Loading...
2004-10-13N October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 13, 2004, at 6:00 p.m., Meeting Room 241, County Office Building on McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Mr. Dennis S. Rooker, Ms. Sally H. Thomas and Mr. David C. Wyant. ABSENT: Mr. Ken C. Boyd. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, Clerk, Ella W. Carey, and Director of Planning, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Dorrier, at 6:00 p.m. in the Lane Auditorium for the regular night meeting of the Board. _______________ Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. _______________ Agenda Item No. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Dave Hutson said he came to address the concern over the special use permit on Hydraulic Road for Planned Parenthood. He has attended a number of meetings and there is one point he thinks needs to be clarified. Code Section 31.2.4.4 has been cited as saying the Board of Supervisors has certain abilities to void special use permits. He knows there is concern that the Board may not be the proper agent to take such action. He said there are areas in the code which talk about the Board of Zoning Appeals taking statements and making actions. He asked for clarification of Section 36.3 which says “the remedies provided for in this section are cumulative and not exclusive and shall be in addition to any other remedies provided by law.” He said that even after listening to the discussion at the meetings he has attended, he does not have a clear understanding of what that section of the code says. Also, he has some concerns because the code talks about special use permits being granted where they do not lead to harmful situations including such things as noise and dust, both of which would be problematic in this area. He also thinks about the speed limits in school zones. He wonders if a situation like this one is looked at in the same way based on the proximity of this location to the two schools, Albemarle High School and the middle school. Third, praise God there has been no event like the Columbine event several years ago in Colorado. He wonders if there were a situation which caught everyone’s attention more readily than this, such as that one; he knows there are other laws that prevent this scenario from being applicable, but as a philosophical basis, if there were an activity like that and someone were to try to open a gun store nearby or even in this same location, what would be done and who would act to say it were not appropriate no matter what had not been ruled out in the past based on other circumstances. Those are the three points he wanted to bring up for attention this evening. Mr. Dorrier said he would address those points after hearing from the other people who had signed to speak. Mr. Mike Sharman said he is an attorney working with the Central Virginia Family Forum to help find a regulatory, legislative or judicial remedy to the current use of Planned Parenthood’s Hydraulic Road property as a regional abortion hospital. The Board of Supervisors considered the special use application on the original proposal for a low-key mixed office and residential project, but the Board’s approval of that use has been transmorphed by Planned Parenthood into approval for a full-blown abortion provider hospital and regional abortion advocacy center. He said the potential harm to the community from an abortion hospital is greater than the likely effects from the original real estate and insurance office proposal which was approved. The Board has told concerned citizens that it has no ability to affect this type of “bait and switch” once the initial permitting process is concluded. The Forum believes the Board does have the authority to protect the public and revoke the special use permit of Planned Parenthood’s facility on Hydraulic Road. To prevent this type of “bait and switch” from happening in the future, and to provide accountability for the clinic owner, the Forum requests that the Board pass the Forum’s proposed Abortion Provider Business ordinance. Although the Board has said it cannot do so because it is barred by the Dillon Rule, that rule has not barred the Board from passing other types of regulations (see those noted in the full statement which is on file in the Clerk’s Office). He asked that the Board request an official opinion on this matter from the Attorney General, and then take the time to adopt the proposed ordinance on Abortion Provider businesses as requested by the Forum. Mr. Roger Schweikert said he had three issues to talk about tonight: traffic on Route 29, the threat of some type of Columbine action, and, the Planned Parenthood facility. He knows that communities and the state have made an agreement that the localities would have control over development of the Route 29 corridor. He said the traffic coming into Charlottesville every day is almost like a parking lot, particularly with some of the development in the northern part of the County. He recommends that any future transportation funding projects consider putting overpasses in most of the interchanges, either on Route 29 or over Route 29 with acceleration lanes and access lanes for that traffic. There are many intersections out as far as the Fray’s Mill intersection where it is almost impossible to get into traffic at certain hours of the day. With regard to the suggestion and the threat of possible Columbine action taking place in the local schools, he noted that there have been 150,000 incidents of children taking guns to schools in recent years. Also, recent news showed that individuals with a certain religious vent took hostages (children and their parents) and killed them with no thought. He thinks this threat is real. He said a Pakistani man was indicted in the last 24 hours for taking pictures October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) of banks in Charlotte, N.C. Another individual from the Middle East was apprehended for taking pictures of the Chesapeake Bay bridge tunnel. There is some historic evidence that there was a third party at the Oklahoma City bombing who went to work at La Guardia Airport not long after the bombing took place who also had ties to the Iraqi army. These are not confirmed at this time, but there are media people who are investigating it. He asked that the Board contact the Governor. He said the Governor received over $300.0 million in surplus last year. The lottery had over $400.0 million in its assets from last year. He asked that the Board ask for that money and go get it this week and ask the Governor to fund a Resource Officer for every school so nothing terrible happens to the children. Mr. Schweikert said he believes another threat is the philosophy that Planned Parenthood brings to the community. This year Planned Parenthood is giving to some freshmen students six-inch rulers to measure part of their anatomy. At the Democratic National Convention