proposed development will have to incorporate the existing electrical transmission tower and,
therefore, this antenna attachment request should not create any new impositions. The
attachment to an existing power pole will have no negative impact on the allowed 15 Dwelling
Units/Acre density. Although the primary users of the tower will be mobile, staff foresees
increased residential use of wireless telecommunications as teclmology becomes more advanced
and affordable.
Currently, the Comprehensive Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of
telecommunication towers. The Open Space Plan does provide some guidance for the protection
of identified resources of the County. The only resource identified in the plan and potentially
affected by this application is the Entrance Corridor. The Architectural Review Board [ARB]
currently addresses the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Critical slopes do exist on the parcel,
but will be unaffected by this proposal. Staff notes that in order to construct the proposed facility
2
no clearing for access and provision of electrical service will be required.
The applicant has indicated that their "...coverage objective for this site is to cover the
immediate vicinity of Interstate 64 and in particular the corridor heading west along Interstate 64
towards the intersection of Interstate 64 and Route 29" (Attachmem D). Interstate 64 is
designated as an Entrance Corridor. The tower site is only 50 feet from the Interstate 64 right-of-
way and is currently visible from the Entrance Corridor. The attachment to the existing
monopole will increase the visibility of the tower. Therefore, it will require ARB design
approval prior to construction. Without additional information staff is unable to determine if the
impacts created by an alternative site would have a greater or lesser impact on the Corridor.
Planning Staffhas worked with the applicant to determine alternative height or design
improvements. The applicant has indicated that without the requested height of 130 total feet,
their coverage of the Interstate 64/Route 29 "...intersection would be questionable and the
coverage points west of the intersection would be minimal" (Attachment D). The applicant also
...proposes to construct a stealth "shield" around the monopole extension and paint the stealth
shield and the antenna the same color as the existing pole" (Attachment D). Furthermore, the
applicant proposes that the diameter of the proposed "shield" would be of the approximate
diameter as the existing monopole, to provide the illusion of one single pole with no attachments
(Attachment D). The applicant will provide additional information regarding the method of
camouflaging at the public meeting. Staff has provided conditions to ensure that the proposed
addition to the power pole will be "shielded" to match the existing monopole in color and
diameter (Conditions 1 and 2).
Staff opinion is that the use of the existing power line tower for antenna location, with
conditions, will not have any significant additional impact on the Entrance Corridor, therefore, is
not contrary to the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive 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.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staffwill address the issues of this request in three sections:
2.
3.
4.
Staff comments regarding the "Tower on a Tower" concept;
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996; and,
Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
3
Staff comments regarding the "Tower on a Tower" Concept.
Staff review is based on the applicant's proposal to locate antennas on an existing tower. Staff
offers the following diagram to aid in the review of the "Tower on a Tower" Concept.
.OF' T,C)V,E:~ AND 'SI~C3.JI~C W/
.,JJ'~OI~:W ST)dI.~,.E:SS S'I'I~F~ ....
£Q~NPMCN T
CAW,.E'S iN BUi~L'O
The Use of existing structures has generally been endorsed as a means to facilitate the provision
of wireless service with minimal impact to the County. Attachment on existing structures has
occurred "by-right" on some towers, buildings and water tanks. These attachments to existing
conforming structures have not, in the opinion of staff, resulted in negative impacts. The
proposed attachment to a power line-tower makes use of existing utility corridors. While staff
views existiiag power line corridors as having negative visual impacts in many instances, the
placement of antennas on these power line poles does not result in significant additional negative
impact as utilization of the existing tall towers maximizes the potential service area. The
equipment installed by the personal wireless service provider appears similar/compatible with the
nature of the existing power line and power line tower. With a large service area being provided
by use of existing power line towers, the total number of sites required by a personal wireless
service provider can be reduced and, therefore, potentially reduce the overall impact on the
County.
