Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1999-10-20
ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of October 20, 1999 October 22, 1999 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION 1. Call to order. 4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. John Martin expressed concern about a newspaper article documenting a stray bullet going into a residence recently. He asked that the Board continue to pressure the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries for additional information on arrests during last year's hunting season. 5.1 Reappropriation: Piedmont Regional Education Program, $688,677.36 (Form #99038). ADOPTED. 6. SP-99-36. Foxfield-CV202 (Sign #95). APPROVED wi10 conditions. 7. SP-99-26. Jones Stream Crossing (Sign ~0). APPROVED w/6 conditions. 8. SP-99-46. St. Luke's Chapel (Sign #37). APPROVED w/4 conditions. ASSIGNMENT Meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman. All BOS members present. Clerk: Acknowledge his comments. County Executive: Set up meeting with the Department and Sheriff's deputies to discuss enforcement. Community Relations Office: Release PSA's to inform hunters of increased enforcement of hunting regulations. Clerk: Include in letter and forward appropriations form to M. Breeden, copying appropriate persons. Clerk: List conditions (see attachment A). Clerk: List conditions (see attachment A). Clerk: List conditions (see attachment A). 9a. CPA-99-01. Ashcrofl Phase 6. APPROVED. None. None. 9b. Request to amend service area boundaries of Albemarle County Service Authority for water service only to property described as TM78, P51A, Ashcroff Subdivision VI, located on the N side of Rt 250E (Richmond Rd). APPROVED. 10a. Appeal: ARB-F(SDP)-99-48. Crozet Convenience Center/Viginia Oil. DENIED. 10b. Appeal: SDP-99-100. Crozet Convenience Center Outdoor Lighting Waiver Request. APPROVED. 11. Discussion: Request to dedicate the Colonial Auto/Storage USA Stormwater Basin to the County. APPROVED. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. · Mr. Perkins suggested lighting be installed under the Crozet railroad bridge because of the high volume of foot traffic under the bridge. · Mr. Marshall advised the Board that supporters of the Paramount Theater will be approaching them for a $.5 million contribution toward the restoration project. · Ms. Thomas noted that some Board members attended the Piedmont Regional Education Program open house dedication. It is a unique building. · Ms. Thomas asked if Laurel Wood is a closed session matter. Mr. Davis said it could be discussed in closed session. · Mr. Martin gave Mr. Tucker a letter from DMV about collecting funds for the dog and cat sterilization fund. 14. Adjourn to a Rivanna Trails Association meeting at 6:30 p.m. on October 28, 1999. None. Clerk: List motion for clarification purposes (see attachment A). Clerk: List motion for clarification purposes (see attachment A). En.qineerinl:l staff: Look into this. None. None. Clerk: Include in 11/3/99 agenda. County Executive: Look into the matter. Clerk: Post meeting in COB lobby. Attachment A SP-99-36. Foxfield-CV202 (Si,qn #95). The height of the tower shall not exceed seven (7) feet above the elevation of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the tower. The applicant shall'provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend an additional three (3) feet above the height of the tower; The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be of wood; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. The tower shall have no lighting; and d. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color. The tower shall be located on the site as follows: a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "CFW Wireless Survey of a lease parcel and Ingress/Egress Easement" initialed VVDF 6/30/99; Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Antenna shall be limited to three (3) flush-mounted panel antenna and b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited; The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers as follows: a. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate or utilize antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: (1) Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting locate on the tower or the site; and (2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other proivders to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County; [The use of this facility by additional telecommunication providers will require amendment of this special use permit. The presence of this condition in no way implies approval of additional uses for this facility or this property.] Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest pad of the shield or shielding pad of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the pads designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only; Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from the Director of Planning to remove existing trees on the site. The Director of Planning shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred 9200) feet of the tower, or the equipment building; The permittee shall comply with § 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be required; o The tower shall be disassembled-and remoVed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date is use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; and The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by not later than July I of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider. SP-99-26. Jones Stream Crossin,q (S~n #40). o Engineering DepaRment approval of an erosion control plan; Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses; Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan outlining mitigation measures for encroachments into the stream buffer; Engineering Department approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations for the crossing. These computations must demonstrate compliance with Sections 30.3.2.2 [verification of limits of floodway and floodway fringe] and 30.3.3 [general requirements for flood hazard overlay districts] of the Zoning' ordinance. Plans must show the existing and proposed floodplain boundaries and elevations. Engineering Department approval of structural plans, details, and computations. The landowner shall have the right to maintain, repair, and replace the bridge and floodplain crossing provided that the replacement, if any, shall be in substantial accord with the design of the original bridge and floodplain crossing unless modifications thereto are approved by the Engineering Department. SP.99-46':,~-st:~LUke's Chapel (Si,qn #37).' Church development shall be limited to the building addition and parking areas shown on the sketch plan dated 9~9/99 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, children's play equipment, and walkways. Location of improVements may change as a result of Architectural Review Board requirements. The church shall commence construction of the building addition, if at all, within five (5) years after the issuance of this special use permit or it shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted by the permit shall be terminated. All applicable Health Department requirements at the time the building permit is issued shall be satisfied. The applicant shall complete all preliminary BMP calculations and, if required by the Engineering Department, provide BMP facilities for the addition and parking lot, and Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment. App?al:.. SDp-99,~ 00. Cmzet Convenience Center Outdoor Li!:lhtin,q Waiver Request. Motion: Granted waiver for the minimum number of pedestrian lights necessary to provide consistent and uniform lighting of the "public" sidewalk located along the full frontage of the Crozet Convenience Store site in a manner consistent with public street lighting projects of this nature, and which minimizes the spillover of light onto the public road for the safety of passing motorists. The lighting shall be subject to administrative approval and shall otherwise meet all the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Request to dedicate the Colonial Auto/Storage USA Stormwater Basin to the County. Motion: approved the request to dedicate the Colonial Auto/Storage USA Stormwater Basin to the County contingent upon agreement by Storage USA. The Engineering & Public Works Department waives the requirement for a Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement anticipating dedication of the basin to the County by Storage USA. CMA Properties will be required to sign a Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement before issuance of a Certificate of Occupany if Storage USA does not offerits~portion of the basin for dedication. ~ ~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Reappropriation - Piedmont Regional Education Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of appropriation #99038 in the amount of $688,677.36 reappropriating construction funds. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Reaser, Breeden; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: October 20, 1999 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Construction began in FY 1998/99 on the Piedmont Regional Education Program building located behind Albemarle High School. As of June 30, 1998, construction had not been completed. The attached appropriation will reappropriate those construction funds necessary to complete the building in FY 1999/2000. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the reappropriation totaling $688,677.36, as detailed on Appropriation #99038. 99.191 INTER OFFICE MEMO To: From: Subject: Date: Melvin A. Breeden, 'Director of Finance ~ Laurel A. Bentley, Senior Deputy Clerk (~J))J Appropriations Approved on October 20,"1999 October 22, 1999 Attached is the original appropriation form for the following item which was approved by the Board at its meeting on October 20, 1999: 1) Reappropriation: Piedmont Regional Education Program, $688,677.36 (Form ~99038). Attachment CC: Anne Gulati Robert Walters Kevin Castner Jackson Zimmerman Al Reaser APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 99/00 TYPE OF APPROPRIATION: ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? FUND: PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: NUMBER ADDITIONAL TRANSFER NEW YES NO X PREP REAPPROPRIATION OF PREP CONSTRUCTION FUNDS. CODE 9810 61194 9810 61194 9810 61194 9810 61194 99038 EXPENDITURE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 312350 PREP ENGINEERING/PLANNING $65,640.05 800200 PREP FURNITURE & FIXTURES 151,000.00 800605 PREP CONSTRUCTION 289,928.34 999999 PREP CONTINGENCY 182,108.97 TOTAL $688,677.36 REVENUE CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2 9810 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE $688,677.36 TOTAL $688,677.36 REQUESTING COST CENTER: FINANCE APPROVALS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ~,S,~. ATURE DATE OCT. 5, 1999 A Caring Retirement Community September 30, 1990 Walter Perkins, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mc!ntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Perkins: Our Lady of Peace is pleased to report that it has exceeded the requirements of the agreement dated November 24, 1992, by and between Our Lady of Peace, Inc., a Virginia non-profit corporation, and the County of Albemarle, Virginia. Our Lady of Peace now has in residence within its Assisted Living Facility twelve indigent Albemarle County older adults. In addition, there are ten other limited income Albemarle County elderly residents in our thirty bed Nursing Center. The Board of Directors of Our Lady of Peace would like to convey our deepest and most sincere appreciation to you and the members of the Board of Supervisors for your ongoing support of the indigent elderly. We invite you and the other members of the Board of Supervisors to visit Our Lady of Peace at your convenience to see first hand the quality care all of the residents at Our Lady of Peace receive. Thank you again for your continued hard work on behalf of the elderly poor of Albemarle County. Sincerely, Rose M. Chioni President pc: Robert McNichols Management Agent BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 751 Hillsdale Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 804/973-1155 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP-99-36 Foxfield CV202 SUBJ ECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST: Construction of a tree top tower to support a PCS antenna. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: September 15, 1999 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: REVIEWED BY: ,~y"'-'-'- BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this request on August 18, 1999. Staff and the Planning Commission had recommended approval of the request with conditions. (See Attachment A-Staff Report, Planning Commission minutes and Planning Commission action letter). The staff report noted that this property was located within an Agricultural/Forestal District and while the tower did not change the character of the district, it also did not forward the purpose and intent of the Agricultural/Forestal District. The Board deferred action to allow review of the request by the Agricultural/Forestal District Advisory Committee. DISCUSSION: The Agricultural/Forestal District Advisory Committee reviewed this request on August 30, 1999. (See Attachment B-Agricultural/Forestal District Advisory Committee Minutes). RECOMMENDATION: The Committee recommended disapproval of this request as long as the property was in the Agricultural/Forestal District. 99.177 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COMMUNICATIONS F~X ~o. 54093222~0 P. O1 1150 Shenandoah Village Drive P,O, Box 1328 Waynesboro, Vir~nia 22950-0909 54O 946-1850 FAX: 540 932.fl210 September I4, 1999 V, Wayne Cil[mberg County of AIbem~le 401 Mclntirc Road Charlottesville Va. 229024596 RE: SP-99-36 Foxfield---CV202 Tax Idap 43, Parcel 30 Dear Mr. Cilimberg CFW WlreIess would like to defer this request for thirty days. This will give us tfme to study so additional in formation we have received from the county, Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dick Shearer Site Acqulsitlon/Construction Manager Fax Note 7671 oate F, of · , July 29, 1999 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 M¢Intire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (8041 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 Dick Shearer CFW Wireless I 150 Shenandoah Village Drive Waynesboro, VA 22980 RE: SP-99-36 Foxfield--CV202 Tax Map 43, Parcel 30 Dear Mr. Shearer: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 27, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: The height of the tower shall not exceed 7 feet above the elevation of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend an additional 3 feet above the height of the tower. o The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be of wood; .b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. The tower shall have no lighting; and, d. The rower shall not. be painted and shall be natural wood color. The tower shall be located on the site as follows: a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "CFW Wireless Survey of a lease parcel and Ingress/Egress Easement" initialed WDF 6/30/99. o Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Antenna shall be limited to three flush mounted panel antenna. b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. Page 2 July 29, 1999 o 10. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: a. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate or utilize antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: (1) Prior to approval ora final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan .requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting locate on the tower or the site; and, (2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. (The use of this facility by additional telecommunication providers will require amendment of this special use permit. The presence of this condition in no way implies approval of additional uses for this facility or property.) Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only; Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from the Director of Planning to remove existing trees on the site. The Director of Planning shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, or the equipment building; The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be required; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety'(90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July I of that year. The-report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider. Page 3 July 29, 1999 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on AUGUST 18~ 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 Planning Commission also approved a waiver of the drawing of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2.of the Zoning Ordinance subject to the following conditions: Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. Provision of one parking space. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Dir~ector~f Planninl · C~~opment VWC/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley Steve Allshouse ". ~ ~ ~ AT PAGE: I0~ iI~N Pl~ SET UNE RECO~STRUCTI~ /:~R~d~U$ SURVEY ATTACHMENT C ~ '~. ,~ / ~ ~ - ~ .. . ~ ' ~6' ~ ~Z~ ~ /~ N21*4T'6'c 255. ~ - · ~ · - ~ ~. ~../ ~z,,' RECEIVED 12' ~SS/ EGRESS E~E~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~D SURVEY OF ~ ~ASE PARCEL INGRESS/' EGRESS EASEMENT ~ FOR' CFW ~RE~SS ~.~ ~ ~ · -. , .... SCA~; 1'~ 100' 0A~; MAY 14. ATTACHMENT A STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: WILLIAM D. FRITZ JULY 27, 1999 AUGUST 18, 1999 SP 99-36 FOXFIELD CV202 Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a treetop tower to support a PCS antenna. The specific location and design of the proposed facility is shown on Attachment C. The applicant has indicated the location of the proposed facility and access to the tower on a topographic map, which is included as Attachment D. Petition: Request for special use permit to allow a telecommunications facility in accordance with Section [10.2.2.6] of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radiowave transmission towers. The property, described as Tax Map 43 Parcel 30, contains 120 acres, and is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District on Free Union Road [Route #6011 approximately 0.6 miles north of Garth Road [Route #601/676]. The property is zoned R_A, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural. Character of the Area: The location of the proposed facility is on an active farm in a wooded area. The closest dwelling is located 1,200 feet to the northwest. The nearest property line is approximately 750 feet to the east. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and is able to recommend approval. Planning and Zoning History,: A subdivision plat was signed in 1993 dividing Parcel 30 into two parcels. Comprehensive Plan: Staff notes that in order to construct the proposed tower no clearing for access and the provision of electrical service will be required. Therefore, the only impacts reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance are those created by the tower itself. This site is located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan. This area is located within an Agricultural/Forestal District. No other resources are identified in the Comprehensive Plan, Open Space Plan for this area. Currently the Comprehensive Plan contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers. No provision of the Comprehensive Plan prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting Personal Wireless Services. The limited area included in the lease area for the facility will not substantially reduce the existing or potential for use under the intent of the Rural Areas designation with the exception of prohibiting tree removal within 200 feet of the tower. The location and design of the facility is such that the view from public roads or adjacent properties will be limited. No inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan has been identified. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address the issues of this request in three sections: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 704(a)('~)(b)(I)(II) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff wi Il address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adiacent property, The proposed tower is located approximately 750 feet from the nearest property line and does comply with the setback requirements of the ordinance. The site is located in a wooded area. These trees are approximately 97 feet tall based on information submitted by the applicant. The proposal for this site is to have the wood pole extend 7 feet above the treeline with the antenna extending 3 feet above the pole. The siting of this facility is such that existing forest combined with distance to adjacent property will make this site extremely difficult to see from either public roads or adjacent property. An existing farm road goes to the site and no trees will have to be removed to construct the facility. The top of the facility will blend into the existing tree canopy in the area. Due to the extremely limited visibility of the site and lack of need for clearing no detriment to adjacent property is anticipated. 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, The County attempts where possible to limit the visibility of these uses. The County has over the years by its actions to approve and deny applications for wireless facilities attempted to site these facilities in areas where they have limited impacts on the character of the surrounding area. This facility is located in a wooded area which has been the favored approach of the County. The existence of the trees will serve to hide the facility. In considering the impact on the character of the area staff has taken into consideration the fact that this property and adjacent property are located within an Agricultural/Forestal District. This request does not restrict activity on adjacent sites or change the character of the district. However, the conditions of approval for this application would restrict the forestal use of the property. However, the potential of forestry activity can be regained with the removal of the telecommunications facility. Approval of this request does not itself support agricultural or forestal activity within the district. The lack of visibility of this facility will not result in a change in the rural character of the district. Approval however, does not forward the purpose and intent of the A/F 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 clearly provides a public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use. Based on the provision of a public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and intent of these sections of the ordinance. Therefore, staff optnion is that this request does comply with this provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Ordinance. with the uses permitted by ri~ght in the district, The proposed tower will not restrict the current use, other by right uses available on this site, with the exception of tree clearing for a portion of the site, or by right uses on any other property. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, Section 5.1.12 of the ordinance contains regulations governing tower facilities and appropriate conditions are proposed to ensure compliance with this provision of the ordinance. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in the event of emergencies and increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act addresses issues of environmental effects with the following language: "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions". In order to operate this facility the applicant is 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 cun'ently available for new tower construction. For this reason, staff does not believe that denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services. Staff and the applicant have been unable to identify any location for collocation, which would eliminate the need for construction of a tower. Alternate sites for the construction of a new tower have not been discussed. Waiver of a site plan in accord with the provisions of Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 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 th is case the construction of the facility will require activity only for the extension of utilities which are currently on site and the placement of the tower and ground equipment. Based on the minimal activity necessary for installation staff is unable to identify any purpose, which would be served by requiring the submission ora site plan. Staff recommends approval of a full site plan waiver subject to the following conditions: Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit; Provision of one parking space. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: The tower will provide increased wireless capacity, which may be considered consistent with the provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties. The design and siting of the tower is such that it will have limited visual impact on adjacent property or public roads. Staff has identified the following factor, which is unfavorable to this request: The proposed site is located within an A/F District. The use does not directly support or promote agricultural or forestal uses. The following factor is relevant to this consideration: I. There is an existing reasonable use of the property. Staffs review has resulted in a finding that the proposal complies with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 and therefore, staff recommends approval of this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: (In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment: In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff request consensus direction from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to return to the Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.) RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The height of the tower shall not exceed 7 feet above the elevation of the tallest tree within 25 feet of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend an additional 3 feet above the height of the tower. The tower shall be designed, constructed andmaintained as follows: a. The tower shall be of wood; b. Guy wires shall not be permitted; c. The tower shall have no lighting; and, d. The tower shall not be painted and shall be natural wood color. The tower shall be located on the site as follows: a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "CFW Wireless Survey of a lease parcel and Ingress/Egress Easement" initialed WDF 6/30/99. Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Antenna shall be limited to three flush mounted panel antenna. b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. o The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: a. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate or utilize antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: (I) Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting locate on the tower or the site; and, (2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence.that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence ora good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. (The use 0fthis facility by additional telecommunication providers will require amendment of this special use permit. The presence of this condition in no way implies approval of additional uses for this facility or property.) Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only; Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the permittee shall obtain authorization from the Director of Planning to remove existing trees on the site. The Director of Planning shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, or the equipment building; The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be required; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued; 10. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider. 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. Provision of one parking space. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Tax Map C - Applicant's Information D - Topographical Map A:\sp9936 foxfield.doc MTN. 6 ~ Countn~ Club 99-36 Foxfield CV 202 5 / 1~68 1167- Caners Mtn, F.T Advance Mills Profitt ! ~ ,21 I ATTACHMENT A Og4Nc~ C;smo¢ SP 99- 36 Foxfield CV202 ATTACHMENT B Ms. Huckle said the application name was extremely confusing because it led people to believe that the tower was to be located on the Foxfield property. Mr. Shearer explained that the name refers to a search area. Ms. Huckle asked if they looked at Foxfield. Mr. Shearer said no, it was not in the search area. Ms. Dent asked if this is for the personal use of the property owner? DRAFT Mr. Shearer said PCS is distal technology, "personal communication" can attach voice mail, interact, etc. Mr. vanRoijen said they can only go a certain distance. Ms. Huckle suggested dividing the County into 6 or 8 companies so they won't have to duplicate service. Mr. vanRoijen said everyone is looking at the same lucrative markets. Mr. Shearer showed photos; there was discussion about the location of the tower. 3 Mr. Blo~h noted that he could keep his place up for $I5,000 a year. Mr. vanRoijen said that's fine if you take that portion out of the agricultural/forestal district, don't start allowing commercial uses in an agricultural/forestal district. Mr. Jones said that was his thought. Take out 1-2 acres on which to locate this. It would be out of land use taxation. Mr. Woodzell compared the use to the bike trails which he also thought was a commercial operation. Ms. Scala noted that a 200 foot radius where they could not remove trees meant about three acres taken out of forestry, Ms. Buttrick said it is important to look at the actual language of the Code. There was discussion about what "more intensive use" means, Ms. Buttrick confirmed with Mr. Woodzell that the part changed in use could be removed from land Mr. vanRoijen repeated that a tower should require a development right be used. Mr, Perkins said they needed a legal opinion on that. He wondered what the impact of that would be on agricultural districts, if it would be a disincentive to join. Mr. vaaRoijen said people would join the districts if they thought the districts would protect them from towers. Ms. Buttrick said it could work both ways. In the Valley there are fairly substantial numbers of farmers whose ability to have that income would play into their ability to preserve the farm as a farm. Mr. vanRoijen said any activity helps keep the farm a farm. Mr. Perkins asked Ms. Buttrick if a conservation easement prevented towers. Ms. Buttrick replied that she was not sure we wouldn't take an easement that permitted towers, unless they were allowed on a fidgetop, for example. Ms. Huclde asked why someone would choose to tie up their land when the County is not protecting them from towers. Ms. Buttrick said when you have ideas in conflict, use the Code as guidance. Is the tower doing the purposes of the district? Mr. vanRoijen questioned using purely aesthetics as a basis for denial. He moved to recommend to the Board of Supervisors to disapprove this special use in an agricultural/forestaI district as not an appropriate use with the possibility of taking land out of the district. .4 Ms. ~uttrick questioned whether it had been determined if a special permit for this class of use of communication tower is consistent or inconsistent with the declaration of purpose in agricultural/ forestal districts. Has the question been broached or can it be broached? Ms. Scala said it is always determined on a case-by-case basis but she would question the Cotmty Attorney. Mr. Jones asked if someone wanted to amend the motion? Ms. Buttrick asked if staff could get Larry [Davis'] opinion by the next meeting. David's motion was to recommend disapproval of the special permit while in the agricultural/ forestal district. Mr. Jones said to deny this one, and to designate agricultural/forestal districts as avoidance areas? Staff asked to clarify the motion. Mr. vanRoijen said to deny this one - and this type of activity in general in agricultural/forestal districts. Mr. Woodzell said the Code protects agricultural/forestal districts from publicly held utilities so the motion seems logical. Ms. Dent seconded the motion. The Committee approved the motion unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. ~,RLE~ COUNTY ~,~ 44 ATTACHMENT B ALBEMARLE 30 33D 30# 4F {9 ~IA ./ *'AMUEL. MILLER AND 'T DISTRCTS IN {9 19011) SECTION 270 ' SP 99-36 d CV 202 658 ?.7 3307 60 WHITE HALL, JACK JOUE AND RIO DISTRICTS ~ J 0 . ~ II II II II !1 II II II Dept. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 September 23, 1999 Joseph H. Jones 3630 Browns Gap Turnpike Crozet, VA 22932 SP-99-26 Jones Stream Crossing Tax Map 26, Parcel 56 Dear Mr. Jones: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 21, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan. 2. Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses. 3. Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan outlining mitigation measures for encroachments into the stream buffer. 4. Engineering Department approval of hyrologic and hydraulic computations for the crossing. These computations must demonstrate compliance with Sections 30.3.2.2 [verification of limits of floodway and floodway fringe] and 30.3.3 [general requirements for flood hazard overlay districts]of the Zoning ordinance. Plans must show the existing and proposed floodplain boundaries and elevations. 5. Engineering Department approval of structural plans, details, and computations. 6. The landowner shall have the right to maintain, repair, and replace the bridge and floodplain crossing provided that the replacement, if any, shall be in substantial accord with the design of the original bridge and floodplain crossing unless modifications thereto are approved by the Engineering Department. BOARD OF SUPER¥ISORS Page 2 September 23, 1999 Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on October 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. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mary Joy Scala Senior Planner MJS/jcf C¢~ Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Clarence & Elizabeth Jones, Trust Amelia McCulley Steve Allshouse STAFF REPORT: STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: SP 99-26 JONES STREAM CROSSING MARY JOY SCALA SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 OCTOBER 20, 1999 Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes a low water stream crossing on his farm on the Moormans River near White Hall. The low water stream crossing is a series of culverts covered by a concrete pad, with cattle guards on either side, forming a bridge that is useful during low to moderate flow conditions. The stream crossing is proposed at the location of an existing ford, and will extend the number of days the applicant can access his pasture on the far side of the river by truck. He also plans to access a future house site. (See applicants sketch plan- Attachment A) Petition: Request for special use permit to allow a stream crossing of the Moorman's River in accordance with Section 30.5.5.2(d)6 which allows for bridges by special use permit within the environs of a County-designated scenic stream within the Scenic Streams Overlay District, and 30.3.5.2.1(2) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for bridges by special use permit in the floodway of a Flood Hazard Overlay District. The property, described as Tax Map26 Parcel 56, contains 174 acres, and is located in theWhite Hall Magisterial District on Sugar Hollow Road [Route # 614] approximately 1.36 miles east of Sugar Ridge Road [Rome 674] The property is Zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. (See tax map - Attachment B) Character of the Area: The site is located in a rural area with scattered dwellings. The site is mostly open. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 (Special Use Permits) and Section 30.5.5.2(d)6 (which allows for bridges by special use permit within the environs of a County-designated scenic stream) and Section 30.3.5.2.1 (2) (which allows for bridges by special use permit in the floodway) of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. Planning and Zoning History_: None: Comprehensive Plan: This site is designated Rural Area. The Open Space Plan designates this area as Important Farmlands and Forests. The Moormans River is a Major Stream Valley, a Virginia Scenic River and a County designated Scenic Stream. STAFF COMMENT: Staff has addressed each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to approval of special use permits: 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, Staff opinion is that the proposed addition will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. Planning staff relies on the:Engineering Department assessment regarding flooding impacts. The attached memo states that "the low-flow crossing is not likely to create a problem for neighbors or the nearby public road." (See Watershed Manager memo dated 18 June 1999 -ATTACHMENT C) that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Staff opinion is that the character of the district will not be changed. The stream is currently being forded at this location for agricultural use. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, relation to the environment, and relation to Comprehensive Plan as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6, and has found this application to be in harmony with these sections. with the uses permitted by right in the district~ This property and the adjacent properties are zoned RA, Rural Areas. Staff opinion is that the proposed use is in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district. The proposed bridge allows access for agricultural use, which supports the purposes of the Rural Areas RA zoning district. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no supplementary regUlations for bridges. Staff will discuss the requirements of 30.5.5.2. d.6., bridges by special use permit within the environs of a scenic stream, which are in addition to the findings required by 31.2.4.1. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The Virginia Department of Transportation has no comment at this time for continued farm use. The Department of Engineering comments are Attachment C. They are recommending approval with conditions. Scenic Stream Requirements: The Moorman's River is a Virginia Scenic River. The Moorman's River Scenic Advisory Committee met on August 16, 1999 and recommended approval of the proposed stream crossing. The Virginia Department of Conse~.ation and Recreation (DCR) was represented at the meeting by R.G. Gibbons. (See letter from Kenneth Lee dated 7 September -ATTACHMENT D) The Moorman's River is also a County-designated scenic stream. Section 30.5.5.2(d)6 allows for bridges by special use permit within the environs of a County-designated scenic stream within the Scenic Streams Overlay District. The following criteria must be met: (a) Such bridge or other structure is to be located at the site of an existing bridge, ford or other stream crossing; 2 The proposed stream crossing is at the site of an existing ford. (b) Such existing crossing is regularly used, and such bridge or other structure is tobe used, as the sole means of access to one or more existing, lawfully occupied dwellings; The existing ford is regularly used for agricultural access. It is the only means of access to the parcel on the north side of moorman's River. A dwelling is proposed in the future. The Zoning Administrator has stated, "The ford exists. Mr. Jones is being honest about his plans for a residence. It would be a difficult position to take to deny it for a residence since the ford exists and I'm not sure there's any other place they have access." (c) No alternative means of access to such dwellings is physically practicable; There is no alternative access to this property,. (d) No such alternative means of access has been abandoned, aliened or otherwise relinquished by the voluntary_ act or omission of the owner of the land upon which such dwellings are located since December 10, 1980; No alternative access has been abandoned. (e) Such bridge or other structure is necessary_ to prevent, eliminate or substantially alleviate a hazard to the life or property of any resident of the county; The applicant has noted the hazard of wet brakes when he crosses in cold weather. (f) Such bridge or other structure is so designed as to pose the minimum practical disruption of the environment of the stream consistent with the other provisions hereof; The applicant has designed the bridge for minimum disruption of the environment. See Attachment C. (g) Such bridge or other structure shall comply with all applicable state and federal law including, but not limited to, Chapters 3.5, 7,8,9 and 20 of Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, to the extent that any or all of the same may be applicable in a particular case. The first four chapters listed deal with dams and are not applicable: Chapter 3.5 - Flood Damage Reduction Act was repealed and replaced with 10.1-600et.al. Flood Protection and Dam Safety; Chapter 7 - Water-Power Development, Conservation of Hydroelectric Power Dams and Works deals with dams in any rivers or streams within the Commonwealth for the generation of hydroelectric energy for use or sale in public service; Chapter 8 - Impoundment of Surface Waters deals with dams approved by the State Water Control Board; Chapter 9 - Mills, Dams and Certain Other Works on Watercourses deals with dams intended to serve mills or other works. Chapter 20 - Miscellaneous Offenses deals with obstruction or contamination of state waters. § 62.1- 194.2 states that it shall be unlawful for any person to ... make or cause to be made any obstruction which exists for more than a week (excepting a lawfully constructed dam) in, under, over or across any river, creek, stream, or swamp, so as to obstruct the free passage of boats, canoes, or other floating vessels, or fish in such waters. Most canoeing on the Moorman's River occurs below Route 810. Above Rt. 810 it is canoed by a small number of persons during high flows or periods of flooding. The proposed structure is located in an area where there is a bedrock outcropping. The proposed structure would cause an obstruction (not otherwise present) during those times when the stream is high enough to be canoeable, but not when it is high enough for a canoe to pass over the structure. Staff has deferred to the Scenic River Advisory Committee on this matter. SUMMARY: Staff opinion is that this request is in compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 (Special Use Permits) and Section 30.5.5.2(d)6 (which allows for bridges by special use permit within the environs of a County-designated scenic stream) and Section 30.3.5.2.1 (2) (which allows for bridges by special use permit in the floodway) of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit for the stream crossing with conditions. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF SP 99-026: 1. Engineering Department' approval of an erosion control plan. 2. Engineering Departmnet receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses. 3. Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan outlining mitigation measures for encroachments into the stream buffer. 4. Engineering Department approval ofhyrologic and hydraulic computations for the crossing. These computations must demonstrate compliance with Sections 30.3.2.2 [verification of limits of floodway and floodway fi'inge] and 30.3.3 [general requirements for flood hazard overlay districts] of the Zoning ordinance. Plans must show the existing and proposed floodplain boundaries and elevations. 5. Engineering Department approval of structural plans, details, and computations. 6. The landowner shall have the right to maintain, repair, and replace the bridge and floodplain crossing provided that the replacement, if any, shall be in substantial accord with the design of the original bridge and floodplain crossing unless modifications thereto are approved by the Engineering Department. ATTACHMENTS: A - Applicant's sketch plan B - Tax map C - Engineering Department memo I:\...sp9926.doc ATTACHMENT A X 44 ATTACHMENT B / ? II 2O 52 52A 51 12¢ ~T $14 55 56 ./ ? / ~6AI 16 SP-99-26 Jones Stream Crossing, 35 39 21 ATTACHMENT C COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING & PUBLIC WORKS TO: FROM: DATE: Bill Fritz, Senior Planner Stephen Bowler, Watershed Manager 18 June 1999 SUBJECT: Joe Jones Low-Flow Stream Crossing SP Application Mr. Jones wishes to build a low-flow bridge across the Moormans River at the site of an existing ford on his farm. The existing ford takes advantage of a place where the river flows over a bedrock outcrop. In the near term the low-flow crossing will extend the number of days Mr. Jones can access his pasture on the far side of the river by track. In the future he hopes to builda house for which the crossing will provide access. A low-flow crossing is a bridge that is useful during low to moderate flow conditions, but is submerged during higher flow conditions. A typical low-flow bridge is made of a series of small culverts covered by a concrete pad. It is an inexpensive alternative to a more substantial bridge that could be crossed in all but the largest floods. Mr. Jones is aware that there could be several days a year during which he will not be able to cross the Moormans River on the proposed structure. Low-flow crossings have a few inherent problems not necessarily shared by larger bridges. First, if not carefully designed they can become a blockage to fish and other stream organisms. Second, they can contribute to flooding. Third, they can become a maintenance problem as the culverts fill with cobble forcing the water over the structure and generating scour. Dave Hirschman, Jack Kelsey, and I met with Mr. Jones at the site to discuss these problems and possible solutions. To maintain stream connectivity through the bridge Mr. Jones has proposed using a section of cattle guard near each bank in place of the standard culvert and concrete. The hope is that areas of natural streambed will be preserved under the cattle guard sections. In the center, where culvert and concrete construction is used, Mr. Jones will install two culverts at a lower elevation (to the extent possible in the bedrock) than the other culverts to concentrate flow to a depth great enough to maintain river connectivity at low-flow. Concerning flooding, first inspection indicates that the low-flow crossing is not likely to create a problem for neighbors or the nearby public road. The state road appears to be at an elevation at which the crossing will have little impact. If the special use permit is approved, the Engineering Department will review hydraulic calculations provided by Mr. Jones to verify that the crossing will not impact the 100-year flood elevation (see proposed conditions). ATTACHMENT C MEMORANDUM Joe Jones Low Flow Stream Crossing SP Application 18 June 1999 Page Two Mr. Jones .has tried to locate and design the bridge to reduce maintenance problems. However, because of the nature of the bed load in the Moormans River, regular maintenance is likely to be required. BecauSe he has helped a neighbor maintain a similar structure upstream, Mr. Jones is aware of and prepared for the maintenance burden. The existence of the bedrock base will reduce the impact of the project. It will provide a stable foundation for the crossing and minimize earthwork and grading activity within the channel. With regard to the requirements of the County Scenic Stream Overlay (SectiOn 30.5), it is important to reiterate that the proposed crossing is in the same location of an existing ford that appears to be regularly used for access to the portion of Mr. Jones' property that lies across the Moormans River. At present, this access is for agricultural purposes. Because the Moormans is a state scenic river, the Moormans Scenic River Advisory Committee will be reviewing scenic and recreation concerns related to the proposal. Based on the discussion above, the Engineering Department recommends approval of the special use permit with the following conditions: 1. Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan. 2. Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses. 3. Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan outlining mitigation measures for encroachments into the stream buffer. 4. Engineering Depamnent approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations for the crossing. These computations must demonstrate compliance with sections 30.3.2.2 and 30.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Plans must show the existing and proposed floodplain boundaries and elevations. 5. Engineering Department approval of structural plans, details, and computations. 6. The landowner shall have the right to maintain, repair, and replace the bridge and floodplain crossing provided that the rePlacement, if any, shall be in substantial accord with the design of the original bridge and floodplain crossing unless modifications thereto are approved by the Engineering Department. If you should have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. SB/ctj File: bowler/JoeJonesStreamCrossingSP.doc KENNETH O.LEE 14 Oak Circle Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 804/295-4525 ATTACHMENT D 7 September 1999 Ms Mary Joy Scala Albemarle County Department of Planning and Community Development 401 MeIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms Scala: At a meeting of the Moorman's Scenic River Advisory Board, Mr. Joseph H. Jones's proposal for what amounts to an "elevated" ford across the Moorman's River was approved by the Board, after full discussion by the public and other interested parties. The existing ford off State Route 614 has been there for years and allows Mr, Jones access to his entire property. However, with modem mechanical equipment and automobiles, water entering the braking systems, as a result of immersion in water when the river is flowing normally, damages the mechanisms It is the .considered opinion of the Board, the low structure proposed will not significantly impede the flow of water even at flood stage. Debris will merely flow over the top of his "elevated" ford. The Board sees no reason why this request should not be approved. Sincerely;ours,~.)-- ~-~ Kenneth 0 Lee, President Moorman's Scenic River Advisory Board September 23, 1999 Dept. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE of Planning & Communit9 Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5823 John V. Berberich, III 673 Evergreen Avenue Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-99-46 S. Luke's Chapel, Tax Map 92, Parcel 46A Dear Mr. Berberich: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 21, 1999, unanimously recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: o Church development shall be limited to the building addition and parking areas shown on the sketch plan dated 9/9/99 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, children's~play equipment, and walkways. Location of improvements may change as a result of Architectural Review Board requirements. The church shall commence construction of the building addition, if at all, within five years after the issuance of this special use permit or it shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted by the permit shall be terminated. All applicable Health Department requirements at the time the building permit is issued shall be satisfied. The applicant shall complete all preliminary BMP calculations and, if required by the Engineering Department, provide BMP facilities for the addition and parking lot. Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on October 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, Cc: ~'*ila Carey Jack Kelsey William Gitchell & Trustees Amelia McCulley Steve Allshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 OCTOBER 20, 1999 Revised 9/21/99 SP 99-046 St. Luke's Chapel - Simeon Parish Hall Applicant's Proposal: St. Luke's Chapel - Simeon, a mission church of Christ Episcopal Church, Charlottesville, is planning an expansion to provide a parish hall at the rear of the existing church building. The building addition would be roughly a 900 square-foot addition as shown on the Sketch Plan (Attachment A). This addition will require the removal of a large maple tree and the relocation of existing parking. The parking changes are also shown on the Conceptual Plan. The special use permit is required because there is no existing special use permit for the church and the building addition constitutes the expansion of a nonconforming use. The special use permit request is for the existing use and the building addition. No site plan or site plan waiver request is required or is made with this project. The sketch plan, though, indicates the general location of existing and proposed improvements. Petition: The petition is for approval of a special use permit, in accordance with Section I0.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow a church use in the rural areas. This petition is requested for Tax Map 92, Parcel 46A. The property is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District at 1936 Thomas Jefferson Parkway [Route 53] at the intersection of Thomas Jefferson Parkway and Route 732. (See Attachments B & C.) The property is zoned RA Rural Areas zoning district, EC Entrance Corridor overlay and is recommended as Rural Areas on the Land Use Plan. Character of the Area: The area surrounding the church is rural agricultural and residential. A country store is across the street from the church. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the special use permit with conditions. Planning and Zoning History,: The church building was constructed in 1892; however, the use is nonconforming because it has no special use permit. No subdivision or zoning history exists for the properties. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as rural. The property was D:\ surveyed as part ofa UVA class project, but has not been evaluated for nomination to the state or National Register (Attachment D). Churches in rural areas are viewed as supportive of the moral fiber of the rural community,. En~ineerin~ Analysis: The County's Engineering staffhas reviewed this request for engineering issues related to health, safety, and welfare requirements. The Engineering Department's recommendation is provided in Attachment E. Engineering staff believes that the full set of improvement recommended by VDOT are not necessary in this case. The County Engineering staff, however, recommends that the entrance should be widened to 30 feet and the berm removed at the comer of the lot where Route 53/Thomas Jefferson Memorial Parkway curves south to improve sight distance. The applicant believes that the Parish Hall will not increase traffic to the church and that changes to the entrance and the berm are not needed as a result of the building addition. For this reason, he has not shown these modifications on the sketch plan. Since no site plan is required with this church addition, the Planning Commission must decide if the entrance widening and berm removal are warranted with the addition and, if so, include these requirements as part of the conditions of special use permit approval. The Engineering Department will also need to review preliminary calculations for water quality target removal rates, prior to construction of the church. BMP facilities may be required with the church addition, Zoning Considerations: The proposed building addition and corresponding parking relocation meet the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Architectural review will be needed prior to issuance of a building permit. The Design Planner has reviewed the request and her comments are provided in Attachment F. As a result of review by the ARB, changes may be needed to the sketch plan in terms of location of parking spaces, location of the addition, and additional landscaping. As with many churches, fundraising generally precedes construction activities and the church has requested this special use permit well in advance of their anticipated construction schedule. For this reason, the church has requested a longer period of time than the standard two years to begin construction on the project. STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, There has been ongoing congregational activity at this location for most of this century. The building addition will expand the area of the building by approximately 900 square feet and move the parking area. No other changes are proposed and there is not expected to be any effect on adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The rural areas district is characterized by open space, agricultural uses and very low density residential uses. The church addition is not expected to change the character of the district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The RA zoning district was created to establish a zone that provides for preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities; provide for water supply protection; be an area of limited service delivery; and to conserve natural, scenic, and historic resources. The church is viewed as a use supportive of rural Albemarle County residents. with the uses permitted by right in the district, By-fight uses in the RA district are single family and duplex housing, agricultural uses, public buildings and uses; veterinary services; tourist lodging; mobile homes; and farm wineries. The proposed use is viewed as being in harmony with these uses. with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations relating to churches. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the special use permit process which assures that uses approved by special use permit are appropriate in the location requested. The Engineering staff has identified changes they believe are important for the entrance to the facility. The Health Department has reviewed the plan and believes that the septic system can be modified to allow for all drainfield needs associated with the building addition to be accommodated on-site. Pavement is proposed over the drainfield and in part of the parking area to comply with Health Department requirements. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request: The Land Use Plan suggests that churches are supportive to the rural areas in the County. No detrimental impact is anticipated as a result of this building addition. The church has been at this location for over 100 years and has been surveyed as a historic resource in the. County. No negative impact is expected to this historic resource. Expansions of facilities often ensure a continuing presence of a congregation. Staffhas identified no factors which are unfavorable to this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of this special use permit with the following conditions: Church development shall be limited to the building addition and parking areas shown on the sketch plan dated 9/9/99 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, children's play equipment, and walkways. Location of improvements may change as a result of Architectural Review Board. requirements. The entrance to the church shall be enlarged to meet commercial entrance requirements. The berm at the front of the church shall be removed to improve sight distance. The church shall commence construction of the building addition, if at ail, within five years after the issuance of this special use permit Or it shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted by the permit shall be terminated. All applicable Health Department requirements at the time 'the building permit is issued shall be satisfied. The applicant shall complete all preliminary BMP calculations and, if required by the Engineering Department, provide BMP facilities for the addition and parking lot. Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use Permit amendment. ATTACHMENTS: A - Sketch Plan showing the St. Luke's Chapel building addition and improvements B - Location Map* C - Tax Parcel Map D - Information from Department of Historic Resources E - Engineering Memo F - Design Planner Memo I Lt,.. .. ~ ;:2 SNOLLI(INO~) ~LIS ~I3dVH~ S,~lfl~I JNIV$ &4C 64A ALBEMARLE ?8 COUNTY SP-99-46 St. Luke's Chapel 43 ATTACHMENT B / / \ \ ~6 / \ · - \ · See 104 104 SCOTTSVILLE DisTRIcT 59 SECTION 92 JNTAIN MTN 6 Farrnington Countr~ Club IARLC 1~68 1167- Caners Mtn Profitt I I SP-99-46 St. Lul , / : ATTACHMENT C TO RUCKERSVILL;: / EARLYS -£ Burnley o Cismon: ' ~ugb.~y.~. o / TO PALMYRA teric ~me St. Luke's Chapel Common name JnW/~ Albe~r le ee~ add~ or route number R~, 795 ~uad Si~on 7.5 Date or period 1892 1 owner diocese Architec~buildeff~f~en ginal ~ ~piscopal ~sston c~pet sent owner rant owner addr~ cio ~v. ' Ep~a~o~ t G. ~avell sent ~e ~ur~a 60~ ~yona Ave. GharloCCesvil~, Va. Ro~f ~e g~,bles teconditionofst~ctureandenv~' ~ ~hu~h ia in go~ co'ndicion. I: ~tanda at the ~e~on og RCa. 732 and 795 in a grov~ o~ trees, ~t~Cy or more ~ee: ~m the ~adbeda. te potential threats to st~cture none te any ~chaeologi~l inte~st " [Ne~ative no(s). 586.0 ATTACHMENT D Source of name documentary 8ourcem; original ,,*,,e ~e of date oral C~diC~n StO~ one Poun~fion ~d w~l const'n ' ffr~ ~la; rubb~s~one fdna. ~uld be investigated for possible register potential? yes no __ Mtectural description (Note significant features of plan, structural system and interior and exterio~'"deco~tion, ~ng care to point out aspects not visible or clear from photographs. Explain nature and period of all alterations additions. List any outbuildings and their approximate ages, cemeteries, etc.) . Luke's ~Iiss£on Chapel is one oE the least altered and most highly decorated frame :s of its size in Albemarle. Built-in 1892, i~ is an eclectic structure incorporating s o£ :he Gothic, Queen Anne and S~ick styles. ,.e mos~ salient exterior feature oE the building is i~s pro.~ecting Eron~ gable ~,ith pierced arch. The rec'~angular one-Loom-plan main sanctuary is entered khrough a small vestibule ~N..~s into the sanctuary itself, aa well as ~rom ~he main Eacade. The front o~ chis 1,. Is capped by an extremely steep 8able roof, and i~ is entered through doub~e-leaE doors Eorminga pointed arch. A small, plain pyramidal-roofed belfry surmounted by a cross s~raddles ~he ridge o£ the church, and a vestry room ex~end$ from' the sou~h ~acade, Eonuing an ell ac ~he rear o[ the building. The church, buiL~ entirely in one n, res~s o[ rubbles~one foundations, lC is one o~ ~he few buildings of i~s period in beaded ~ea~h~board£ng, a ~ype bE ~heaching-nha~ ~enerally EelL in~o disuse aE~er il War. sade, ~he church retains nearly all i~s original Ei.~ings. A single aisle leads do~m ~he oE the sanc~t~ary no the chancel, which is sen o-if by a -' sed .~la~Eom and a communion rail. p pews are austere, wi~h Slighe-ly-slan~ing backs and fiat sea'Cs, buc ~he pew ends are .ad with shaped ~ops and railed-armrests. Like all ~he woodwork in the building, ~he pews ined ra~her than Painted, and sho~ little ~vidence o~ varnishing .or ocher surface .l-marchboard wainscotin~ ex~ends ~o window level chroughou~ nhe church; above ~his ~he ..re sheathed wi~h wh£~e plaster. n many local churches of ~he period, ~he sanctuary oE S~. Luke's is open to the roof. ,of consists of vertical roads resting on purlins; c.he purlins, in ~urn, ride on rafter supported by simple crossed ;fusses. Alt roof .,embers are ~s~ained ,.dark brown Like :Nor inspected? Yes. (continued).. _ ~oNcal signif]ca~ce"('Chain"of i'itle; individuaJs, families, even£s, cio., associated with the proper~y.) enclosed SVA report (no~ available vhen the above vas written) for history o£ the r,:hhu S't:. Luke's Chapel, 02-A78 ~ase 2. Albem. s. rle Com'tCy, Va. J.O., 3-82 . A~ch.~ desc.rip~ conc~d Erom V~LC ab.eec: Ti ~any- s Cy le Ail ~-ind~s concaln che£r original~polychrome gla~£ng sec in lead caress. The qualEcy o[ Cbis.8~ng i~ a~cn~ the ~es~ £~ ~he county, bu~ un[orCunaCely the glas~ has cracked and buckled En many places. 'BoOb ~eomeCric'and filers[ moCi~.s are ~ed, and the uh~ck~ '~.1chly-hued glass, disp~y~ ~ ~i/y ~ide Co[or ~nge. ~e ~nd~s ~elves a~ rather a~L~ and ~c~n~u~r in s~pe facades, being g~ouped [n pairs; small eing[e, wEn~avs occu= ac the front eE cbs church, and at ~e ~ck of the side._~l~c ~h~ge Obey light the chancel. A s~ll ~d ' ~O~ ~ wind~ is cenC~d in 'che~gab[e abo~e ~he vestibule. Perhaps the ~=osc inceres~£ng interior [c~aCures are ~he ~-En cho~ screens aC either side o~ the chance[. Abou~ ten [eec Ch£gh, Obey Cend co locus accencion on the al~ar ~rea, break£n~ che chancel in~o ~hree dSsCincC sections. ~e screens are strictly decorac2ve, consisCin~ oE a de~icaCe ...~o-bayed grame~ork v2ch pierce~ an~ curned members Sn the Goch£c style. Cupped round arches v~h p$erced cre~o£1s spr£nE each upper cross-member, echo£n~ the ~orm o[ the L~rge ~rEndo~ above che Nany ocher minor ~eatures o~ the church are aI~o original. These include the sitar cha£rs, ~J~e ~ec~urn, ~he bap~£~ma[ ~on~ near ~he ennry, and ~he h£ghly decorated pump. or,an. Early, ~[ no~ or£~ina~ kerosene chandeliers ~h~ ~he. ns.va, and soil1 heated by a Erees~and[n~ sCove--Chou~h ic burn~, gas rather ~han Note: The plan in the V~T survey is inaccurate. ~oreover, the building was hoc measured, as the scale would seem ~o i~plyo ATTACHMENT E Albemarle County Development De partments s P-1999-046 SPIN Submission and Comments St. Lukes Chapel Engineering application dated 6/15/99 revision 2 reviewer' received reviewed decision Glenn Brooks 7/8/99 8/24/99 The Engineering Department has the following comments regarding the comments from VDOT of 22 July 1999. These issues were discussed with Mr. John Berberich at his request on the site on 17 August 1999. A sketch (delivered separately) shows the sight lines discussed. Regarding the 4 comments from VDOT: 1 ) This consistent application of the commercial entrance standards is supported. 2) Shifting of the entrance east is not supported. This improvement would only marginally improve the sight distance to the curve on Rt. 53 (line 1 on sketch), while causig the building to block sight distance further back on Rt. 53 (line 2 on sketch). 3) Grading down the embankment at the corner of Rt. 53 is supported. It will improve sight distance considerably. The applicant has indicated that this area has rock outcroppings, and would be expensive to remove. 4) This is a re-statement of what has been said by the applicant. The following comments regarding the plan and description, originally provided on 27 July 1999 have not been addressed. These items can be addressed with a site plan or site plan waiver, or as special use permit conditions. 1. BMP facilities may be required. Preliminary computations as given in the interim design manual must be performed. BMP's must meet target removal rates. 3. Paving of the parking areas and travelways is required if the vehicle trips exceed 350 trips per week (3 services with 50 people is 300 trips). If 350 trips is not exceeded, the number must be noted on the plan. 4. The travelway and parking dimensions at the back of the proposed parish hall must meet the minimum dimensions given in the Zoning Ordinance (24' or 20' aisle widths, 9' or 10' wide spaces). 100' of site distance must be maintained around the building by offsetting the travelway. 'Minimum grades of. 5% must be maintained in parking areas, and 10% on the travelway. Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information. 8/24/99 03:08 PM Page 1 of I ATTACHMENT F COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 MeIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4012 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Elaine Echols, Senior Planner Margaret Pickart, Design Planner '-}a~ SP- 1999-046: St. Luke's Chapel, Simeon - Proposed Addition August 4, 1999 I have reviewed the Existing (dated 5/14/99) and Proposed (dated 6/8/99) Site Conditions plans and I have visited the site (although I have not seen the interior of the church). I can offer the following preliminary comments. · The church was constructed in 1892. It is mentioned in the "Historic Contexts for. Albemarle County" report (Garrow & Assoc. p. 89), and the site was surveyed as part ofa UVA class project. A copy of the UVA survey information is attached. The building appears to be a little-altered, well-maintained example of an eclectic style frame church. It is a significant historic resource. · When new uses are proposed for historic buildings, the following progression of alternatives is typically followed in an attempt to meet the new need. 1. Find a way to accommodate the use in the existing building. 2. If the use cannot be accommodated in the existing building, accommodate the use in a separate building, or ~n an addition that is separate from the building and that does not compromise the historic character of the building or site. 3. If a separate building is not available, build an addition on a wall of the historic building that is not readily visible from public view, ~n a manner that does not compromise the historic character of the building or site.' 4. Build an addition that is shielded from public view, in a manner that does not compromise the historic character of the building or site. From the brief discussions we have had, it seems that options 1 and 2 have been considered but are not feasible. Existing site conditions, namely the fact that Route 53 forms the boundary on the north and east sides of the site, prevent the construction of an addition that would not be visible to the public, as indicated in #3. And, the proposed position of the addition, with some possible minor adjustments, seems to be the best possible location. · The positioning of the addition at the back of the church, using a small "connector" to join the addition to the existing building, and maintaining distance between the addition and the main building are all positive features of the design. · The addition should be smaller than the main church in scale, height, and size, and should be subordinate in overall character. It is recommended that the north wall of the addition not extend beyond the north wall of the main church. · Placing the addition in the proposed location would necessitate the removal of the tree directly behind the church. This tree is a significant element in the landscape, as viewed from the north and west, and its removal would be a great loss. Planting additional trees is recommended to offset the loss of the tree and the negative impact of the expanded parking area. The rural character of the setting should be maintained. · The board fence should be retained. · · It is recommended that all changes to the property occur behind the church. Parking spaces 13, 14, and 15, if placed in front of the building, will negatively impact the front view of the church. These spaces would be better sited behind the church. It is recommended that they be relocated. · Materials of the additioh should be compatible with the materials of the main church. Wood siding of a width that matches the historic siding, painted white, would be appropriate for the walls. A stone foundation to match the original would' be preferred and would be the option with the greatest compatibility to the existing church. However, other options might be appropriate; for example, a concrete or stucco tinted to coordinate with the original stone. · The height of the addition and the form and material of the roof are critical to the compatibility between the addition and the existing building. The addition should not exceed the height of the main building. It is anticipated that a roof with a pitch similar to that of the main building will be appropriate. · The detailing of the addition should be compatible with the detailing of the original building. For example, the windows will be an important element of the design. · It would be best if the addition were not visible from the front of the property. · I would be happy to review and provide comments on elevations of the proposed addition when they are available. For your information, I provide the following list of general guidelines for constructing additions to historic buildings: · Minimize the loss of historic material. · Design additions so that it is clear what is hi'storic and what is not. · Additions should not clash or visually overwhelm the historic structhre. · Construct additions so that their removal will not harm the historic form or integrity 6fthe building. · Build additions so that walls of historic buildings that face the street are not hidden, damaged, or destroyed. · Avoid duplicating·the appearance of the original building. · Avoid using materials or details that draw attention away from the historic building. Use traditional materials that are compatible with the historic building. · Additions should incorporate massing ~echniques used in the historic building. Using the dominant roof shape and pitch can increase compatibility. · The height and width of an addition should not exceed that of the historic building. · Windows and doors in the addition should relate in size, shape, scale, and proportion to original openings in the existing building. · Additions should maintain the proportions and profile of the original building. Please note that these comments are preliminary staff comments based on the site plans submitted for review of the Special Use Permit. Because the property is within the Route 53 Entrance Corridor, review and approval by the Architectural Review Board will be required. The focus of the review will be to insure that the proposed development is compatible with the architecture of the historic church, the site, and the surrounding area, and to promote orderly and attractive development along the Route 53 Entrance Corridor. July 22, 1999 Mr. David Benish Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 August Public Hearing Submittals Dear Mr. Benish: Please find our comments for the August public hearings listed below: SP-99-46 St. Luke's Chapel, Route 53 Our comments reflect those expressed in a letter from VDOT to the applicant dated January 4, 1999, regarding this proposed improvement. · We recommend that the existing entrance be upgraded to a minimum commercial entrance, which is 30 foot width at ROW line and paved within ROW. · The entrance should be shifted easterly as much as the property allows to enhance sight distance to the west. · The embankment to the west of the entrance should be graded down as much as is feasible to also enhance sight distance. · It is our understanding that this additional building is not for the sole purpose of enlarging the congregation, but to allow the existing membership to have better meeting facilities for fellowship, etc. SP-99-47 3D Studio Expansion, Route 641 · Sight distance to the east along Route 641 does not meet commercial entrance standards.. We recommend that sight distance from driveway to the east along Route 641 be improved by lowering mound of dirt near property line. · We recommend that the driveway entrance be widened to private entrance standards, as it is about 10-12 feet wide at the road and about 8 feet along most of it's length. SP-99-48 Emmanuel Episcopal Church, Route 250W · The existing entrance width will require widening to a width of 18' at 25' from the edge of pavement of Route 250. The 18' should taper down to the existing width near the rock pillars. The radii should be improved to 25' as indicated on recently submitted site plans. SP-99-49 Winndom Farm Bridge, Route 676 No comment at this time with existing RA use. SP-99-52 White Gables Condominium, Route 250W · A full. frontage fight mm.lane is required along Route 250. · In order to provide protected left turn movements into the site, and help the left mm out movement, the applicant is required to modify pavement markings along Route 250 between Birdwood and the nearby commercial left tum lane to the east to provide a continuous mixed use left mm lane. ZMA-99-02 Value America, Route 29N COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGEN DA TITLE: Ashcroff PRD Phase 6 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 99-01 ) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, to change the existing land use designation for property consisting of approximately 20 acres from Rural Area to Neighborhood Density Residential, and to change the existing land use designation on adjacent property consisting of approximately 17 acres from Neighborhood Density Residential to Rural Area. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 51A, lies within Ashcroft PRD (Planned Residential Development), AGENDA DATE: October 20, 1999 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: IN FORMATION: in the Rivanna Magisterial District, and is located on the REVIEWED BY: north side of Route 250 East (Richmond Road), off Hansen's MOuntain ROad (F'179)' I I Messrs. Tucker, C I mberg, Ben sh; Ms. Thomas '1 / ~, v ,, . ~ACKGROUND: At the meeting of February 17, 1999, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning for Ashcroft PRD which essentially transposed the land use designations north and south of the power line crossing Lego Drive. The property north of the power line (approximately 20 acres) is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan; this has now been rezoned PRD and consists of lots ranging in size from 0.918 to 1.182 acres. A redesignation to Neighborhood Density Residential is proposed with this application. The property south of the power line (approximately 17 acres) is designated Neighborhood Density Residential; this has been rezoned to PRD as a single lot. Staff recommended approval of the rezoning re(;uest on the basis of several factors: the "exchange" allowed the new lots to become and appear to be part of Ashcroft Subdivision; the proposed lot size is consistent with Ashcroff, and the single 17-acre lot is consistent with others on Hansen's Mountain Road; Locust Shade, a property which has been surveyed and is potentially eligible for the historic register, will be less impacted by one large lot adjacent to it than numerous small lots; with development of the property designated Neighborhood Density Residential, it would have been hard to justify retention of Rural Area between it and the Ashcroft boundary. DISCUSSION: With approval of the rezoning, the Board adopted a resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan to modify the Development Area boundary for Neighborhood Three. The original intention was to include the appropriate text and map changes in the next update of the Comprehensive Plan; however, the applicant has submitted a Jurisdictional Area Amendment request for water service to the rezoned property, and the Board indicated that it wishes to adopt revised Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan language concurrent with the Jurisdictional Area Amendment. (Since the rezoned property has been admitted to the Development Area, it is eligible for public water and sewer.) Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission held a public hearing October 12, 1999 to consider the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and recommended approval with adoption of the following text, to be added to the "Recommendations" section of the Neighborhood Three (Pantops) profile: That portion of the Ashcroft Planned Residential Development located immediately south of the VEPCO high voltage overhead transmission line and west of Lego Drive (consisting of 17.884 acres) does not lie within the DevelOpment Area and shall be maintained as one parcel. Because of its location adjacent to a sbrveyed property (Locust Shade) which is eligible for the historic register, it is to remain rural in character and usage other than for agricultural purposes is discouraged. AGENDA TITLE: Ashcroft PRD Phase 6 Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA 99-01) October 20, 1999 Page 2 The "Location" section of the Neighborhood Three Profile will also be amended to reflect the new boundary, as follows (shown in bold font): Pantops is bounded on the east by the 600 foot elevation of the Southwest Mountains, the power line south of Ashcroff, and Lego Drive (excluding the property consisting of approximately 17 acres located at the northwest corner of Hansen's Mountain Road and Lego Drive), on the south by Interstate 64, on the west by the Rivanna River and on the north by Key West and Franklin Subdivisions. Staff further suggested (and the Planning Commission recommended) adding a note clarifying the status of the Ashcroff PRD (specifically Phase 6) with respect to water service, as follows (shown in bold): Utility improvements include: The approved sections of Ashcroft PRD (Planned Residential Development) are eligible for provision of water by the Albemarle County Service Authority. 99.192 Attachments: A- 2/17/99 BOS minutes B - Location Map C - Revised Land Use Map Albemarle County Planning Commission October 12, 1999 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, October 5, 1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley, Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. William Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Senior Planner; Ms. Margaret Pickart, Design Planner; Mr. Greg Karnptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Hilda Lee-Washington, Vice- Chairman. Approval of Minutes The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the minutes of August 17th, August 24th and September 21 st as amended. Matters not listed on the agenda None were offered, and the meeting proceeded. Deferred Items CPA 99-01 Ashcroft Phase 6 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, to change the existing land use designation for property consisting of approximately 20 acres from Rural Area to Neighborhood Density Residential, and to change the existing land use designation on adjacent property consisting of approximately 17 acres from Neighborhood Density Residential to Rural Area. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 51 A, lies within Ashcroft PRD (Planned Residential Development), in the Rivanna Magisterial District, and is located on the north side of Route 250 East (Richmond Road), off Hansen's Mountain Road (F-179). Deferred from the Oct, ober~5, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, noting that the applicant came forward with a request to add the area into the jurisdictional area for water service. Ms. Thomas said that this action is the final step in amending the Comprehensive Plan, and has already been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter wag placed before the Commission. Mr. Loewenstein commented that the switch is appropriate for the reasons outlined in the staff report, and also because it will protect historic property adjacent to what would be created as Rural Area. MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of CPA 99-01 as presented. The motion passed unanimously. r~r~ ^ r>~ n~ qt TPFRVI,q('~R~ 171 ............. ~ ....... A~I~ACHMENT A February 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that 1, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervi- sors, do hereby commend all eligibility workers in the County of Albemarle for a job well done and recognize the week of February 22 through February 26, 1999, as ELIGIBILITY WORKER APPRECIATION VVEEK and call upon all County residents to join in acknowledging their public service and contributions on this 17th day of February, 1999. Item No. 5.4. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for January 26, 1999, was received for information. Item No. 5.5. 1998 Fourth Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for information. Item No. 5.6, 1998 Year End Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for information. Item No. 5.7, Minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Authority Board for December 10, 1999, were received for information. Item No. 5.8. Electricity Restructuring in the Commonwealth of Virginia, as prepared by the Virginia, Maryland and Delaware Association of Electric Cooperatives, was received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-98-17. Ashcroff Phase 6 (Sign #75). Public Hearing on a re(luest to rezone approx 37 acs from RA to PRD. Loc on N side of 1-64 frontage road. F-179. (Hansen's Mountain Rd). TM78, P51A. Site includes area recom for Neighborhood Density Residential (3-6 du/ac) in Neighborhood 3 & area recom for RA, .Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 1 and 8, 1999.) Mr, Benish summarized the staff report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff recommends approval of the request based on the analysis of the project for compliance with § 8.5,4 and review of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission, at its January 26, 1999 meeting, by a vote of four-to-two, recommended approval of ZMA-98-17. Ms. Humphris said she wished staff had better assembled and labeled the maps. She also said staff dida poor job of posting signs in the area; adding that there were no. signs posted on Lego Drive. Mr. Davis said there had been a p6sting irregularity regarding the rezoning. The area had been properly posted fo~ the November 10, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, and then the item was deferred. At that time, the signswere removed. On January 26, 1999, when the item was heard by the Commission, the 'site was not posted, but it was correctly reposted for the Board of Supervisors meeting. The Zoning Ordinance states that if the Board of Supervisors finds that the posting irregularity denied the public reasonable notice, it can defer the item until the site is adequately posted. Planning staff felt that reasonable notice has been given to the public, and Mr. Benish noted that the homeowners association was well aware of the public hearing.. Ms. Humphris asked where the signs would have been posted. Mr. Benish said signs would have been posted where they would have been noticed by the public. Ms. Humphris said signs should have been posted on Lego Ddve, due to the high traffic volume on that road. Mr. Bowerman said staff felt this item met the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. They feet that. due to the unique situation on this historic property, plus other factors, this was an appropriate use. Ms. Humphds noted that one would pass two histodc houses before reaching Lego Drive. Ms. Thomas said the recommended action would not fully protect the house in the rural area. Ms. Humphris added there is nothing to prevent the remaining 17 acres from being rezoned. Therefore, if the Board accepts the plan, it should be done in a way that will protect potentially historically designated property, by modifying the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Humphris asked about the water situation. Mr. Benish said the development would be on the Ashcroft water system. Ms, Thomas asked the applicant for comments, Mr. Rick Beyer, representing the applicant. 'said the property is elevated, so water is pumped to the tod of the deveiooment by ihe Rivanna W'a['er and Service Authority. Residents I~ave enjoyed February 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) horseback riding for years, so when the property went on the market, the residents formed a committee to look into purchasing the property, which could be zoned up to R-6. Although residents want to protect the property values in the Ashcroff Subdivision, the neighborhood association could not get a consensus to buy the farm. If he purchases the farm, Mr. Beyer said he hopes to leave 17 acres to act as a bumper where horses can pasture. The upper portion of the development is 50 to 60 percent wooded, so most houses would be hidden in the woods: He said the neighborhood association supports this action. Mr. Bowerman commended Mr. Beyer for preserving trees during construction, which has resulted in a benign visual aspect, considering the size of the subdivision. Mr. Beyer said residents want to have good views, while leaving as many trees as possible. He hopes to maintain control of the colors' houses can be painted, as well as the styles of lights that will be permitted, in an attempt to make them less visible, Ms. Humphris asked where horses would be pastured, if the subdivision is approved. Pointing to the map to show the proposed area, Mr. Beyer said he hopes to build the homes above the power line for now. He may later re-petition to give up some of the upper lots and move them to the lower 'area, in order to end up with more pasture land. · Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, Ms. Thomas then closed the public headng. Mr. Perkins asked if the development wouid be served by private septic systems. Mr. Beyer replied, 'Yes.' Ms. Humphris said she was concerned about the future of the 17-acre lot, but felt this was the best thing the Board could do at this time. Mr. Bowerman said it is important to acknowledge the neighborhood association's role and participation in this matter. Ms. Thomas said she was worried any time a rezoning precedes amending the Comprehensive Plan. This is a small item, but it could set a dangerous precedent. She suggested that, if the Board approves the request, the motion should include the factors that staff found to be favorable. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms, Humphris, to approve ZMA-98-17, to include specific points made by staff as to justifications for the recommendation. Roll was called and the motion carded by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman. None. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. Staff justification includes the following statements: The distribution of lots as proposed by the applicant essentially allows the lots to become part of and appear to be a part of the existing Ashcroft development: The lot sizes proposed for the smaller lots are consistent with the adjacent lot sizes in Ashcroft. The single 17 acre parcel proposed south of the power line is consistent with the lot sizes south of the power line and east of Lego Drive; Retention of a single large parcel south of the power line will tend to have less of an impact on a Locust Shade which has been surveyed and noted as potentially register eligible; Retention of a Rural Area at the intersection, as opposed to a subdivision at the intersec- tion on Hansen's Mountain Road and Lego Drive will help to preserve the rural character of the area including the entrance to Ashcroff and areas on Hansen's Mountain Road east of Lego Drive; If the area south of the power line were to be developed in accordance with the existing Comprehensive Plan (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre) it would likely be difficult to justify retention of a Rural Area between such a development and the existing Ashcroff develop- merit; and 6. The area south of the power line can be reasonably used for agriculture based on its size and an analysis of the soils on the property. . _ /~. Perkins offered the motion seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Comorehensive Plan to modify the Development Area boundary for Urban Area neighborhood 3 to reflect the development plan as approyed in the zoning action for ZMA-98-17, Ashcroff Phase 6 (PRD). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: February 17, 1999 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. The resolution of intent is as follows: RESOLUTION OF INTENT BE IT RESOLVED for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare,'and good zoning practice, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan to modify the Development Area boundary for Urban Area Neighborhood 3 to reflect the development plan as approved in the zoning action for ZMA-98-17, Ashcroff Phase 6 PRD. FURTH~ER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing on .,Jthis resolution of [g~nt, and to return its recommendations to this Board at the earliest possible date. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on FY 1999/2000-FY 2003/2004 Capital Improvements Program. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 14 and 16, 1999.) Mr. Tucker summarized the Capital Improvement Program. At the February 3, 1999 Capital Improvement Program (ClPI work session, the Board approved adding three projects to the proposed FY 1999/2000 - FY 2003/2004 ClP: the juvenile courthouse at $15.0 million, the public safety facility at $4.63 million and the urban gymnasium at $1.53 million. Although the specifics of the bond referendum. which included projects, financing, time frame, etc., will come back to the Board at a later time for review and approval, the proposed FY 199912000- FY 2003/2004 ClP includes $21.13 million in offsetting revenues from an intended bond referendum in FY 2001. Staff provided spread sheets for the public hearing. The first one listed all the proposed projects for General Government, the Tourism and Stormwater Funds and the School CIP Fund. Changes from the recommended CIP were highlighted. A Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) project had been added for $37,236, which represented the County's required contribution to the renovation of PVCC's main academic building. This request was submitted along with PVCC's operating budget request, and was funded with additional operating revenues transferred to the CIP. The second spreadsheet showed the total available revenues broken down into the four major funds. The Board's FY 1999/2000 - F'{' 2003/2004 CIP totaled $82.162 million dollars; $44.695 million in School ClP fund projects and $36.911 million in General Government projects. Mr. Tucker provided a handout that will be distributed to the public, which listed ail general government and school division projects, their costs, and the years in which the projects will be com- pleted. Mr. TuCker advised the Board this information was provided for the public hearing and did not require any action at this time. Final approval of the FY 1999/2000 - FY 200312004 CIP and adoption of the FY 1999/2000 CIP budget is scheduled for Apdl 14, 1999, in conjunction'with approval of the FY 1999/2000 Operating Budget. Ms. White said a review of the General Government Fund showed an increase due to the Juvenile Courthouse in FY 2002 and FY 2003, and the Urban Gym in FY 2003 and FY 2004. Within General Government-- Administration/Courts, the largest expense is $15.0 for the Juvenile Courthouse, for a total of $19.379 million. The major Public Safety project is the public safety facility, at $4.63 million, for a total of $9.521 million. The largest expense under Highway and Transportation projects is revenue sharing/traffic calming, at $2.2 million, for a total of $2.841 million. The only major Library project is upgrading computers. Major Parks and Recreation projects include athletic field development at $759,000 million, the Crozet Park Fields at $0.49 million, the Ivy Landfill Recreation area at $0.30 million, the Southern Albemarle Park at $0.20 million, and the urban area gym. at $1.53 million. Ms. White also noted a new project, PVCC Facility Renovation, at$37,000, previously described by Mr. Tucker. Ms. Thomas asked if this provided the County leverage on controlling the lights at PVCC. Ms. VVhite replied,."No." Ms. White then summarized how the $36.91 million would be funded. The General Fund transfer totals $12.75 million, borrowed funds total $22.59 million, including $21.0 million for the Courthouse, Public Safety Facility, Urban Gym, $1.5 million for the Juvenile Detention Facility, and $0.23 for Courthouse maintenance funds. 9 ALBEMARLE COUNTY 6~ ZMA 98-17 Ashcroft Phase 6 MONTICELLO · : 2~..., __.,, ,./ ~... _. ---~ ~T~ ~'~,' ,-' ~ ~--- ) j ' .:~" ,~. ~'~' ~./ ¢',, . ./ ,' - '/,/ i ...,-'~ ~.~ ~ '~/ 9~ '~'~ - "" SCOTTSVILLE AND ATTACHMENT B SEC ,~0~ 7~. "2 RURAL AREA SECTION ATTA~ ~¥~BNT C 8 MONTICE[ 0 LOOP MAP B URBAN NEIGBORHOOB 0 11 O0 2200 I1/12/% HAND DELIVERY ATWOOD ARCHITECTS INC. 13 October 1999 Ms. Ella Carey County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re~ Virginia Oil - Crozet Convenience Center SDP-99 Dear Ms. Carey: Please be advised that we wish to appeal to the Board of Supervisors the following items regarding the Crozet Convenience Center, SDP-99: 1. The Architectural Review Board's decision to remove four (4) soffit lights. The Planning Commission's denial of our waiver request on light spillage in excess of .5 footcandles. We will provide supporting information under separate cover. WHAfss cc: Frayser White, Virginia Oil Company Architect BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1001 Wrayswood Circle Greensboro, GA 30642 (706) 467-3002 700 Harris Street, Suite 102 Charlottesville, VA 22903 (804) 971-7202 Fax (804) 295~2413 17 College Street, Suite C Greenville, SC 29601 (864) 421-0841 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Crozet Convenience Center SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Appeals of ARB and Planning Commission decisions on lighting STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Pickart AGENDA DATE: October 20, 1999 ACTION: Yes CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY: The applicant is appealing two decisions: 1) a 10/4/99 decision by the Architectural Review Board and 2) a 10/12/99 decision by the Planning C~)mmission. Following final ARB review and approval with conditions of a plan for the Crozet Convenience Center, the applicant made revisions to the design of the building and site and returned to the ARB for approval of the revisions on 10/4/99. One of the revisions was the addition of 14 lights to be flush mounted in the soffit that encircles the top of the building. The ARB has consistently not approved the lighting of buildings unless the lighting is for safety or security purposes. The ARB has consistently not approved building lights that would appear as an illuminated band around the building, or that would illuminate the building in such a way as to act like a sign. Due to the location of parking spaces, expected paths of pedestrian travel, and the level of light provided under the canopy, staff recommended that the 4 soffit lights closest to the canopy be eliminated from the design. This would provide for lighting in areas where safety' might be a concern, and would remove lights that are unnecessary due to the provision of other lights nearby. The ARB approved the revision to the design with the condition that the 4 soffit ights be deleted from the plan. The applicant is appealing this decision. The staff report, action letter, and minutes from the 10/4/99 ARB meeting are included as Attachments A, B, and C. Attachment D identifies the 4 soffit lights in question. The applicant submitted a final site plan for the Crozet Convenience Center for review and approval. The photometric plan shows lighting spillover that exceeds the 0.5 foot candle limit. Section 4.17.5 of the Zoning Ordinance provides for a waiver of this lighting requirement and the applicant's request was reviewed by the Planning Commission on 10/12/99. Final approval of the site plan cannot be granted without resolution of the spillover issue. The applicant's justification for the request is that pedestrian and traffic safety issues would be reduced by the additional spillover. (The applicant may provide additional supporting information as part of this appeal.) Staff recommended that initial lighting spillover should be maintained at 0.5 foot candles or less, based on the finding that the lighting would have a negative impact on the general welfare and that pedestrian and traffic safety issues would be ~3etter addressed by off- site improvements. The Planning Commission denied the waiver request. The staff report for the 10/12/99 PC meeting is Attachment E. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) By ARB action, it is recommended that the 4 soffit lights identified in the sketch (Attachment D) be deleted from the plan. 2) By Planning Commission action, it is recommended that the waiver request be denied. 99.193 Attachments: A- Staff report for the 10/4/99 ARB review for revisions including soffit lighting B - Action letter from the 10/4/99 ARB review for revisions including soffit lighting C - Minutes from the 10/4/99 ARB review for revisions including soffit lighting D - Sketch showing 4 soffit lights recommended to be deleted from the plan E - Staff Report for the Planning Commission 10/12/99 review of the waiver request ATTACHMENT A ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT PAGE 1 APPLICATION ~NAME: CROZET CONVENIENCE CENTER/VIRGINIA OIL APPLICATION TYPE: FINAL SDP - REVISION FOR SOFFIT LIGHTING & WALL SIGN Project # AKB-F(SDP)-99-48 (cont.) Location Northeast comer of intersection of Rt. 810, Rt. 240, and Rt. 788 in Crozet (1248 Crozet Avenue) Parcel Identification Tax Map 56AI, Parcel 124 Zoned Commercial (C 1) and Entrance Corridor (EC) Magisterial District White Hall Proposal Add soffit lighting around the building and install a channel letter wall sign instead of an externally illuminated wall sign. Request for a waiver of the spillover requirement from the PC. ARB Meeting Date October 4, 1999 Date of Staff Review September 28, 1999 Staff Contact Margaret Pickart PROJECT HISTORY The preliminary review for this project was conducted on May 3, 1999. The final review was held on June 21, 1999 and the ARB took the following action: The board unanimously approved a final Certificate of Appropriateness pending staff administrative approval of the following: 1. Reconsider the position of the Dairy Queen sign on the canopy, and its method of illumination. 2. Reconsider the method of illumination of the wall sign. Traditional style exterior illumination, such as shielded gooseneck lamps attached to the wall, would be more appropriate and more compatible with the style of the building than would internal illumination. 3. For signs that are internally illuminated, only the message portion of-the sign shall be illuminated. 4.Please note that. all signage must be coordinated with the Zoning Department. ARB 10/4/99 Crozet Convenience Store Final - revisions for soffit lights, new wall sign, comment on spill - Page 1 ATTq. CHMENT A PAGE 2 PROPOSAL Since the final review, the following changes tO the plan have been proposed: 1. 14 lights are proposed under the soffit on the northeast and south sides of the building. Fixtures are located approximately 9' apart. The proposed fixtures are recessed 175-watt metal halide units. The photometric plan shows that each fixture emits approximately 20-25 footcandles (at grade). The applicant has indicated that the soffit lights are necessary due to the location of parking spaces and the need for lighting for safe pedestrian travel. 2. The level of illumination of the canopy lights has been somewhat intensified. The plan submitted for review on June 21 showed lighting levels under the canopy ranging from 45.6 to 82.2 footcandles using fifteen 400-watt super metal halide fixtures. The current plan shows lighting levels from 59 to 90.9 footcandles. 3. The applicant has applied to the Planning Commission for a waiver of the lighting spillover requirement. Spillover exceeds .5 footcandles at the entrances to the site. Spillover reaches 3.2 footcandles on the southeast side and 1.1 footcandles on the southwest side. The applicant has indicated that the spillover is necessary for pedestrian and traffic safety, noting the "crossroads" intersection and the adjacency to the elevated raikoad track and runnel. 4. A different wall sign is being proposed. The previous sign was an externally illuminated wall sign. The new sign is a red channel letter sign reading "Dairy Queen." It would be installed on the stucco panel surrounded by a brick border. The overall sign is approximately 6'6" long and 4' high. 5. Planting areas previously shown on the northeast and southeast sides of the building have been changed to sidewalks. ANALYSIS 1. Soffit Lights: · The ARB has generally not approved lights that illuminate a building unless the lights are for safety or security purposes. The ARB has attempted to eliminate building lights that would result in the appearance of an illuminated band around a building and that would illuminate the building in such a way as to act like a sign. · A representative of the inspections department has reviewed the proposal and indicated that the soffit lights would not be considered an attempt to "outline the building." (reference section 4.15.06.g of the zoning ordinance) · The proposed lights would be recessed in the soffit and would illuminate the sidewalk that surrounds the building on all but the northwest side. Illumination of sidewalk areas is generally acceptable. However, the number of soffit lights proposed would likely result in the appearance of an illuminated band around the building. · Visibility of lights from the EC would be less on the northeast side of the building, where a majority of the parking is located and where spill from the canopy lights would be more limited, than on the other sides of the building. Spill from the canopy lights is expected to help illuminate the southern side of the building and the travelway in that area. · Reducing the number of lights proposed would lessen the impact of the proposed lighting and would still allow lighting for security purposes. 2. Canopy Lights: The ordinance has no provisions for the regulation of level of illumination ARB 10/4/99 Crozet Convenience Store Final - revisions for soffit lights, new wall sign, comment on spill - Page 2 ATTACHMENT A PAGE 3 beyond the spillover and shielding requirements. However, for purposes of comparison, it may be noted that the proposed canopy lighting levels are comparable to the level of light emitted at the Texaco station on Route 29 North at Greenbrier Drive. 3. Spillover: The ARB may provide a recommendation to the Planning COmmission on the spillover waiver request. The ARB guidelines state "Light should be contained on the site and not spill over onto adjacent properties or streets." Based on the ARB guidelines, staff recommends that the spillover meet the .5 footcandle requirement. 4. Wall Sign: Although an externally illuminated wall sign is more in keeping with the character of the proposed building, the proposed channel letter sign appears to be of an appropriate scale and would not overpower the appearance of the building. 5. Sidewalks: The final landscape and site plans must be coordinated. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the following: 1) Delete the 4 soffit lights shown on the southern side of the building. 2) The ARB should recommend to the Planning Commission that the lighting spillover levels be limited to .5 footcandles. 3) Approval of the channel letter wall sign. 4) The landscape plan must be revised to coordinate with the site plan regarding the sidewalks and planting areas. 5) The applicant should be aware that the note on the lighting plan sheet that reads "Maintained footcandle values at grade, using a .72 maintenance factor" indicates that the footcandle readings that will be initially measured in the field will be greater than those shown on the plan, which will likely lead to difficulties in obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. ARB 10/4/99 Crozet Convenience Store Final - revisions for soffit lights, new wall sign, comment on spill - Page 3 · ATTACHMENT PAGE 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 October 5, 1999 Bill Atwood Atwood Architects 700 Harris Street, Suite 102 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: ARB-F(SDP)-99-48: Crozet Convenience Center - Revision for Soffit Lighting and Wall Sign Dear Mr. Atwood: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday, October 5, 1999. The board approved the request, by a vote of 3 to' 1, subject to the following conditions: 1. Delete the 4 soffit lights shown on the southern side of the building. (These include the 2 lights on either side of the canopy.) 2. Approval of the channel letter wall sign as presented. 3. The landscape plan and site plan shall be coordinated regarding sidewalks and planting areas. As part of the same action, the ARB voted 3 to 1, to send the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: · The lighting spillover levels at this site should be limited to .5 footcandles. In addition, the ARB provided the applicant with the following information: · The applicant should be aware that the note on the lighting plan sheet that reads "Maintained footcandle values at ~ade, using a .72 maintenance factor" indicates that the footcandle readings that will be initially measured in the field will be ~eater than those shown on the plan, which will likely lead to difficulties in obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. ATTACHMENT B Please provide a revised photometric plan that meets condition #1, above. received, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issUed. PAGE 2 When that plan is Any person ag~m-ieved by any decision of the architectural review board may demand a review of the application by the board of supervisors. Such demand shall be made by filing a request in writing with the clerk of. the board of supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of the date of such decision. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Pickart Design Planner FAX [804) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALR~MAR! F_ Depazb;,ent of Bu/ldinfl Code and ~ning Se~ic~ ~1 Mdn~ Road. Room ~7 Charlotte, ~nia ~902~596 ~ ~HONE {~) 29~5~2 ATTACHMENT E TTD (804) 972.40'~~ MEMORAND b2Vl TO: Margaret Pickart, Design Planner FROM: Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning AdministratiorT'~-~ DATE: 10104/99 RE: Request for Relief on the Light Spiilover VA Oil - Crozet Convenience Center Lighting on any size ks antidpated to light only, the svecific ske - not the nearby street, sidewalk or public roads including runnels. If there is a problem with safety in those areas, there are ocher methods available for addressing off-site issues. In our opinion, there is neither a hardship nor a special Circumsraace which a waiver or modification would resolve in chis case. This department frequendy has to deal with complaints involving Oare and lights that are blinding to motomts. Since rhk site has one entrance direcdy across from the stop sign on Rt. 240 where the visibility is already limited in both directions, .allowing more spillover onto the road may creaze one more obstacle for motorists and more complaints for zoning. In our opinion, granting a waiver or modification would be a special privilege for rhk applicant To inst~ equitable enforcement of the lighting ordinance, the zoning department recommends denial of this request. RECEIVED pLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ARB-F(SDP)-99-48 Crozet Convenience (Soffit Lightin~o) - Review of changes to the final plan including the addition of soffit lighting and the installation of a channel' letter wall sign instead of an externally illuminated wall sign; and a request for a recommendation to the Planning Commission on a request for a waiver of the lighting spillover requirement. Ms. Pickart presented the staff report, noting the following: · The preliminary review for this project was conducted on May 3, 1999. The final review was held on June 21, 1999 and the ARB approved the application pending staff approval of a few conditions. · Staff did not grant final approval and changes to the plan have been proposed. · Changes include: Soffit lights, a new wall sign, and change from planting beds to sidewalks. · The applicant has applied for a waiver of the lighting spillover requirement. · ARB action is required on the soffit lights and the wall sign. And comment to the PC is requested on the waiver request. ARB Minutes for October 4, 1999 - Page 2 ATTACHMENT C · For the soffit lights, staff notes that the ARB has consistently not approved this Wpe of lighting unless it is for safety or security pu~oses and recommends that the 4' lights on the south side be deleted from the proposal. This area woUld receive spillover from the canopy lights, which reach 90.9 foot candles. · For the waiver, staff recommends that the ARB recommend to the PC that the lighting spillover levels be limited to .5 foot candles. The ARB guidelines are clear in that light should be contained on the site. · Site plan and landscape plans must be coordinated. · Note the maintenance factor note on the lighting plan. This indicates that initial light levels will exceed the levels shown on the plan by 28%. Bill Atwood stated that more light is needed at the site. He stated that he agreed with the sign recommendation, that he has no problem with recommendation #4 "the landscape plan must be revised to coordinate witi~ the site plan regarding the sidewalks and planting areas". He noted his concern with recommendation #5 "the applicant should be aware that the note on the lighting plan sheet that reads: "Maintained footcandle values at grade, using a .72 maintenance factor" indicates that the footcandle readings that will be initially measured in the field will be greater than those shown on the plan, which will likely lead to difficulties in obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy." He added that, in his opinion, the note means you have to crank up the numbers. Mr. Michel questioned the need for soffit lights and Mr. Beverly asked how bright the applicant thought the lights needed to be. Mr. Atwood responded by asking how bright was the lighting in the Board room. Mr. Beverly noted that the entrance was well illuminated by the canopy and asked if the previously proposed lighting was sufficient. Mr. Atwood stated that he did not know that soffit lighting was "part of the ball game." Ms. Joseph asked if it would be possible to see the source of the soffit lighting. Mr. Atwood responded "no". Ms. Joseph added that there was spillover on the north side of the site. She also noted that there was not a lot of light in Crozet presently. A contrast will be created, pointing out that going from bright to dark was not good. The Board is concerned about the brightness of the lights as well as the soffit lights. No other lights in the area shine this bright. Mr. Atwood stated that the soffit lighting won't appear that bright because the brick wall will absorb the light. Mr. Michel stated that he could accept the spillover, although he did not want the building lit up on all sides. He questioned the need to wash the entire building with light. ARB Minutes for October 4, 1999 - Page 3 ATTACHMENT C ; Mr. Kessler stated that he could support all recommendations outlined in the staff report, noting that staff recommended approval of all but four soffit lights in the vicinity of the canopy. He noted the issue of safety and stated that the sidewalk should be lit. He also noted that Mr. Atwood referred to the mount of spillover as "insignificant" and added that the ARB has always done its best to support no spillover. He did not feel the spillover should exceed the .5 footcandle limit. Ms. Joseph noted that the pole lights will be 12' tall. She stated that she felt the soffit lights would create a ring of light around the building; however, the impact would be minimized due to excess light on the site. The entire site will be very bright. She referenced IES standards for lighting, noting that 20 footcandles is the standard for illuminating a statue or monument. She added that the parking lot is bright, but within the IES standards. Frayser White interjected that the site would not be as bright as the board was suggesting, noting that it would be less than half as bright as their Pantops location the day it opened. Ms. Joseph stated that she could support Mr. Kessler's statement. Mr. Kessler asked for clarification of Mr. Atwood's comment that the Zoning Department required that the pole lights be positioned at the perimeter of the site. It was clarified that the County requires a certain number of parking spaces but does not designate required locations for lights. Mr. Beverly noted the concerns regarding safety on the site, but stated that he was not sure that the soffit lights would provide for safety. He stated that he supports staffs recommendation #1 and #2 "the ARB should recommend to the Planning Commission that the lighting spillover levels be limited to .5 footcandles". He stated that the ARB needs to stay consistent on the .5 footcandle spillover. He stated that a photometric plan showing lighting levels on day one should be submitted. He said that he doesn't want so much light that it is a distraction. He added that note #5 was meant as a warning. Mr. Kessler moved for approval of the changes to the final plan including the addition of soffit lighting and the installation of a channel letter wall sign instead of an externally illuminated wall sign; and a request for a recommendation to the Planning Commission on a request for a waiver of the lighting spillover requirement. The Board approved the changes, by a vote of 3 to 1, with the following conditions: I. Delete the 4 soffit lights shown on the southern side of the building. -(These include the 2 lights on either side of the canopy.) 2. The ARB should recommend to the Planning Commission that the lighting spillover levels be limited to .5 footcandles. 3. Approval of the channel letter wall sign as presented. 4. The landscape plan and site plan shall be coordinated regarding the sidewalks and planting areas. ARB Minutes for October 4, 1999 - Page 4 ATTACHMENT C The applicant should be aware that the note on the lighting plan sheet that reads "Maintained footcandle values at grade, using a .72 maintenance factor" indicates that the footcandle readings that will be initially measured in the field will be greater than those shown on the plan, which will likely lead to difficulties in obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Beverly seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 3-I, with Mr. Michel voting against the motion. 0 0 0 0 ,1 A .I ,1 .I ,1 .8 .3 ,4 ,9 ~ 3.4 ,4 ,6 2.~ ~2 15 19 1~.3 11 1.8 8,4 5 4.4 1,4 2,1 2,6 2.6 2,9 3,9 4.7 3.6 7 12,6 10.~ 7 20.2 2.5 ~ 11.5 B\ 1.5 4~. 1,6 · 1 .l .1 ,1 . .1 .1 0 0 ,1 ,8 .3 .3 ,3 0 0 0 · 8 ,4 .7 1.1 .9 0 0 0 0 ,8 8 4,8 0 9----- n_ ,, - J ,3 2,4 ,3 4.2 6.7 1 .6 C 17 11,5 . 14.2 9.4 3,8 6.8 14,9 45.4//"~4.4 g~,~ Z9,4 80,6 ~.5 41.8 aO,3 11.9 9.4 6.1 4,3 5.3 18,8 18,6 17.3 13 4.9 6,7 14,3 16,6 18,9 11,3 4,8 4 5 6.2 C 4.9 C C L6 C C [] 17,7 25,9 8,4 5.6 4.1 / . 9,7 ~2,~ 3 59 37.7 18.5 8,6 ~,4 2,5 1.5 1,2 1.