those who should be wearing a scarlet letter said “I have had an abortion and I am proud of it.” Planned Parenthood has distributed condoms for years. Condoms do not protect you from sexually transmitted diseases which are rampant in the country. Unwanted pregnancies are terrible. They take a great toll on the community. They are also a cash cow for the abortionists. It is convenient that the number one abortion provider in America is only a few feet away from a high school. He asked that the Board reconsider the zoning special use permit that was given to this organization. He said Forbes listed it as one of the greatest businesses in America, but it is in the business of destroying life and not saving it. Mr. Paul Grady said he lives outside of the Crozet growth area. For the past 14 years he has worked to keep the CSX Railroad tracks that traverse Albemarle County east/west from being abandoned and has advocated their use for moving people as well as freight. With the imminent lease of this rail line by CSX to the Buckingham branch railroad, a new era is about to begin. Since Crozet is a growth area scheduled to receive 9000 new residents in the next fifteen to twenty years, and since this Board emphatically opposed the widening of Route 250 West several years ago, the citizens of Crozet need the Board’s help to alleviate the traffic congestion which will occur. A transit rail system from Crozet to Charlottesville seems to be the best solution, although there are a number of obstacles to overcome. First is the concept gaining steam in the City for a streetcar system on West Main Street and Water Street which would not be expandable west to Crozet. A transit rail system on the CSX tracks would serve both Crozet and areas of Charlottesville. He fears that if the streetcar idea is allowed to advance any further, there will never be the money, or the public will to create a system to serve Crozet. He has talked with a member of ACT which is spearheading the streetcar proposal and asked that they drop the idea and concentrate their efforts on a system to serve Route 29 North. He believes two separate systems are needed. Another obstacle to a rail system to serve Crozet is that even though Crozet is a growth area, it is not within the area in control of the Metropolitan Planning Organization. He has advocated at many MPO meetings over the last several years that Crozet be included in the MPO area. Only recently he discovered that the VDOT representation on the MPO Board is blocking that from happening. This is mainly because there is rural area between Crozet and Charlottesville. However, this VDOT representative has insisted that rural areas on Route 250 East and Route 29 North be included in the MPO area. In order to apply for Federal funding for transit rail to serve Crozet, it would have to be included in the MPO area. The CHART Committee voted this spring to include in the 2025 plan two feasibility studies, one for transit rail to Crozet, and one for a freight rail bypass around Charlottesville, and allocated $1.0 million out of transit funding for them. It is his opinion that in order to get Crozet included in the MPO area, the MPO will either have to go over the head of the VDOT representative or ask that he be replaced. He said a group of City officials are planning a trip to Portland, Oregon, soon, to look at Portland’s new streetcar system. He has heard rumors that several County people will also be attending. He wants to be sure the Board knows there are other ideas and other options available, and that it keep an open mind and think of those in Crozet in the future when it is time to make decisions. Mr. Dorrier said this Board deals with issues that come before it and offers an opportunity for people to speak. Then the Board debates the issue and decides what is best for the County. The issues brought forward today are not issues that are directly before the Board. Therefore, the Board will take no action because the issues are not before it. He thinks they are properly before another body, the Board of Zoning Appeals, and there will be a decision by that body after deliberations. It would be improper for this Board to get involved in the issue because it is not before this Board. On the issue of terrorist threats, if the speaker has any information he would refer him to the law enforcement department. He said everyone is cognizant today of terrorism. The Board is not aware of any threats in this community. The threats mentioned in Charlotte and other places are outside of Albemarle County. He thinks everyone is alert to that danger. As far as this Board dealing with other issues such as speeding cars along Rio Road and that sort of thing, the Board will not get into that at this time. He asked the County Attorney, Larry Davis, if he had any comments regarding the legal posture of these matters. Mr. Davis said the matter of Planned Parenthood is before the Board of Zoning Appeals and will be heard in November. It is addressing some of the issues raised. In regard to the request by Mr. Sharman who cited several regulatory ordinances the County has, each of those is specifically enabled by the Code. If Mr. Sharman had done some research, he would have found that out instead of misrepresenting that it is not a Dillon Rule issue. Mr. Rooker said he would like to interject for the public that the Dillon Rule basically says counties only have authority to regulate in areas where they are given that authority by the state. What Mr. Davis is saying is that all of these areas that were cited by Mr. Sharman are all specifically in the Code of Virginia as areas where the County has specific authority to act. One other area that was mentioned by one of the speakers had to do with overpasses on Route 29. There is a plan which has been worked on for a long time by the City and the County to move traffic better on Route 29. The lights have been synchronized from Airport Road to the City limits at Hydraulic Road. He said overpasses at Rio, Greenbrier and Hydraulic Roads on Route 29 were in the transportation plan for a number of years. They October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) were unilaterally removed from the plan in 1997 by the Commonwealth Transportation Board which ultimately is the authority that makes transportation decisions in Virginia. Mr. Dorrier said the Board appreciates everyone who came to exchange views, but the Board would now proceed with the regular agenda. Mr. Sharman interjected that the Board does have the ability to act on the Planned Parenthood matter. Mr. Dorrier replied that the Board appreciates Mr. Sharman’s concern, but it has confidence in the opinion of the County Attorney, so the Board does not need to approach the Attorney General on the matter. ________________ Agenda Item No. 5. Virginia Film Festival Presentation. Mr. Richard Hirkowitz addressed the Board, and thanked the County for its support of the Film