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinanc(.~
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,
Approval of this special use permit will permit the construction of two panel antennas at the top
of the existing 11 O-foot high power line tower. The applicant is requesting the additional 20 feet
in height to breach the tree canopy between this site and the Interstate 64/Route 29 South
intersection. As previously discussed, the applicant has provided a justification for the additional
tower height as Attachment D. Staff opinion is that the additional two (2) panel antennas will
result in a limited change in the appearance of the tower, because the total tower height will only
be increased by approximately 20 feet and the panel antennas will tend to appear as part of the
existing tower features (insulators, connectors and wires). Since the existing power pole is silver
in appearance, staff has included conditions to ensure that the new attachment is painted a
matching silver color and will be of the same diameter (Conditions 1 and 2). The matching
silver color will aid in camouflaging the appearance, thus providing the illusion of one single
tower structure with minimal alteration. The applicant will provide more information regarding
the method of camouflaging at the public heating.
No new entrance onto Sunset Avenue will be required and no additional clearing will be
necessary. The Virginia Department of Transportation has reviewed this request and has
determined that no new entrance upgrades are necessary. The tower site will be served by the
existing power line access. The supporting utilities structure [3'W x 5'L x 7'H], will be placed
beside the existing power pole. Both the supporting utilities and access road will be screened
from the Interstate 64 Overlay District by existing trees on site. Therefore, staff opinion is that
approval would not cause a substantial detrimem to adjacent property. Additional information
may be provided by the public during the public hearings on the issue of potential impacts.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
Based on the limited change in the visibility of this tower and the utility corridor, staff opinion is
that this request will not affect 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 in Sections 1.4, 1.5
and 1.6 with particular reference to Sections 1.4, 1.4.4, and 1.5. All of these provisions address,
in one form or another, the provision of public services. The use of mobile telephones provides a
public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use. (Triton Communications
represents the fourth personal wireless service provider of phone service in the County.) Based
on the provision of a public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the
purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance, Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the
Ordinance, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community".
The provision of this facility does increase the availability and convenience for users of wireless
phone technology.
Staff in prior reviews for telecommunication facilities has noted that the visibility of the' site may
be inconsistent with the intent of providing an attractive community.. As approval of this permit
will result in limited change in the visibility from surrounding areas staff opinion is that this
request does comply with this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
The proposal will not restrict the current uses, other by right uses available on this site, or by
right uses on any other property.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.1.12 of the ordinance contains regulations governing tower facilities and no conditions
are necessary to ensure compliance with this provision of the ordinance, as this is an existing
facility.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the
public health, safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in the
event of emergencies and increasing overall general communication services. The 1996
Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following language:
No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction,
and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects
of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's
regulations concerning such emissions. In order to operate this facility the applicant is required
to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. This requirement will adequately
protect the public health and safety.
.Section 704(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 nor the denial of this
application has the effect of prohibiting the provision or personal wireless services. The applicant
has not demonstrated that there are no other locations within the proposed area of service
currently available for new facility construction. For this reason, staff does not believe that
denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services.
Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Commission may waive the drawing of a site plan if requiring a site plan would not forward
the purpose of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. Generally the site review
committee has endorsed the use of site plan waivers for the establishment of telecommunication
facilities. This general endorsement is based on the relatively small area impacted by the
proposed use and the ability to obtain the required information through an Erosion and Sediment
Control Plan and the building permits. In this case the construction of the facility will require
activity only for the construction of the ground equipment, provision of a parking area
(additional gravel) and adequate drainage. Based on the minimal activity necessary for the
installation staff is unable to identify any purpose that would be served by requiring the
submission of a site plan. Staff recommends approval of a full site plan waiver subject to the
conditions listed under the recommended action.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
2.
3.
4.
5.
The tower will provide increased wifeless capacity, which may be considered consistent
with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Additional use of the power line tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent
properties;
This request generally complies with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
The additional antennas will result in little change in the power line tower's visibility or
the appearance of the utility corridor; and,
Approval of this request allows for collocation on a structure and alleviates the need for
the construction of new facilities elsewhere.
7
Staff has not identified factors which are unfavorable to this request.
The following factor is relevant to this consideration:
1. There is an existing reasonable use of the property; and,
The applicant has not demonstrated that there are no other locations within the proposed
area of service currently available for new facility construction.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff opinion is that the site will accommodate the proposed telecommunication facilities without
creating adverse impacts. Therefore, staff is able to recommend approval of this request.
Should the Board choose to approve this request, staff has provided conditions of approval.
(In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment:
In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff request consensus
direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff
to remm to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.)
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APROVAL:
2.
3.