~ 1.3 7,5 3 8.5 1.7 9,2 3,3 2 1.3 9.6 3,9 3,4 3,3 9,7 7,1 9.7 10.9 9,8 7.7 14,2 19,5 9.7 7.5 13.6 18,9 9,6 6,3 7.7 8,7 C .9 8.9 3.5 C i 7.6 3 · 15,9 12,4 5,2 2,8 2.1 3.1 t,6 3.7 ' 1,7 5.5 13.3 19 1.7 4.3 7.3 8,7 1,9 5,3 13.5 19.2 3 5.2 9 10.4 ST)~FF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: MARGARET PICKART OCTOBER 12, 1999 SDP-99-100: CROZET CONVENIENCE CENTER OUTDOOR LIGHTING WAIVER REQUEST PROPOSAL: Request for a waiver to allow lighting from parking lot luminaires to spillover onto public roads in excess ofone-half (½) foot candle, in accordance w/th Section 4.17.5(a)1 of the Zoning Ordinance, at the property described as Tax Map 56A1, Parcel 124. The property is located in the White Hall Magisterial District at the northeast comer of the intersection of Railroad Avenue [Route 788] with Crozet Avenue . [Route 810] and Route 240. The property occupies 0.73 acres zoned C-1 Commercial and EC Entrance Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Service in the Community of Crozet. (See Attachment A.) Details on Proposed Lighting: The proposal calls for ten freestanding pole lights to illuminate the. site (in addition to flush-mounted soffit lights around the btfilding and lights mounted flush with the ceiling of the fuel pump canopy). Two of the pole lights flank the entrance to the property from Crozet Avenue, and two are located near the entrance to the property from Railroad Avenue. The photometric plan suggests that it is these four fixtures that are the primary source of the excessive spillover. The proposed fixtures are Greenbriar Flat Lens 12' pole mounted fixtures with 400-watt metal halide bulbs. (See Attachment B.) LIGHTING ORDINANCE One of the purposes of the outdoor lighting regulations, as outlined in section 4.17.1 of the zoning ordinance, is: "To protect the general welfare by controlling the spillover of light onto adjacent properties." To effectuate this purpose, the lighting ordinance requires the spillover of lighting from parking area luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts to not exceed one-half(½) foot candle (Section 4.17.4.b). (See Attachment C.) A waiver provision is included in the ordinance to allow flexibility m meeting various lighting needs. The ordinance states that "The commission may modify, waive or vary the standard set forth in section 4.17.4 in a particular case.., upon finding that strict application of the standard would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest, or that alternatives proposed by the owner would satisfy the purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations at least to' an equivalent degree." The ordinance also states that the commission may "impose conditions on such a modification, waiver or variation." BACKGROUND A prelim/nary site plan (SDP-99-18) for this project was administratively approved on 6/11/99. The final site plan (SDP-99-100) was submitted on 7/6/99. A photometric plan was included in the final submission and the Zoning Department commented on the spillover, indicating that it exceeded the .5 foot candle limit. Similar comments were made as part of the ARB review of the proposal. Subsequent revisions to the photometric plan did not rectify the excessive spillover. Final approval of the site development plan cannot be granted without resolution of the spillover issue. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION: The applicant has provided the following justification for the request (see Attachment D.): "Due to our mediate adjacency to this intersection that defines Crozet as a Crossroads and our close adjacency to the elevated railroad track and tunnel, the pedestrian and traffic safety issues are greatly reduced by this additional lighting." · "It is important to note that in our meetings with community leaders in Crozet the pedestrian traffic is critical to this site from a community standpoint." STAFF'ANALYSIS Spillover and the General Welfare: Spillover onto adjacent properties can negatively impact the general welfare. This can happen when excessive light is directed at a residence. It can happen when bright lights are pointed at and/or spill into the street, by caus/ng glare for motorists, which can impair vision. Light vs. Dark Surroundings and the General Welfare: The contrast created by a brightly lit site in dark surroundings makes the sun'ounding darker area appear even darker. When we go from a very bric, bt area to a dark area, we have poor visibility for a period of time. The contrast makes it difficult for the eye to adapt, which can temporarily impair vision. The Crozet Convenience Store site is surrounded by an area that is characterized by low levels of light. Sites that are surrounded by low light levels can be effectively lit with modest light 'levels as compared to sites that are surrounded by higher light levels (for example, those along the highly developed portions of Route 29 North), which may require higher light levels for effective visibility. Maintaining the spillover at the minimal level of .5 foot candles or less minimizes the potential for excessive contrast and reduces the potential danger for motorists on the road. Staff has requested comment from VDOT regarding this and anticipates having their comment by the commission meeting. The Zoning Department and the ARB support this finding. (See Attachments E and F.) General Safety: Well-designed outdoor lighting can be useful in improving visibility, safety, and a sense of security. But, lighthag as proposed is not necessarily the way to insure safety. The Raikoad/Crozet Avenue intersection has been recognized by the community as a potentially dangerous area for both pedestrian and automobile traffic, with contributing factors including limited visibility at the intersection, changes in elevation along adjacent roads, and a nearby raikoad track and tunnel. However, site lighting is intended to illuminate the site, and the safety issues corresponding to this intersection would be more appropriately addressed by street lights and mnnel/raikoad improvements than by allowing spillover onto the public road from this site. Maintenance Factor: It should be noted that the photometric plan sheet includes the following note: "Maintained footcandle values at grade, using a .72 maintenance factor." This note indicates that the footcandle values identified on the plan do not correspond to initial light levels. Instead, they predict light levels after 6 to 12 months of use, when lamp depreciation and dirt build-up have reduced the initial output. Initial light levels can be expected to be 28% brighter than the levels shown on the plan. Projected Appearance: Overall, the Crozet Convenience site is expected to appear extremely bright. The generally dark surroundings will tend to intensify this impact. Staff recognizes that the commercial development will be a positive addition to the Crozet community, and one that is anxiously anticipated by the community. But, staff anticipates that the character of the lighting will significantly, negatively impact the appearance of the community and will set a poor precedent for future development in the area. Lighting Committee: When the li~hting ordinance was adopted in August, .1998, it was stated that review of the regxtlations would occur in one year. the lighting committee was directed to reconvene in one year; The committee is scheduled to meet this fail. Staff recommends that no waiver be approved for spillover prior to the committee re-convening to address spillover related matters, in addition to other issues. Alternatives: The applicant has proposed no alternatives to satisfy the spillover requirement. However, shifting of the pole lights that are creating the spillover away from the entrance would bring the spillover closer to the .5 foot candle level. SUMMARY: Staff finds the following factors that are favorable to the request: 1. The applicant wishes to provide safe and convenient access to the site for pedestrians and motorists. 2. The proposed commercial development will be a positive addition to the Crozet community. Staff finds the following factors that are unfavorable to the request: 1. The proposed spillover can create glare for motorists traveling on the adjacent streets. 2. The proposed spillover will contribute to a sharp contrast between the bright site and the dark surroundings, which can contribute to impaired vision. 3. Site lighting is intended to illuminate the site - not the immediate surroundings. The safety issues surrounding the site should be addressed by appropriate off-site lighting. 4. The character of the community will be changed by. the proposed lighting. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that initial lighting spillover be maintained at .5 foot candles or less. ATTACHMENTS: A - Location Map B - Photometric Plan C - Lighting Ordinance D -Applicant's Justification & Waiver Request E - Memo from Zoning Depamuent F - ARB Action Letter ATTACHMENT A \ / / 38 DISTRICT iNSERT SECTION ,'2 WHITE HALL DISTi~ CROZET INSER? ATTACHMENT 4.16.3 ADDITIONAL REQ UIREMENT5 Eau:oment specit]canons shall be approvea by the directur of :tanning ,,nd commumr,,- dcvelooment on adv:ce of the director of par)cs and retreat:on. 216.32 Recreational equtpment and facilities shall be maintained in a safe conamon and re,~laced ~ecessary,. Maintenance shall be the respon$ibili~ of the prope,"ry owner ~r' rental umts or homeowners' associanon if' sale un:ts. 4.16.3.3 Recreational facilities shall be completed when fifty (50) percent of the umts have rece)ved certificates of occupancy. Sec. 4.17, Outdoor lighting. Outdoor lighting regulations are set forth in sections 4.17.1, 4, t7.2, 4.17.3. 4. I7..I, -L17.5 and .1. [7.6. These regulations are in addition to the performance standard pertaining to glare set form tn sec~on 4.143 of ~is chapter. fOrd. 98-t8(I), 8-12-98) 4.17.1. Purpose. The purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations axe to protect dark skies, m protec: :he general welfare by. controlling the spillover of light onto adjacent propeni~, and to protec: the public safety, by prevemmg glar~ fi'om outdoor lurninaires. To effectxm~ these purposes, these regulations regulate the direction of light emitted from certain tummaires, and limit the mtenst ,ry of light on certain adjacent properties, as provided herein. fOrd. 98-I8(I), 8-12-98) See. 4.17.2. Applicability. Except as provided in section 4.17.6, these outdoor lighting regulations shall apply to each outdoor tummaire installed or replaced a~er the date of adopt'ion of these regulations which is: Located on property within a commercial or industrial zoning district, or is associated with a use for which a site pla~ is required by section 32.0, and is equipped with a lamp which emits three thousand (3,000) or more initial lumens; or Located on property within a r~idemial or the rural a~a~ zoning district and is ~sociated with a use for. which a site plan is not required by section 32.0, and is eq. mpped with a hi_oh intensity discharge lamp, regardless of its initial lumev~. (Ord, 98-t8(l), 8-12-98) See. 4.17..3. Der'tuitions. The f.otlowmg definitions, shall apply in the implementation and enforcement of these outdoor lighting regulations: Decorative [uminaire with ,fidl cutoff optics. The term "decorative [uminaire with full cutoff optics" means an outdoor light fixture with manufacture-provided or manufacua'~r-mstalled/ull cut-off optics designed for aesthetic appeal. This term shall not include, among others, a canopy or shoebox lummai~. 18-t-49 Zoning Suootemcnt =1.3-t 3-a8 .......... ATTACHMENT PAGE 2 ,::ail ,'utOtf .'umma~re. 1-he te.,vn '?ail cutoff' tummatre" me~s such ~ manner that uti light emtned by the fix~e, e~er directly ~om the i~p er ma~ectlv ~om me fixate, ts ~rolected below the hot,zonal ,;q:gh :ntenstrv disc,qarge/amp. The term "high imenslty discharge lamff' means a mercury, vapor. metal ha/tde, or hi~: pressure sodium lamp, ;md for ?urposes of this secuon 4. l 7. a low pressure sodmm lamp. /mttal .',umens. The term "initial lumens" means the lumens emitted from a lamp. as specified by the manufac,'urer of the lamp. Lamp. The term "lamp" mea~s the component of a lummaire that produces light. A lamp ts also commonly referred to ~ a bulb. Lumen. The term "lumen" means a standard unit of measurement of luminous flux. Lummmre. The term "lummaire" means a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the components designed to distribute the liglat, to position and protect the lamps. a~d co cormec: the lamps to the power supply. A lumina/re is also commonly referred to as a fixrare. Outdoor iummatre. The term "outdoor luminaire" means a [uminaire which is permanently installed outdoors hactuding, but not limited to, devices used to illuminate any site. strucrare, or sign, except that [t does not include an internally illuminated sign. (Orck 98-18(I), 8-12-98) Sec. 4.17.4. Standards. The following standard~ shall apply to each outdoor lummair~: Except as provided in section 4.17.6, each outdoor luminaire subject to the~e outdoor lighting regulauons shall be a full cutoff luminaire or a decorative luminaire with full curoffopties, For each outdoor luminaire subjee~ to these outdoor lighting regulations pursuant to secfiou 4,17.2.a, whether a tamp emits three thomand (3,000) or more initial lumens sllall be determined l~om the. information pwvided by the manufacturer of the lamp including, but not limited to, izfformauon on the lamp or on the lamp's packaging malefiC. For each ouutoor iumina~ subjec~ to these outdoor liglatmg regulations purmam to section 4.17.2.& the following rated lamp wattages shall be deemed to emit t.hree thousand (3,000) or more initial lumens unless ttie zoning adminisu=~or determines, based upon information pwvided by a lamp mariuS, that the tared wattage of a lamp emits either more or ie~ than the thr~ thousand (3,000)/aitial lumens: Incandescent lamp: oue [xundred sbcty (160) or more warn. bo Quartz halogen lamp: oue hundred sixty (160) or more warn. Fluorescent tamp: thirty-five (35) or .more warm. Memury vapor lamp: seventy-five (75) or more warts. 18-4-50 Zoning Supplement ~t. g-13-08 .... ATTACHMENT Metal halide lamp: forty (40) or more wa~. ~gn pressure sodium tamp: (ortT.-five t-:S/or more watts. Low pressure sodium !amp: ,,weary-five (25) or more wans. PAGE 3 Ifa lumina~'e is eqmpped with more than one lama. the lumens of the !amp wzth the h~ghest mmal lumens shall determine the lumens em~tzed. T'he spiiiover of lighting t:rom parking area luminaires onto public roa~ and .:rooertT.' m residential or r-aral areas zoning dismcts shall not exceed one-half' It':) toot canale. t©rd. 48. t5(I), $-12-98) Sec. 4.17.5. Modification. waiver or variation, A modification, waiver or variation from the standard set forth in secnon a. 17.4 may be granted by the commissmn, as provided herein: The commission may.modify, waive or vary the standard set forth in section 4.17.4 in a particular case. and the commission may impose conditions on such a modificati, on. waiver or variation which it deems appropriate to further' the purposes of these outdoor lighting regulations. La either of the following circUmstances: Upon f'mding that strict application of the s-,andard would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest, or that alternatives proposed by the owner would satisfy the purposes of these outdoor [ight4ng regulations at least to an equivalent de~'~e. Upon finding tl~at an outdoor luminaire, or system of outdoor luminaires. required for a baseball, sotatball, football or soccer field cannot reasonably comply with the standard and provide sufficient illumination of the field for its safe use. as determined by recommended practices adopted by the [Iltmainamag Engineering Society of Not~ America for that .type of field and activity or o~er evidence ifa recommended practice is not applicable. bo Prior to considering a request to modify, waive or vary, five (5) days' written notice shall be provided to the owner, owner's agent or occupant of each abutting lot or parcel and each parcel immedia~ly a~osa the street or road fi-om the lOt or par:el which is ',he subject of the request. The written notice shall identify the nature of ~e request and the dam and time the commission will consider the request. !Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98) Sec. 4.17.6. Exempt outdoor lighting and related acts. The following outdoor lighting and 'retamd acts shall be exempt from the requirements of these outdoor lighting regulations: a. Lighting which is not subject to this chapter by state or federal law. Consn'uction. agricultural, emergency or holiday decorative lighting, provided that the lighting is temporary, and is discontinued within seven (D days upon completion of ~e project or holiday for which the lighting was provided. 18-1-51 Zoning Supplement =1. .... '-"-"~ ATTACHMENT C PAGE 4 LIghting of me Un,ted Stares of America or Commonwealth of Vir~tma :qags rd etne? non-commerc;ai flags expressing consnmttonaily protec:ecl speech. Sec:arity righting controlled by sensors WhiCh provides dtummat~on ,%r ti~een ~tS, m mutes or tess. l'ne replacement of an inot~erabie tamp or comr~onent which ~s in a !ummatre ~at :vas installed prior to the date of adoptzon of secnon 4.17. The replacement of a failed or damaged luminaire which is one of a matching _?_rouo serving a common purpose. tOrd. 98-18(1), 8-12-98) 8.-4-52 Zoning Su~tement ~l. S-i 3-og ATTACHMENT D ATWOOD ARCHITECTS INC. 27 September 1999 Elaine Echols, Senior Planner County of Albemarle . Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re' VA Oil - Crozet Convenience Center SDP 99-O 18 Dear Elaine: In accordance with your meeting this past Friday, 24 September 1999, I am forwarding this letter as a request to be heard on 12 October 1999 by the Albemarle County Planning Commission, concerning the above referenced project. I formerly request this meeting for the Owners of the proposed Crozet Convenience Store for the following reason: We ask for relief on Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.7.5 on the light spillage in accordance with Exhibit "A" (at~ached). Please note the street boundaries in question are Crozet Avenue and Railroad Avenue. Due to our immediate adjacency to this intersection that defines Crozet as a crossroads and our close adjacency to the elevated railroad tract and tunnel, the pedestrian and traffic safety issues are greatly reduced by this additional lighting. It is important to note that in our meetings with community leaders in Crozet the pedestrian traffic is critical to this site from a community standpoint. Please advise as to any further input needed by my office or the Owner necessary to get this hearing accomplished. Vq~2~.AJss cc: Frayser White, Virginia Oil Company I(X}l Wrayswocxl Circle Grecnslmro. GA 3(X~42 706 ~ 467-3002 ?00 Hams Street. Suite t02 Charlottesville. vA 22903 18i)41 971-72112 Fax h~(~4) 295-2413 17 College Street. Suite C Gr~em'ill¢. SC 296t) 1864~ 421-~)841 ATTACH'ME~ F COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road. Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-.,t596 (804) 296 - 5823 Fax (804) 972 - 4035 October 5, 1999 Bill At'wood Atwood Architects 700 Harris Street, Suite 102 Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: ARB-F(SDP)-99-48: Crozet Convenience Center-Revision for Soffit Lighting and Wall Sign Dear Mr. Atwood: The Albemarle County ,&rckitectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday, October 5, 1999. The board approved the request, by a vote of 3 to 1, subject to the following conditions: I. Delete the 4 soffit Iigj:tts shown on the southern side of the building. (These include the 2 lights on either side of the canopy.) 2. Approval of the channel letter wall sign as presented. 