Festival. He noted that the University of Virginia provides approximately one-third of the support to sustain the Festival, and that amount has not increased since 1992, requiring additional fundraising to keep the Festival strong and growing. Mr. Hirkowitz stated the tourism funds provided by the County and the City are extremely important financially and symbolically to the Festival. He provided highlights of the Festival, noting that Sandra Bullock will be receiving the Virginia Film Award, and two of her films – “Miss Congeniality” and “Speed,” will be featured. He mentioned that Ms. Bullock attended the same Arlington high school as Warren Beatty and Shirley MacLaine. Mr. Hirkowitz said the theme of this year’s Festival is Speed. The Festival will be presenting the world premiere of “The Golden Era of NASCAR,” and will be showing the film “The Wendell Scott Story” about the African-American race car driver from Virginia. Both of these films were made by John W. Warner IV, and both he and his father Senator John Warner (who th narrated both films) would attend the festival on October 30. Mr. Hirkowitz explained that the opening night film “The Woodsman,” a sensation at the Sundance Film Festival, was made by Nicole Cassell, who grew up in Charlottesville. The Festival will also be bringing back Jeff Wadlow, the son of Emily Couric and the stepson of Dr. George Beller from U.Va. Medical School. Mr. Wadlow will be conducting the “Adrenaline Film Workshop,” a 72-hour project in which 36 local filmmakers will be making films in three days to be shown at the Culbreth Theater at the Festival’s closing. Mr. Dorrier asked if they would be filmed in Albemarle. Mr. Hirkowitz responded that they would be filmed in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Mr. Hirkowitz said there are a lot of emphasis on Virginia filmmakers this year because there is a renaissance in filmmaking here and there would be a section in the Festival program called “Virginia is for Filmmakers.” He stated that Paul Wagner’s film “Angels” will be premiered, along with several other Virginia filmmakers’ pieces, and the C’ville Weekly will contain a more complete program. Mr. Hirkowitz thanked the County again for their support. _______________ Agenda Item No. 6. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Annual Report/Recognition Ceremony. Ms. Joan McDowell, Principal Planner, said one of the ACE Program responsibilities is to provide the Board with a periodic status report on the ACE Program and the current pool of applicants. This should include recognizing landowners who sold easements to the County in the past year. Ms. McDowell then referred to the Executive Summary which had been provided to the Board. She said Mr. Ches Goodall, manager of the ACE Program, would be presenting the program’s accomplishments and recognizing the four applicants. The ACE Program was established in the summer of 2000 with anticipated funding of $1.0 million per year to acquire easements. One of the major objectives of the program was to create a voluntary land protection tool that would provide an economic incentive for landowners of modest means to sell an easement to the County since current tax laws provide little or no incentive for donating an easement. In addition to preserving working farms and forestland from conversion to other uses, the acquisition of conservation easements would help to preserve the rural character of Albemarle County, conserve and protect biodiversity and wildlife habitats, preserve water quality and riparian zones, and promote tourism through the preservation of scenic resources. Thus far, the ACE Program has nearly completed three application cycles, with the first cycle occurring in 2000, and is in the midst of appraising properties from the fourth cycle. Though it has taken longer than initially projected to close on properties and acquire easements, the program has been quite successful in terms of total development rights acquired and acres protected. Recognition of Applicants: Four applicants from the class of 2002-03 have sold an easement to the County within the past year - Joseph T. Henley, Jr. (for Henley Forest, Inc.), Alan & Ada Kindrick, Darlene Crawford and Michael Swanson. Program Status Report: Through the first three application cycles, the County has purchased easements on 13 properties totaling 2,992 acres. By year end, the County should add another two easements on 732 acres to complete the third application cycle, thereby protecting a total of 3,724 acres. Though the total appraised value of all 15 easements was $3.427 million, the County purchased these easements for $2,987,760 - a savings of $439,240. These savings were due to three factors: 1) outside funding from the Virginia Outdoors Foundation; 2) a contribution from the Piedmont Environmental Council; and 3) easements acquired at an adjusted (reduced) value to the appraised value (as determined by the income grid). October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) Nine of 15 properties from the first three applicant pools were identified as having “tourism value”, which qualified the parcels for funding from the transient lodging tax. In addition, five of 15 properties lie in the drinking supply watershed, 10 of 15 are “working” family farms and a total of 229 development rights were retired by putting these properties under easement with the ACE Program. For the fourth application cycle (September 30, 2003 deadline), staff received eight applications. Since one property was ineligible (scoring too few points) and three others were voluntarily withdrawn, four properties are currently enrolled and were selected to be appraised. Though the initial appraisals were completed in early August, the Appraisal Review Committee asked the appraiser to make some minor revisions. Once these revisions are made and the appraisals are approved by the Appraisal Review Committee, staff will ask the Board to formally approve them sometime this fall. Early next year, it is anticipated the County will purchase easements on these properties. Though the fourth application pool is smaller than previous pools, the properties received high scores and are well distributed throughout the County. All have tourism value and are working family farms. In the next application cycle (October 31, 2004 deadline), the ACE Program should be in a position to acquire more easements than usual because of an anticipated carryover of funds from the 2003-04 budget. This is largely the result of landowners who have voluntarily withdrawn their applications from the ACE Program for personal reasons. Staff has already received five applications for this next cycle totaling nearly 1,000 acres. With several weeks to go before the upcoming application deadline, it appears there will be excellent pool of applicants for this fifth application cycle. Interest in the program should be sparked by the Piedmont Environmental Council’s