4.
o
The attachment, including insulators, connectors and wires, shall be shielded and painted in
color to resemble the existing power pole;
The attachment shall be of the same diameter as the existing power pole;
The attachment shall be limited to the total of two (2) panel antenna, whose height shall not
exceed a maximum of 130 feet above ground level;
Construction of the telecommunications tower within the existing power line tower shall be
in general accord with the plan titled "CV-1-308C Sunset Vepco Utility Tower Site" attached
to this report and initialed ELM 12/28/98;
The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later
than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify
each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider;
The antenna on the tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90)
days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; and,
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Should the Planning Commission support a waiver of the requirements of a site plan the
Planning Commission only must take the following action in order to authorize a site plan
waiver.
A waiver of the drawing of a site plan has been granted in accord with the provisions of Section
32.2.2. subject to the following conditions:
Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building
permit if the area of disturbance exceeds 10,000 square feet; and,
Provision of one parking space.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Applicant's Application
B - Location Map and Tax Map
C - Tower and Site Information
D - Applicant's Memo Dated December 23, 1998
E - Topographic Map
OFFICE USE ONLY
SP~
Sign# Mag. Dist.
TMP
Staff
Date
Application for Special USe Permit
IATTACHMEN. Z
Project Name (ho., ~o, td ~ ~r ~o ~is applicaUon'.q ~ I ! rl ~ t' P~..~O
*Existing Use Po_w~v'~ '~ ~ P~l ~
*Zoning Distr/ct R ] 5
(*staff will assist you with these items)
Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit at. po~aon it m~ ~ ~.~a~ on ~0
Proposed Use Powerline Pole W/attached antenna
*Zo .ning Ordinance Section number requested...
1/20 acre
Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit?
Are you submitting a site development plan with this application?
0 YesC} No
C~I~YesCI No
Contact Person (Whom should we call/write concerning this project?): (~pov'~R A. Cummin#
Address 9211 Arboretum Parkway, Suite 200 CityR±chm°nd
Daytime Phone ( 703 ) 966-4872 Fax # (804) 323-1560
State VA Zip23236
gcumming@tritonpcs ,:
E-mail
Owner of land (As listed in the County's records):
Address qON w~ ]*roornn.qon St.
Mountainwood Properties. Howard E. Gordon~ Esa.
Daytime Phone ( 757 6~2-3366 Fax #
CityNorf61k StateVA Zip 23510
E-mail
Applicant (Who is the contact person represenung? Who is requesting the special use ?): Tr-J t' on P C S
Address 9211 Arboretum Parkway, Suite 200 CityR±chmond
Daytime Phone (804 ) 323-9500 Fax# (804) 323-1560 .E-mail
State VA Zip 23236
Tax map and parcel 07600-00-00-0466
Physical Address (if assigned)
Location of property (landmarks. inters~ctions, orother) Property bordered by 1-64 to the East, Route 78
to the west~ .and the intersection of 1-64 and Route 781 to the North
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 07600-00-00-046c2
OFFICE USE ONLY
Fee amount $
History: · ~} Special Use Permits:
Date Paid Check # Receipt # By:
D ZMAs and Proffers:
D Var/ances'
Concurrent review of Site Development Plan?
Z._l Letter of Authorization
:D Yes ,~1 No
401 Mclntire Road .:o Charlottesville, VA 22902 -:o Voice: 296-5832 -~- Fax: 972-4126
r~xr_l _QN~
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors
hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use
permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors
that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district
will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
ordinance, with the uses perrrdtted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section
5.0 of this o. rdinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete
this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of your request.
If' you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available.
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? See attached
How will the propOsed special use affect adjacent property? -qe~ ~tt~ched
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? See at tached
How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intentpfthe Zoning Ordinance? See Attached
How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by fight in the district? See atI;ached
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use?..See attached
How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community?
CV-1-308C
[ATTACH~ENTA1 2
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons
involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: See al:Cached
ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each:
Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is
no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and
the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number.
Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it
needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing.
Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal
entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corpofati°n, partnership
or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to
the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority
to do so.
If the'applicant is a contra~ct~'purch_aser, a document acceptable to the County must be
"~: :~' ' ' n
submitted containing the owner s'Wntten consent to the apphcaUo .
If the applicant is the agent oi' the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency.
OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS:
O 3.
Drawings or conceptual plans, if any.