3. The landscape plan and .site plan shall be coordinated regarding sidewalks and planting areas. As part of the same action, the ARB voted 3 to I, to send the following recommendation to the Planning Commission: · The lighting spillover levels at this site should be limited to .5 footcandles. In addition, the ARB provided the applicant with the following information: · The applicant should be aware that the note on the lighting plan sheet that reads "Maintained footcandle values at ~ade, using a .72 maintenance factor" indicates that the footcandle readings that will be initially measured in the field will be ~eater than those shown on the plan, wkich will likely lead to difficulties in obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. ATTACHMENT F Please provide a revised photometric plan that meets condition #!. above. received, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. PAGE 2 When that plan is Any person aggrieved by any decision of the architectural review board may demand a review of the application by the board of suvervisors. Such demand shall be made by filing a request in writing with the clerk of'the board of supervisors within ten (10) calendar davs of the date of such decision. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Pickart Design Planner Cc: File ATWOOD ARCHITECTS INC. 15 October 1999 Ms. Ella Carey Clerk for the Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Re: Virginia Oil - Crozet Convenience Center SDP-99 Dear Ms. Carey: Please find the enclosed lighting diagram for your review. (Exhibit "A") The numbers highlighted in yellow indicate areas in excess of .5 footcandles. We offer the following points: 1) While working with the Crozet Community we have met their 10 desires for this project: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Building Verticality Cupola Clock Diagonal Placement on the site away from Homes Food to Complement Existing Food (Dairy Queen) Brick Exterior Metal Roof Orderly Pedestrian Traffic Enhance the "Crozet Look" Make the canopy part of the building 2) This is an urban, pedestrian environment creating potential congestion of people and autos at both site entries. 3) We have a very intense site with 30 parking spaces, again a requirement of a "one-size- fits-all zoning ordinance," not responding to Crozet's special needs, but extending a child's pedestrian trip across an ocean of pavement, thus weakening our #8 requirement. 1001 Wrayswood Circle Greensboro, GA 30642 (706) 467-3002 700 Harris Street, Suite 102 Charlottesville, VA 22903 (804) 971-7202 Fax (804) 295-2413 17 College Street, Suite C Greenville, SC 29601 (864) 421-0841 Ms. Ella Carey, Clerk for the Board of Supervisors Re: Virginia Oil - Crozet Convenience Center - SDP-99 15 October 1999 Page 2 We feel strongly that in an urban setting at a crossroads of routes 788, 810, 240 and at an elevated railroad, as the project perimeter, a lighting ordinance that calls for .5 footcandles, at all site edges, in an effort to reduce canopy brightness is in direct conflict to the needs of a successful business at this location. 5) Due to the above - Crozet is a shrinking economic environment and thus falls in the following quote from Lighting for Exterior Environments by the IESNA*: "Preparation of a lighting ordinance should be undertaken with considerable forethought. Its framers should know the themes of the various parts of the community and the community's need for safety, security, and aesthetics. They must also recognize which areas are expanding and which are shrinking. A one-size-fits-everything lighting ordinance that requires all outdoor lighting to be of the same design, using the same luminaire types, subject to the same maximum mounting height and aiming angle requirements and having the same illuminances, would be a gross disservice to any community." 6) The project focuses all of it's traffic and lighting energy away from residences and towards a commercial intersection and railroad tunnel. WilliamIH. Atwood Architect ~qI-IA/ss Enclosure cc: Frayser White, Virginia Oil Company *Illuminating Engineering Society of North America COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Stormwater Basin Dedication SU BJ ECTIPROPOSAL/REQUEST: AGENDA DATE: October 20, 1999 ACTION: X Request to Dedicate the Colonial Auto/Storage USA Stormwater Basin to the County. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Mawyer BACKGROUND: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from CMA Properti,.e~ dated October 18, 1999 2. Site and Drainage Area/M/ap ~.._._-----~ REVIEWED BY: The Colonial Auto Center and Storage USA sites are required to have stormwater flood and water quality management programs due to the large area of impervious surfaces on both sites. When the Colonial Auto Center site was developed in 1989, the owner constructed a large, % acre stormwater detention basin located between the two adjacent properties. Storage USA also utilized the same basin to fulfill stormwater management requirements when that site was developed. The basin straddles and is located on both properties in the swale of a small stream. While runoff from upstream properties including Berkmar Drive, the mobile home park and Greenfield Court passes through the Colonial/Storage USA basin, maintenance and repair of the basin is the responsibility of the two property owners. Section 17-309 of the Water Protection Ordinance allows stormwater management facilities to be offered to the County for dedication. The County would assume maintenance and repair responsibility for the basin if the dedication is accepted by the Board. Maintenance costs are anticipated to be minimal. Nine similar detention basins are currently controlled by the County. DISCUSSION: The Engineering Department identified the Colonial/Storage USA basin as an important link in a regional stormwater management program during a study of the Woodbrook Channel in 1995. The study showed the basin was an important measure to control flooding and erosion in the channel. The basin can also provide stormwater management for a larger, 50 acre drainage area designated for future development. Dedication of this basin to the County would improve our opportunity to effectively coordinate stormwater management as development occurs. As a regional basin, contributions from developers can be used to fund improvements to the basin. By utilizing one large detention basin, the requirement for smaller ponds located on multiple sites can be minimized. CMA Properties has offered to dedicate its portion of the basin to the County. Initial contacts with Storage USA indicate it may also be willing to dedicate its portion of the basin to the County. The basin has been recently inspected and is in good condition. CMA Properties is requesting a waiver of the requirement to sign our standard Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement in view of its offer to dedicate the basin to the County. The Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement requires CMA Properties to maintain and repair the basin, and is a normal condition of approval for a site plan revision. CMA Properties has submitted a revised site plan and is anxious for approval so construction may begin before the onset of inclement weather. RECOMMENDATION: Accept dedication of the Colonial Auto/Storage USA stormwater basin to the County, contingent upon agreement by Storage USA. Allow the Engineering & Public Works Department to waive the requirement for a Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement anticipating dedication of the basin to the County by Storage USA. Require CMA Properties to sign a Stormwater Basin Maintenance Agreement before issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy if Storage USA does not offer its portion ofthe basin for dedication. 99.198 COLONIAL Lincoln · Mercury · Mitsubishi ° Suzuki · Buick · Pontiac ° GMC ° Cadillac · Nissan October 18, 1999 Mr. Bill Mawyer Albemarle County Engineering and Public Works Dept. Albemarle County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road, Room 211 Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 VIA FACSIMILE TO: 972-4035 Dear Bill: In accordance with Section 17-309 of the Water Protection Ordinance, CMA Properties, Inc. is offering our storm water basin to the County of Albemarle for dedication. As you know, this basin is owned jointly by our company and Storage U.S.A. I called Storage U.S.A. and spoke to Henry Rudner concerning the concept of deeding the drainage detention basin to Albemarle County for use as a regional detention basin. Mr. Rudner said Storage U.S.A. is a publicly traded company with 500 properties. He requested that Albemarle County submit to him a letter explaining the concept and requesting the appropriate action. Mr. Rudner seemed receptive to the concept of a regional basin but said he needed a formal request from Albemarle County to initiate any action on their part. The address and phone number for Mr. Rudner is as follows: 165 Madison Ave., Suite 1300, Memphis TN 38103 - Phone (901) 252-3811 and Fax (901) 252-3911. CMA Properties, Inc. would appreciate your proceeding ahead with the approval of our site plan as submitted so that we might begin our building project. It is the intent of CMA Properties, Inc. to proceed with the regional basin concept subject to review of the final details of the agreement. President Route 29 North · P.O. Box 7823 · Charlottesville, Virginia 22906 (804) 951-1000 FAX (804) 951-1010 Affiliate of Carter Myers Automotive · An Employee Owned Co. · Est. 1924 ~x To: From: Subject: Date: Members, Board of Supervisors Ella Washington Carey, CMC,.~ Reading List for October 20, 1999 October 14, 1999 H[HOIIAHDUH March 17(A), 1999 Mr. Martin /ewe LAURELWOOD Laurelwood Housing Corporation 5663 Wyant Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Tel. (804) 823-1998 October 19, 1999 Larry W. Davis, Esq. County Attorney Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Davis: re: Planned Irnprovement of Midway and Wyant Roads This is to advise you and the persons listed below to whom this letter is copied of a situation which has arisen regarding attempts to stop the Department of Transportation of the State of Virginia (VDOT) from carrying out a plan previously approved by the Board of Supervisors and now approved and funded by the VDOT for the improvemem and paving of part of State Routes 688 (Midway Road) near its eastern intersection with State Route 635 (Miller School Road) and all of State Route 791 (Wyant Road). 1) 13ac, kgam Laurelwood Housing Corporation is a Virginia Corporation which owns Laurelwood, a 66-acre, 33-unit residential remal property located at the East end of Wyant Road. Beginning in the early 1980's, the undersigned and several other landowners on this road began to investigate the possibility of the VDOT's paving Midway and Wyant Roads (referred to hereafter as "the road"), a distance of approximately one half-mile. Al~er initial meetings with representatives of the VDOT we learned that, as the road was not in a designated growth area and as the existing fights of way were too narrow to permit the construction of the proposed improvement, additional rights of way would need to be granted by landowners if the improvement were to be possible. Over the course of some years we helped obtain the grants of rights-of-way to the VDOT by the affected landowners along the road. In due course of time the VDOT completed its plan for the construction of an improved road, which would include regrading and widening the existing roadway, improving curve and crown radii and sight distances, and taking the usual steps associated with the construction of such an improvement. October 19, 1999 Larry W. Davis, Esq. Page 2 Eventually, due to the efforts of many of the persons living on this road and in County government, this project found its way on to the list of those to be approved for funding by the County. This was done, and, again in the due course of time, this project worked its-way to the appropriate place on the six-year plan for funding and funding was awarded to it. By the middle of 1998 we were advised by our local member of the Board of Supervisors and by representatives of the VDOT that the project was fully approved and funded. According to the. VDOT engineer in charge of this project, Mr. Gerald Utz, this project was to have been completed in June-July 1999. According to him, the delay in its construction has been caused by tardiness in the provision of plans of underground utilities by Sprint. 2) Recent Developments Mrs. Sally Thomas, County Supervisor in this area, has been aware of the condition of this road since early in her term of office, and has been helpful in getting this project included in the six-year plan for funding. In early September some of the residents along the road received in their newspaper boxes a communication apparently from our local Supervisor (copy attached as Appendix 1), stating that some persons had raised objections with her against the proposed improvement to the road. Thereafter, a letter (Appendix 2) urging the completion of this project and bearing the signatures of occupants of 38 of the 52 houses on the road was sent to our Supervisor, apparently without affect. Mrs Thomas informed us recently that she was indifferent as to whether or not the road was paved. We are therefore submitting this letter directly to the members of the Board of Supervisors. We are aware that the paving of the road will add value to our property, as it will to all of the property to which the road gives access. We are now undertaking research to substantiate a claim regarding this value, but have no doubt based on preliminary discussions with knowledgeable persons that the increase will be between 5% and 15% of its value, in the case of Laurelwood alone a figure between $85,000 and $255,000. October 19, 1999 Larry W. Davis, Esq. Page 3 Our view is that, now that the County and the State have fully approved and funded this project, it may not be delayed or stopped except for compelling reasons of public safety or welfare. If our Supervisor, or the Board of Supervisors, attempts to scuttle this project, we would expect to seek legal action directing its completion. Further, we believe that as the long process of approval by County and State has been completed and funding authorized we and the other land owners on the road have a vested right in having this project completed and in enjoying its benefits. Should this right be denied we intend to seek legal redress against those responsible. With respect, Sincerely yours, Mark Wolf President Appendices CCS: Ms. Angela Tucker, VDOT Members of the Board of Supervisors As I hope you know, your road will soon be paved. I'm told that the pavement will be widened only slightly, at most, but the project will add 2' shoulders and 2' ditches and side-grading to make a slope on each side. Some trees will come down. VDOT suggests that residents curious about the finished product look at Route 610, off Rt.20 North. The road is being paved because residents wanted it paved and it has finally worked its way to the top of the "Six-Year List" of unpaved road Improvements, a process that has taken much more than s~x years for this road. Rights of way were deeded to VDOT long ago. No action is needed by Albemarle County for the paving to proceed. But in recent days I've been told that some residents do not want the road paved. If a very high proportion of residents, significantly more than half, opposes the paving, it would be possible for the Board of Supervisors to stop the project forever, but we would have to act immediately. Throughout the last six years, when I've informally asked whether residents still want the road paved I've always been assured that they do. .,~,~, >~/,~... .... Let me know what you think. . ~,~ ,~([ ~?~ ~-~o Thank you. b~'v,~, o~'Je res,.'d,,-t$ Sally Thomas (Albemarle County Board of Supervisor member representing you) 295-1819 or e-mail: sthom~bemarle.org 5663 Wyant Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 September 23, 1999 Ms. Sally Thomas Supervisor Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 889 Leigh Way .Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Ms. Thomas: re: paving of State Route 791 Enclosed is a letter addressed to you in support of this project. restS, representing 38 of the 52 households on Wyant Road. ~hank you for the interest you have taken in this project. Sincerely, The letter is signed by 44 Mark Wolf Po..st~?e and Delivery Confirmation fees must be paid before m~illng. Ms. Sally .Thomas L.8.._89 ..Leigh, Way · Char 1 o t tesvi 1 le ~'"v Keep this receipt Fer Inquiries: Ac~ss Postmark Intemet web site at www.us~s.mm Here or call 1-800-222-1811 ~L~Vpriority Mail [] Standard Mail (S) April21, 1999 Ms. Sally Thomas Supervisor Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virgina 22902-4596 Dear Mrs. Thomas: re: pavin~ of State Route 791 We, the undersigned, are residents of Albemarle County who live either directly on Wyant Road (State Route 791) or whose private drives lead directly off of Wyant Road and who must travel over it to reach our homes. We wish you to know that we emphatically support the proposed re-engineering and paving of Wyant road and that we oppose any attempt to stop the completion of this project. Sincerely, The Undersigned Residents: Signature Print Name Address ? April 21, 1999 Ms. Sally Thomas Supervisor Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 M¢Imire Road Charlottesville, Virgina 22902-4596 Dear Mrs. Thomas: re: pavinE of State Route 791 We, the undersigned, are residents of Albemarle County who live either directly on Wyant Road (State Route 791) or whose private drives lead directly off of Wyant Road and who must travel over it to reach our homes. We wish you to know that we emphatically support the proposed re-engineering and paving of Wyant road and that we oppose any attempt to stop the completion of this project, Sincerely, The Undersigned Residents: Signature Print Name Address April 21, 1999 Ms. Sally Thomas Supervisor Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 M¢Intire Road Charlottesville, Virgina 22902-4596 Dear Mrs. Thomas: re: oavinu of State Route 791 We, the undersigned, are residents of Albemarle County who live either directly on Wyant Road (State Route 791) or whose private drives lead directly off of Wyant Road and who must travel over it to reach our homes. We wish you to know that we emphatically support the proposed re-engineering and paving of Wyant road and that we oppose any attempt to stop the completion of this project. Sincerely, The Undersigned Residents: Signature Print Name Address April 21, 1999 Ms. Sally Thomas Supervisor Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virgina 229024596 Dear Mrs. Thomas: re: pavin_~ ofglale Route 791 We, the undersigned, are residents of Albemarle County who live either directly on Wyant Road (State Route 791) or whose private drives lead directly off of Wyant Road and who must travel over it to reach our homes. We wish you to know that we emphatic~ly support the propo~d re-engineering and paving of Wyant road and that we oppose any attempt to stop the completion of this project. Sincerely, The Undersigned Residents: Signature Print Name Address April 21, 1999 Ms. Sally Thomas Supervisor Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virgina 22902-4596 Dear Mrs. Thomas: re: paving of State Route 791 We, the undersigned, are residents of Albemarle County who live either directly on Wyant Road (State Route 791) or whose private drives lead directly off of Wyant Road and who must travel over it to reach our homes. We wish you to know that we emphatieally support the proposed re-engineering and paving of Wyant road and that we oppose any attempt to stop the completion of this project. Sincerely, The Undersigned Residents: Signature Print Name Address April 21, 1999 Ms. Sally Thomas Supervisor Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Dear Mrs. Thomas: re: pavin_~ of State Route 791 We, the undersigned, are residents of Albemarle County who live either directly on Wyant Road (State Route 791) or whose private drives lead directly off of Wyant Road and who must travel over it to reach our homes. We wish you to know that we emphatically support the proposed re-engineering and paving of Wyant Road and that we oppose any attempt to stop the completion of this project. Sincerely, The Undersigned Residems: Signature Print Name Address