outreach program, which includes two workshops scheduled for late September (in Scottsville and Crozet) where ACE staff will discuss the ACE Program and conservation easements. PEC has also contacted landowners throughout the County to encourage them to attend the workshops and submit an application to the ACE Program. In addition, the County has begun an advertising campaign that includes a blanket mailing (to all rural landowners with more than 75 acres), media coverage and radio spots to generate additional interest. Areas for Improvement: As indicated by the Flow Chart/Timeline for ACE, certain steps in the process have created protracted delays in processing an ACE application from start to finish. The first major delay arose from soliciting appraisals. The timing of this process has been greatly expedited by renewing the contract agreement (on an annual basis) with the appraiser for three successive application cycles. The benefits of taking this approach have included: 1) eliminating the need to draft and mail a new RFP each year (savings: 2-3 months); 2) appraising each new cycle of applications is less time consuming and costly to the County because the appraiser has only to update property data collected from previous years; and 3) revisions to the appraisals have been relatively minor since the appraiser is familiar with the process and knows what to expect from the Appraisal Review Committee (savings: 2-3 months). Other steps in the timeline that cause significant delays include: 1) the determination of theoretical and usable development rights; and 2) the title search, deed recordation and easement purchase. Though the determination of theoretical and usable development rights was expected to take only two months, it has routinely taken at least three months. Though ACE staff has tried to reduce the workload of personnel in the Zoning Department by conducting the title searches (at the Clerk’s office), this is a labor intensive process and there does not appear to be a practical solution to further shortening this review process, given current staffing and workload expectations. However, staff will continue to evaluate ways of improving on the timing of this process. The process of closing on an easement, which begins when the Board formally approves a landowners “offer to sell” an easement to the County, is one of the most time consuming aspects of the application cycle. In the past year alone, it has taken six to seven months to close on some properties from the day the Board first accepted the landowner’s offer. Most closing delays are caused by landowner inaction, ongoing revisions to the Deed of Easement, and complications in removing outstanding property liens. Though these delays are frustrating to all involved, the County Attorney’s Office works as expeditiously as possible to remove these obstacles and assure clear legal title. Even though it has taken longer than initially projected to close on properties and acquire easements, the program has been quite successful. Staff will continue to evaluate ways to streamline the acquisition process, and will work with the ACE Committee and other County departments to develop practical solutions for streamlining the program. Ms. McDowell then introduced Mr. Ches Goodall, ACE Coordinator. Mr. Goodall made a PowerPoint presentation that discussed the properties that have been permanently protected in the County through the ACE Program. He explained that the Swanson property lies in the Southwest Mountains Historic District and has over 1,800 feet of common boundary with lands that are already protected by other easements, primarily Virginia Outdoors Foundation easements. He noted that while this property is small compared to many ACE properties, it has extremely high conservation value as scored by a number of different ranking evaluation criteria. Mr. Goodall added that Michael Swanson uses wood from his land to handcraft furniture. Mr. Goodall described Darlene Crawford’s property in the Southwest Mountains Historic District, noting that her property also has 1,800 feet of common boundary with lands that are already protected by other easements, primarily Virginia Outdoors Foundation easements, and also scored high points through the Ace evaluation criteria. He explained that Ms. Crawford is able to maintain her farm by operating a small greenhouse for growing orchids. October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) He commented that protection of smaller properties – such as the Swanson and Crawford properties – is critical for regional protection strategy since they help to fill in gaps between other protected lands and create larger connections of unfragmented land. In addition, Mr. Goodall said that the Piedmont Environmental Council made a contribution to the ACE program last year which was used directly to offset costs in purchasing easements on these properties. Mr. Goodall continued, stating that the Kendrick property is a 253-acre tract near Earlysville, and contains 180 acres of prime farm and forest land, surrounds Chris Greene Lake, and includes 3,400 feet of boundary on the lake. He explained that the Kendricks have a working family farm and the property th has been in the family since the 18 century as an original land patent. Mr. Goodall reported that the Henley property lies in the mountains near the Shenandoah National Park, and has 5,400 feet of common boundary with the park, and 11,000 feet of common boundary with the Byron property, which has an ACE easement from last year. He said that the Henley property is in the watershed of the South Fork of the Rivanna River, and is very important because its 483 acres comprise two parcels that join the Byron property. Mr. Goodall said that when these properties are combined, they form a 1,100 acre block of protected land running from State Route 810 all the way to the Shenandoah National Park. The ACE Committee believes this is a great example of how bringing two properties together really created a significant block of protected land. Mr. Goodall stated that the Marshall property owner wants to delay closing until 2005, and reported that that property is 100 acres located on Goodloe Mountain on the very crest of the Southwest Mountains. He indicated the Marshall property location on a map, and pointed out the location of other protected parcels. Mr. Goodall stated that the Mehring property will likely also close next year, and contains 611 acres near Covesville, with 46 acres in the ridge area boundary of Mill Mountain, and 6,500 feet of common boundary with other lands under easement. When this property is combined with two other VOF easements, it will create a single unfragmented block of 2,300 acres of land that runs from Route 29 all the way to Castle Rock and Mill Mountain. Mr. Goodall then showed a few slides of properties that ACE has closed on during the first three th years of the program: the Millwood Land Trust in