Additional Information, if any.
I hereby certify that I own the subject propeily, 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.
MOUNTA 1 ~'IQ0~ PjL0 PAE RTI ES
u e~f}~'r~j//~'~ t/M October 20, 1998
Signat r !~mb anager Date
D. B. Frye% dr. (757)627-1980
Printed Name
Daytime phone number of Signatory
CV-1-308C
3
I ATTACHPIENT A I
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property?
Recommended for Urban Use.
How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property?
The proposed use will have no adverse effect on the adjacent property. Because the height of the pair of
antenna measures only 112" by 8" by 2.75", the height of the pole will be only raised a relatively small
amount (the existing Virginia Power transmission tower will be raised from 1 I0 feet to 130 feet). This
activity will not create any additional negative visual impact than that of the existing transmission tower.
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property?
Because the property is already improved with the 110-foot transmission tower, the character of the district
surrounding the property will not be adversely effected by the addition of the pair of 112-inch antenna to
the monopole.
How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance?
Although the property is zoned R15, the Virginia power improvement Changed the use of the land from
dense residential to utilitarian in order to accommodate the public demand for a greater capacity of
electricity. The appurtenance of the pair of antenna allows the applicant to meet the demands of the
residents of Albemarle County for additional coverage, capacity and quality of service for wireless phone
use. By utilizing the existing Virginia Power Structure, the applicant will be able to accommodate this
demand without disrupting raw land or the county's cherished natural resources.
How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
The use is not in conflict of other uses permitted by right in the district. The small equipment cabinet will
be unmanned. No vehicle traffic or noise will be generated by this use. Because the use requires little
clearing of natural vegetation, it is conducive to the promotion of natural landscaping, prevention of
erosion and will not disrupt the value and utility of the adjacent properties in the district.
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use?
Section 5. I. 12 outlines public utility structures and uses.
Subsection (a) requires that "the location will not impair the health and safety of workers and/or residents
in the community and will not impair or prove detrimental to neighboring properties or the development of
same." This site will have no ongoing workers. In addition, studies have found that such structures do not
effect the property values in the areas. In this case, there will be relatively no additional impact in the
perception of this property, because the antenna is an appurtenance to an existing transmission monopole.
As required by. subsection (c), the applicant will remove or repair our addition to the tower if it falls into a
state of disrepair or threatens the safety of the general public.
i ATTACH--ENT AI
How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community?
With respect to the ability of the applicant to provide service to the community, this use will allow the
applicant to improve the quality, capacity and coverage of wireless phone services in the county. This will
imprOve the ability of citizens of the county to conduct business more readily and have use of the
applicant's services for recreational purposes. In addition the applicant's services can be used in
emergency situations and can be utilized when the traditional phone lines are out of service.
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such s the numbers of persons
involved in the use, operating hours and any unique features of the use:
The need to place the antenna on the Virginia Power Pole is twofold: First, the pair of antenna will provide
digital cellular service for the applicants PCS system. This use will allow the applicant to improve the
quality, capacity and coverage of wireless phone services in this area of the county. Second, this use will
allow the applicant to attach its antenna to an existing utility structure, eliminating the need for the
construction of a new tower in this area of the county, thus preserving the county's natural resources and
preventing the duplication of towers on the county's landscape
The applicant proposes to add a pair of 112-inch panel antenna to the top of the existing Virginia Power
Transmission Pole. The additional appurtenance will raise the height of the structure to 130 feet. The
two-antenna arrangement will be supported by an extension with the antenna panel at ten feet above the top
of the pole. This was based on NESC Heavy and Hurricane (70mph) loading conditions. The pole top
deflection and rotation under EIA operational (50mph) loading are 20 inches and 1.5 degrees. The bracket
will be located 12.5 feet above the top of the pole at 123 feet. Virginia Power will install all equipment,
including grounding and bracket.
The applicant will build a twelve-foot wide gravel access road to the facility. Adjacent to the tower and at
the top of the access road will be an eighteen and one half by fourteen-foot area that will encompass a
seven by nine by three-foot equipment cabinet on a concrete pad and the utility panels mounting frame.
The applicant will provide landscaping (subject to the approval of the County, VA Power, and the
Landowner) that will improve the overall visibility of the existing tower.
BUCK
MTN.