Cismont, which has an 18 century mill; the Hughes property, a working family farm located south of Batesville; the Hart property, 227 acres on Buck Island Creek; the Pollock property, helping to protect important riparian habitats in the Meechum River; and the Byron property, 600 acres that adjoins Henley Forest, Inc. on Flattop Mountain. Mr. Goodall presented a map of all of the ACE properties, noting their locations scattered throughout the county, and said that by year end the program will have protected a total of 3,722 acres, eliminated 241 potential development lots, protected 872 acres of prime farmland, and protected 1,419 of lands in drinking supply watersheds. Mr. Goodall stated that for round four, the properties have been appraised and the Appraiser Review Committee will review the appraisals and they should work out well, with ACE offering easements to the owners. He concluded by recognizing each of the four current applicants. Mr. Dorrier stated the Board appreciates very much the work that ACE is doing. He stated that this has been one of the most positive betterments the Board has had in Albemarle County, and he believes the County is being nationally recognized for this work. Mr. Goodall then called forward Mr. Michael Swanson, Ms. Darlene Crawford, Mr. Alan and Ms. Ada Kindrick, and Mr. Joe Henley. Mr. Dorrier noted that Mr. Henley served on the Board of Supervisors for 16 years. Mr. Goodall next introduced Ms. Sherry Buttrick, the “mother” and chair of the ACE Committee. Ms. Buttrick described the state of the ACE Program as strong, thanking the board on behalf of ACE for their continued overwhelming support of the program. She also expressed her gratitude for the program’s new appointment as a liaison from the Board of Supervisors and described Mr. Wyant as a “new, active and encouraging member of our committee,” who has helped raise the morale of the participants by making it clear that their contribution is appreciated and valued by the county. Ms. Buttrick stated that they mourn the passing of Walter Perkins, who served as liaison and “spiritual father” of the program. She added that they are pleased to have an ACE recipient – Jimmy Powell – on the committee, and said the program continues to realize its intent of saving family farms like Mr. Powell’s. Ms. Buttrick explained that the committee continues to meet on a regular basis to oversee the program and to make an annual evaluation of its progress. She added that requests to fine-tune the program’s criteria are a “tangible result” of that evaluation. Ms. Buttrick stated that the program enjoys strong public support, unlike the experience in Loudoun County. Ms. Buttrick said that while critics say the Albemarle ACE program is too small, they hope to add interest on the part of landowners, and feel the programs progress has been steady and building credibility that will encourage trust and participation over the years to come. She stated that ACE recommends continued attention to several areas: (1) the length of time it takes to “graduate from this class” needs to be expedited; (2) the program needs to be considered permanent by being written into the budget in the coming year as a permanent line item; (3) money needs to be allocated to pay program expenses such as closing costs and promotion/publicity, so that the $1.0 million and funding is not cut into. She added her acknowledgement of the completion of the 2002-03 participants, stating that the st class of 2003-04 is in progress, and a new class will enter beginning October 31 that should bring ACE to the milestone of 5,000 acres protected. October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) Mr. Dorrier and Board members thanked Ms. Buttrick for her work, and congratulated the ACE Committee on their success. _______________ Agenda Item No. 7. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Rooker, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the consent agenda. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Boyd. __________ Item 7.1. Approval of Minutes: April 7, 2004. Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of April 7, 2004, pages 1-22 (end Item #14), and found them to be in order. __________ Item 7.2. Request to amend the jurisdictional areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to consider providing water service to existing structures loc on TM 46, Ps 23D & 23D1. Property loc on south side of Rt 643 (Polo Grounds Rd). (Remove from agenda). __________ Item 7.3. Approve funding for replacement fire engine for Crozet Volunteer Fire Department. The Executive Summary states that in January 2004, the members of Crozet Volunteer Fire Department were involved in an accident with a fire engine while responding to a report of a fire. Fortunately, no one was seriously injured. However, the fire engine sustained major damage and was taken out of service. The Crozet fire engine that was involved in the accident is 14 years old and was schedule to be replaced five years out. The insurance adjuster estimated the damage at $123,000 dollars, and the insurance company has paid the claim to the County. Based on the extent of damage and considering the age, condition, mileage, and replacement date, staff has recommended that the engine be replaced rather than be repaired. The estimated purchase price for a replacement engine is $489,000 ($468,000 for the fire engine + $21,000 for equipment). Less the $123,000 for the insurance claim, the total amount required is $366,000. It is important to note that the Insurance Service Office (ISO) may chose to increase the ISO rating if the engine is not replaced in a timely manner. Crozet is currently using a fire engine that is on loan from Ruckersville until a replacement fire engine is obtained. In addition, a price increase in steel will cause a price increase for emergency apparatus beginning October 15. Therefore, it’s important that we move to appropriate funds for the purchase of the replacement engine. The Office of Management and Budget recommends that the Board move to appropriate the funds through the attached resolution (copy on file in the Clerk’s office). The resolution will allow the County to appropriate the funds now with a follow up action to borrow the funds later to cover the appropriation. The Office of Management and Budget recommends that Board move to appropriate $366,000 for the purchase of the replacement engine and adopt the resolution to allow the County to appropriate the funds now and borrow the funds later to cover the appropriation. By the above recorded vote, the following resolution was adopted, and the appropriation of $366,000 for the purchase of a replacement engine: RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE EXPENDITURES WITH PROCEEDS OF A BORROWING WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the “Borrower”), intends to acquire and equip a Fire Engine (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, plans for the Project have advanced and the Borrower expects to advance its own funds to pay expenditures related to the Project (the “Expenditures”) prior to incurring indebtedness and to receive reimbursement for such Expenditures from proceeds of either tax-exempt bonds, or other tax- exempt financing, or taxable debt, or both; October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY: 1. The Borrower intends to utilize the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds or other tax-exempt financing (the “Bonds”) or to incur other debt, to pay the costs of the Project in an amount not currently expected to exceed $366,000. 2. The Borrower intends that the proceeds of the Bonds be used to reimburse the Borrower for Expenditures with respect to the Project made on or after the date that is no more than 60 days prior to the date of this Resolution. The Borrower reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds or other debt. 3. Each Expenditure was or will be, unless otherwise approved by bond counsel, either (a) of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles (determined in each case as of the date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the Bonds, (c) a nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a grant to a party that is not related to or an agent of the Borrower so long as such grant does not impose any obligation or condition (directly or indirectly) to repay any amount to or for the benefit of the Borrower. 4. The Borrower intends to make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation by the Borrower that evidences the Borrower’s use of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the Project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the Expenditure is paid. The Borrower recognizes that exceptions are available for certain “preliminary expenditures,” costs of issuance, certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by “small issuers” (based on the year of issuance and not the year of expenditure) and expenditures for construction of at least five years. 5. The Borrower intends that the adoption of this resolution confirms the “official intent” within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8. Public hearing to receive comments on a proposal to restrict through truck traffic on Rts. 22/231. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 2004.) Mr. Cilimberg said that in 1995 the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution requesting VDOT to restrict through tractor trailer traffic on State Routes 22/231. This same resolution, with minor modifications, was again adopted by the Board on December 10, 2003, and June 2, 2004. VDOT has informed the County that the original resolution and public hearing did not meet VDOT’s Guidelines for restricting through trucks on primary highways because the public hearing notice for the 1995 public hearing did not include a description of the proposed alternate route with the same termini. VDOT had previously advised that this description was not necessary but after being challenged on the process in another locality, it is now requesting localities to readopt resolutions to prevent further procedural challenges. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has re-advertised for a public hearing to include alternate termini for State Route 22 and State Route 231. Because Albemarle is requesting a restriction on two separate roads, two alternate routes were listed in the advertisement. The proposed restricted routes and alternate routes are: Route 22 - The County proposes to restrict through trucks, truck and trailer, and semi-trailer combinations on State Route 22 from U.S. Route 250 to the Albemarle/Louisa County line, a distance of October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) approximately 9.2 miles. Alternate Route: U.S. Route 250 from its intersection with State Route 22 in Albemarle County to U.S. Route 15 in Louisa County, north on U.S. Route 15 to State Route 22 in Louisa County, west on State Route 22 to the Albemarle/Louisa County line, a distance of approximately 21.1 miles. Route 231 - The County proposes to restrict through trucks, truck and trailer, and semi-trailer combinations on State Route 231 from State Route 22 to the Albemarle/Louisa County line, a distance of approximately 8.3 miles. Alternate Route: State Route 22 from its intersection with State Route 231 in Albemarle County to U.S. Route 250 in Albemarle County, east on U.S. Route 250 to U.S. Route 15 in Louisa County, north on U.S. Route 15 to Route T-1006 in the Town of Gordonsville, west on Route T- 1006 to State Route 231 in the Town of Gordonsville, south on State Route 231 to the Albemarle/Louisa County line, a distance of approximately 29.8 miles. Mr. Cilimberg said staff believes the alternate routes, while lengthier, would not place an undo hardship on through truck traffic. If the Board adopts the revised resolution, staff will forward all supporting documentation to VDOT requesting this restriction. Modifications can be made to the resolution after the meeting based on public input, if necessary. Mr. Cilimberg said this action is intended to provide for safer vehicular travel on Routes 22 and 231; both routes contain blind curves, hills, narrow pavement and no shoulders. These curvy roads serve local commuting traffic and farms and were not built for heavy truck traffic. According to VDOT crash information, there have been 31 crashes involving large trucks on these two routes between 1993 and February of 2004. This information does not include a recent crash involving a CVS truck that tied up traffic for several hours. It is staff’s opinion that a through truck restriction on State Routes 22 and 231 will make these roads safer for vehicular travel. Mr. Cilimberg said the alternate routes are theoretical and allow the Board to identify the route a truck would take if it got to the termini of the restriction on either end. In reality, VDOT would provide signage on I-64 about any restriction beginning at Routes 22 and 250 so that trucks on the interstate anticipating the use of Routes 22 and 231 would be aware of the restriction before leaving the interstate. He said staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed resolution. With no questions of staff at this time, the Chairman opened the public hearing. Ms. Sabrina Stanwood, speaking on behalf of the Piedmont Environmental Council, expressed support for the Board’s recommendation that through trucks be restricted on Routes 22 and 231. The width, vertical and horizontal curvature, the lack of shoulders and areas of limited sight distance make this a difficult road for large trucks to traverse. These trucks present a danger to the residents and farmers who use the road on a daily basis as well as tourists who are drawn to the road because of its scenic beauty and rural character. Ms. Stanwood said the PEC was created in 1972 to protect