6
:Courm'x
, Wooers
S~ore
'~. /
Chef. lie
SP 98-62
Triton Commuld¢cdIm~i/VEPCO ($umef AYe.)
C~ne Mm.
FT
U
Hall
,)
AT~'~'CHMENT E!
0
'044~C
/
ALBEMARLE
GOUNTY
75
CITY
SF' 98-62
Triton Communk:at~m/VEl~CO
(su.~^,,°.l
SAMUEL MILLER, sGOTTSVILLE
SECTION 76
GENERAL NOTES
.TRITON
CV'1'308C
SUNSET VEPCO
UTILITY TOWER SITE
12-28.-78
VICINITY MAP
SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
SHEET INDEX
T-I ~%TTLE ~
C-1 SITE SURVEY
8-1 PLAN AFl3 ELEVA13ON
S-2 STRUCTURAL NOTES, PLAN~, SECTIONS
ANO D~TAILS
S-3 EQUlPIMENT PLAN AND DETAILS
E-1 ELECTRICAL PLAN. NOTES, AktO DETAILS
E-2 GROUNDING DIAGRAM. NOTES ANO DETAILS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OWNER APPROVAL
uRs~
,)
From: GeorgeCul~rni~g ............................ ' "" ............... "' ' .... ':"t 'AT'
TACHMENT
D
I
Sent: Wednesday, December 23, '! 998 2:52 PM I
To; 'Emorris~j~dbemade.org' '
Subject: Sunset Vel)CO .
Dear Eric,
I have spoken with our Radio Frequency Engineer, Field Construction Manager and Site
Acquisition Manager in regards to the Proposed use of the Sunset Vepco monopole for the
placement of telecommunications antennas. I hope the information I relay will answer your
questions.
Our coverage objective for this site is to cover the immediate vicinitY of 1-64 and in particular the
corridor heading west along 1-64 towards the intersection of 1-64 and Rt. 29. BeCause of the bend
in 1-64 after the RL 23 exit, our signal from the immediate site east of Sunset Vepco will not
reach the intersection of 1-64 and Rt. 24, After thorough examination; our site acquisition
specialist found no additional existing structures suitable for collocation or stealth installation
along 1-64 heading wesL Therefore, the power pole is our last feasible western-point option for
coverage on 1-64. Without the fifteen foot extension pole, our coverage of that intersection would
be questionable and the coverage of points west of the intersection would be minimal, In order to
minimize the visual impact of the installation, TdtonPCS has proposed two panel antennas rather
then the typical nine panel array as found on other sites..These antennas are taller, but they
have a lower visual impact to cars trav. eling on the 1-64 corridor and they will minimize the visual
impact from other areas of the County. Further, the additional height of the antenna extends the
quality and distance that our signal will travel along 1-64.
In response to the County's desire to minimiZe the visual effects of the proposed installation,
Triton proposes to construct a stealth "shield" around the monopole extension and paint the
stealth shield and the antenna the same color as the.pole. The diameter of the "shield" will be
approximately the diameter of the pole top and will taper to the approximate width of the
antennas. Therefore, I believe that our appurtenance will appear to be part of the Virginia Power
Pole. We hope that the staff, planning .commission and Board of Supervisors will agree that this
installation is a far better alternative than Raw Land Development.
Eric, I hope that I have answered all your questions, Have a pleasant Holiday, and I look forward
to working with you next year.
Sincerely,
George Cumming
Zoning Manager
Representing Triton PCS
IATTACHPIENTE
IATTACHI~IENT E I ~
SECTION 76
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
TEA-21 Enhancement Grant Applications
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing to consider requests for TEA -21 funds for
bikelanes, sidewalks, and landscaping/scenic beautification
on Route 649; sidewalk/walkway construction program in the
development areas of Albemarle County; and Thomas
Jefferson Parkway Improvements
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Cilimberg,Benish,Wade
AGENDA DATE:
January 20, 1999
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACH M E NTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
IN FORMATION:
BACKGROUND:
Staff is requesting the Board of Supervisors endorse three TEA-21 (Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century)
Enhancement projects in Albemarle County. The Transportation Enhancement Program provides a means of financing
activities that go beyond the normal elements of transportation project. The intent of the enhancement program is to more
creatively integrate transportation facilities into their surrounding communities and natural environment, Up to 80 percent of
a transportation enhancement project can be financed with federal STP funds. A minimum of 20 percent must come from
other public or private sources.
The three projects include:
1. The County of Albemarle is requesting funds for a sidewalk/walkway construction program at fourteen locations
throughout the development areas.
2. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority is requesting funds for bikelanes, sidewalks, and landscaping/scenic
beautification along Airport Road from Route 29 to Route 606.
The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation is requesting funds for a trail that would provide pedestrian access from
the western end of Route 53 near its intersection with Route 20 with a tunnel under Route 53.
DISCUSSION:
The CountY of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development - has proposed fourteen sidewa!k/walkway
projeCts in the development areas of the County. These projects will be phased Over many years. Please find attached a copy
of the 'projects staff is proposing. The project(s) will construct new sidewalk/walkway or co_mplete gaps in the existing
sidewalk/walkway system in the development areas. The TEA-21 Enhancement applicatio'n for 1999 will be for up to
$1,000,000~ Staff intends to apply for funds every year until the projects are complete.
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority - The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority is requesting funds for
bikelanes, sidewalks, and landscaping/Scenic beautification along Airport Road from Route 29 to Route 606. It is proposed
that the Enhancement funds will be utilized to provide a means to make this corridor more usable for pedestrians and
bicyclists. The Authority was awarded an enhancement grant last year by VDOT, but it was not for the full amount. The
applicant is seeking additional funds. The enhancement funds would be used to supplement six-year secondary road
construction funds, revenue sharing funds, and Airport Access funds to allow the Airport Road project to meet the County's
desire to create an aesthetically pleasing, pedestrian friendly corridor.
Last year the Airport Authority requested $730,000 in IsTEA Enhancement funds. They were awarded $160,000 of which
$32,000 is the County share. This year the applicant is requesting an additional $250,000 to help complete this project. The
COunty would be responsible for $50,000 if the applicant is awarded their request for this year.
AGE~NDA TITLE:
TEA-21 Enhancement Grant Applications
February 3, 1999
Page 2
The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation.- The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation project will include a trail
providing access at the western end of Route 53 near its intersection with Route 20 with a tunnel under Route 53. The trail
would extend to the Monticello Visitor Center located on Route 20.
The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation has not determined the cost of this project, but will have this information
available at the January 20 meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors adOpt a resolution supporting these projects following the public hearing.
99.002
I N T E R
A]bem~eB~ of Co~t~
Office of the Ckk ~ ~e ~
0 F F I C E
MEMO
TO:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Juan Wade
Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk
TEA-21 Program
.January 25, 1999
At its meeting on January 20, 1999, the Board of Supervisors adopted the three attached
resolutions requesting the Commonwealth Transportation Board fund varioUs projects under
the TEA-21 Program. Please distribute them tot he applicants as appropriate. Thank you.
Attachments: 3
PROJECT ENDORSEMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board construction
allocation procedures for TEA-21 Enhancement Grant applications, it is necessary that a request by
resolution be received from the local government or state agency in order for the Virginia
Department of Transportation to approve an enhancement project in the County of Albemarle.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virgin/a, does hereby request the Commonwealth Transportation Board to fund a
construction project for sidewalks/pathways at the following fourteen locations:
1. Woodbrook Drive from Rt. 29 to Brookmere Road - sidewalk
2. Route 20 from Fontana Drive to Route 250 - sidewalk
3. Four Seasons Drive from Rio Road to Commonwealth Drive - sidewalk
4. Commonwealth Drive (and small part of Greenbrier Drive)from Hydraulic Road
to Greenbrier Drive - sidewalk
5. Hydraulic Road from Route 29 to Georgetown Road (on the inside) - sidewalk
6. Tabor Street from Route 240 to park - sidewalk
7. Rt. 810 from 240 to Crozet ES and Rt. 240 from Rt. 810 to Crozet Pizza -
sidewalk
8. Railroad Avenue from Rt. 789 to Route 810 - sidewalk
9. St. George Avenue from Rt. 789 to Wayland Avenue - sidewalk
10. South Pantops Drive from State Farm Blvd to Carriage Apt. - sidewalk
11. State Farm Blvd. from Rt. 250 to South Pantops Drive - sidewalk
12. Avon Street from Mill Creek South to Mill Creek Drive (school road) - asphalt
pathway
13. Greenway pathway from Key West area to Darden Towe Park
14. Greenway pathway from Dunlora area to Penn Park.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to pay 20