the rural landscape of the Piedmont. For the last 32 years, PEC has worked with Southwest Mountain landowners to keep that area beautiful. Through this partnership the Southwest Mountains were designated as a rural historic district on the National Register of Historic places. Routes 22 and 231 were designated as Virginia Byways. Today almost 11,000 acres of the 32,000-acre district are under easement. The National Park Service website describes the district as “some of the Piedmont’s most pristine and scenic countryside.” Thomas Jefferson referred to this area as the “Eden of the United States”. The landscape within this corridor sets the standard for the rural area in Albemarle County. Restricting truck traffic will help maintain that standard. Mr. John Moore said he lives on Route 231. He has appeared before this Board numerous times over the past ten years in the Board’s ongoing efforts to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents along Routes 231 and 22. He is here to thank the Board for its continued perseverance and efforts in working with VDOT to have this corridor restricted from tractor trailer traffic. The residents support the Board’s efforts in moving forward with the Commonwealth Transportation Board to do that. He submitted to the Board some testimony in writing that is lengthy and complex, which he will not go over again. He will answer any questions Board members or staff may have about that testimony. He asked if staff knows what the process will be going forward with the CTB or what affect the alternative routes proposed might have on actions by the CTB. The logical alternative routes would be something other than those the County has been forced into giving by VDOT. Truckers always look for the quickest route. He wonders if the CTB will say the County has to propose another alternative route and if the public hearing will have to be held all over again. Mr. Dorrier said this Board does not control what VDOT or the CTB does; this Board can only make a recommendation. Mr. Cilimberg said staff relied on VDOT staff in developing the proposed routes and worked with the individual at VDOT who is responsible for truck restrictions. County staff tried to follow VDOT’s guidance and forwarded all of its information to VDOT as it was developed. Staff tried to identify the shortest distance route. The most likely alternative would be to stay on I-64, but the Board would have to restrict part of Route 250 as well. Route 250 could be made the starting point, but it would be a longer restriction and potentially be more complicated. Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Butch Davies is the County’s representative on the CTB and he believes he will be receptive to any comments residents may have. Mr. Kenny Belew, Jr. said he has been in the trucking business for 25 years. He now lives on Route 22. The road is now wider and better for truckers. He does not understand who the Board is trying to get off the road. Mr. Tucker replied that the proposed resolution applies to through truck traffic. October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) Ms. Pat Napoleon said the residents are working to correct a dangerous situation on Routes 22 and 231. This corridor has been threatened by large through truck traffic and the historical integrity of one of Albemarle’s cherished areas compromised as has been the safety for all within the community. She said Mr. John Moore has remained alert as he has questioned policy and promoted sensible procedures on County roadways. The residents commend his actions and thank him for his ever present vigilance and hard work throughout the years with regard to this issue. She said she grew up while living along Route 22 and related some of her childhood memories about the area. Today, one is afraid while driving along the road. Large tractor trailers routinely cross the centerline of the road. She thinks it is the correct course of action to remove tractor trailers and huge trucks from the roadway now. The residents desperately want this initiative to move forward carefully and correctly. Ms. Judith Summer said she has lived on Route 231 in Keswick for a little over three years. She is amazed at the number of accidents she has seen in that period of time. The most recent accident occurred at four in the morning and it was a CVS tractor trailer. Afterward, the road was closed for about 12 hours so it was a very peaceful day with no traffic. The driver said he swerved to avoid a deer and lost control, but the grass on the right side of the road was matted down for a good distance, so she believes the driver fell asleep, woke, overcorrected, and crashed on the opposite side of the road. Route 22 and Route 231 are Scenic Byways. She has heard a threat about making them four-laned so the traffic could go faster, but that would be hypocritical on the part of the State. She does not think the County should go along with that idea. The Rural Historic District would not be enhanced by having a throughway go through it. She wonders why the two parts of this proposal are considered separately. She can understand considering Route 22 from the Shadwell Store to the Louisa County line, but considering Route 231 from Cismont to Gordonsville separately would require trucks to turn around at Cismont, go back to Shadwell and then going around to Gordonsville would make the mileage much longer. The terminus on the west end should be the Shadwell Store. She is pleased that the Board is taking this action. Mr. Tom Wharton said he appreciates the local residents wanting safer roads, but he hopes the Board has considered the economic repercussions of diverting traffic. The through drivers using that road are saving time which in turn saves money for this County and others. He asked that the Board consider this and think of some different options. Mr. Dorrier said the Board had just been handed a summary of a proposed alternate route from Mr. Moore. He said if there was no other member of the public who wished to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Cilimberg said he would like to address the question about process raised by one of the speakers. He said if the Board adopts the resolution it will be sent to the Residency Office with all the historic information the County has on hand. The resolution would then pass to the District Office, and then to the Richmond VDOT Office, and then be put on the agenda for the CTB. It would probably be more than one month before the CTB would entertain any action on this request. He said included in the Board’s packet tonight is a request that signage be placed on I-64. That language has been added to the draft resolution the Board received last week. Ms. Thomas said there is already similar signage on the interstate regarding Dick Woods Road in Ivy, so there is a precedent for such signage in the County. She noted that she has received many communications from people