percent of the total cost for planning and design, right-of-way, and construction of this project,
and that if the County of Albemarle subsequently elects to cancel this project, it hereby agrees to
reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total amount of the cost expended
by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote
Cler'"k.-,'~, County Board of Supervisor. j/
/
PROJECT ENDORSEMENT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board construction
allocation procedures for TEA-21 Enhancement Grant applications, it is necessary that a request
by resolution be received from the local government or state agency in order for the Virginia
Department of Transportation to approve an enhancement project in the County of Albemarle.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby request the Commonwealth Transportation Board to fund a project
proposed by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority to construct bikelanes, sidewalks,
and landscape/scenic beautification on Airport Road (Route 649) from Route 29 to Route 606.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to pay 20
percent of the total cost for planning and design, right-of-way, and construction of this project,
and that if the County of Albemarle subsequently elects to cancel this project, it hereby agrees
to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total amount of the cost
expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board pf Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote
Clerk, County Board of Supervisorsj
PROJECT ENDORSEMENT REsOLuTION
WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Tr~portation Board construction
allocation procedures for TEA-21 Enhancement Grant applications, it is necessary that a request
by resolution be received from the local government or state agency in order for the Virginia
Department of Transportation to approve an enhancement project in the County of Albemarle.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby request the Commonwealth Transportation Board to fund a project
proposed by the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation to construct a trail that would provide
pedestrian access from the western end of Route 53 near its intersection with Route 20 with a
runnel under Route 53.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to pay 20
percent of the total cost for planning and design, right-of-way, and construction of this project,
and that if the County of Albemarle subsequently elects to cancel this project, it hereby agrees
to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation for the total amount of the cost
expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote
of ?' to D on ola, oaar~ ,Za,/??~ .
Clerk, County Board of Supervisors ××
AIRPORT
',harlottesville/AIbemarle
MEMORANDUM
B 0 A}i~D OF SU PERVI S ORS
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Ella Carey, Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Denise M. Williams, Administrative Aide ~5~-
December 11, 1998
TEA - 21 Enhancement Grant Resolution
Per our conversation of this date, attached is a resolution for inclusion on the next Board of
Supervisors agenda. If you need additional information or assistance feel free to contact me at
(804) 973-8342.
Thank you for your assistance with this matter.
201 Bowen Loop ·
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority
Charlottesville, VA 22901 · (804) 973-8341 · Fax (804) 974-7476
· ~AM 05 ~99 09:~1AP1RiELEY ~ ASSOcIAtES
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: Ella Ca~
COMPAFIY: · Albemarle County
FAX NUM'~R:
DATE:
NO. OF PAGES:
coMMENTS:
lanum'y 5, 1998
1
Here is a description for inclusion in the legal ad for a public
hearing on TEA-21 projects:
For additional work on the Thomas lefferson Parkway. Previous
phases have been supported by the Boa. rd of County Supervisors
and funded under the enhancement program. The additional
money would apply to items ~nvisiormd in the original
commpbial but not covered under prwious grant applications.
FROM:
SIGNED:
RIELL~ & A,!I$OCIATE$, LAND~2.~PE ,~RCHITECT$
200 East Market Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902
(8O4) 296-9Z15 l~tX (SOl) 296-7997
TEA-21 Enhancement Projects
PROJECT 1
Public hearing to consider a request for funding under the Commonwealth of
Virginia's Transportation Enhancement Program (TEA-21).
The County of Albemarle is requesting funds for a sidewalk/walkway construction
program with multiple projects at various locations in the development areas. The
project(s) will construct new sidewalk/walkway or complete gaps in the existing
sidewalk/walkway systems in the development areas. Albemarle County will
provide all non-Federal matching funds.
PROJECT 2
Public hearing to consider a request for funding under the Commonwealth of
Virginia's Transportation Enhancement Program (TEA-21).
The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority is requesting funds for
bikelanes, sidewalks, and landscaping/scenic beautification along Airport
Road(Route 649) from Route 29 to Route 606. Albemarle County will provide all
non-Federal matching funds.