who live on Route 250 who are concerned about putting trucks on that route. Mr. Rooker asked if the CTB will be receiving input from other communities before acting on this request. Mr. Juan Wade, Transportation Planner, said he thinks the CTB will contact other communities. He said Mr. Butch Davies held a public hearing on this request in Gordonsville. It may not have been official, but he thinks that before the request gets to the CTB, VDOT staff will be sure that staff members in other counties are aware of the request. Mr. Rooker asked how staff arrived at the recommended alternative route. Mr. Cilimberg said staff followed VDOT’s guidance. If the two routes were restricted together, VDOT indicated that the way the alternate routes are described would be sufficient. To be safe, the Board might want to indicate that it wanted to pass the resolution with the combination of Routes 22 and 231, and then before the day meeting in November, let staff describe the alternate that would exist with the combination of those two. That way there would be a very clear alternate indicated. Mr. Dorrier said Mr. Boyd is not present tonight, and most of this road passes through his district. He asked if the Board should wait and hear from Mr. Boyd before taking action. Mr. Rooker said he thinks Mr. Boyd voted for the resolution last time, and it has come back to the Board for clarification of a technical point. He asked staff if there were any reason to hold off on adoption of the resolution. Mr. Tucker said there is not. Ms. Thomas asked if staff had communicated with Louisa, Orange and Greene counties since the alternative routes run through those counties. Mr. Cilimberg said that was done for prior considerations, but it has not been done since the alternatives were identified. Ms. Thomas said as a matter of courtesy, they should be notified now. October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) motion At this time, Mr. Rooker offered to adopt the proposed resolution with a modification seconded allowing staff to restrict through trucks on both Route 22 and Route 231. The motion was by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Boyd. (Note: The resolution, as adopted, is set out in full below.) RESOLUTION WHEREAS , the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, received a request from a group of citizens/residents who reside along Routes 231/22 to consider restricting through trucks, truck and trailer, and semi-trailer combination traffic on these routes as a means to address various traffic concerns; WHEREAS , the Board properly advertised and held a public hearing on October 13, 2004, to receive comments from citizens on this request; WHEREAS , the Board previously adopted resolutions on June 7, 1995, December 10, 2003, and June 2, 2004, requesting that the Virginia Department of Transportation restrict through-traveling truck, truck and trailer, and semi-trailer combination traffic on Routes 231 and 22; WHEREAS , the rural character of Routes 231/22 consists of blind curves, hills, and narrow pavement with no shoulders serving local commuting traffic and farms; WHEREAS , the Code of Virginia was amended in 1995 and 1996 to increase the size of tractor-trailers that may travel on any road in the state from 60 to 65 feet long and from 8 to 8 1/2 feet wide; WHEREAS , the geometric design and construction of Routes 231/22 combined with a travelway of only nine feet creates an incompatible and unsafe situation between tractor-trailers and others vehicles on the roadway; WHEREAS , the presence of tractor-trailers on Routes 231/22 creates an unsafe road for the traveling public; WHEREAS , Route 231 was listed by Scenic America at the top of its list of the Ten Most Scenic Roads in America; WHEREAS , County and State law enforcement officials have stated that it is impossible to safely and effectively enforce commercial vehicle regulations when truck, truck and trailer, and semi-trailer combination traffic is traveling on Routes 231/22; WHEREAS , the County has proposed alternate routes for through restricted trucks, which the County believes are reasonable; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby renews its request to the Commonwealth Transportation Board to restrict through truck, truck and trailer, and semi-trailer combination traffic on Routes 231/22 in accordance with Section 46.2-809 of the Code of Virginia; and FURTHER RESOLVED that beginning at Route 250 from its intersection with Route 22 in Albemarle County going to Route 15 in Louisa County, north on Route 15 to Route 22 in Louisa County, west on Route 22 to the Albemarle/Louisa County line is a reasonable alternative route for truck, truck and trailer, and semi-trailer combination traffic now traveling Route 22; and beginning at Route 250 from its intersection with Route 22 in Albemarle County going to Route 15 in Louisa County, north on Route 15 to Route T-1006 in the Town of Gordonsville, west on Route T-1006 to Route 231 in the Town of Gordonsville, south on Route 231 to the Albemarle/Louisa County line is a reasonable alternative route for truck, truck and trailer, and semi-trailer combination traffic now traveling Route 22/231; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors requests that the Virginia Department of Transportation install appropriate signage on Interstate 64 at the Shadwell Exit (Exit 124), the Boyd Tavern Exit (Exit 129), and the Zion Crossroad Exit (Exit 136) interchanges to alert that through truck, truck and trailer, and semi-trailer combination traffic is not permitted on Routes 22 and 231 in Albemarle County. _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. Public hearing to receive comments on proposed revisions to ARB sign guidelines. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 2004.) Ms. Margaret Maliszweski, Design Planner, said the Board held a work session on the ARB’s draft revisions to the Sign Guidelines on September 1, 2004. The Board requested minimal changes to October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) the draft and set the public hearing date for October 13, 2004. The requested changes were: 1) provide further clarification on harmonious colors, 2) provide further clarification regarding scale and proportion, preferably with the identification of specific acceptable ratios, and 3) provide further clarification regarding a sign “overcrowding” an architectural element. The ARB reviewed and approved these proposed guidelines at its September 7, 2004 meeting. The proposed guidelines are now before the Board for ratification. Ms. Maliszweski said the September 1, 2004 draft of the ARB’s sign guidelines has been revised to incorporate the changes requested by the Board of Supervisors as follows: 1) Regarding harmonious colors: ? Appendix B “Harmonious Colors” has been added. (See page 30.) ? The appendix includes a color wheel and definitions of the four standard types of “harmonious” colors: monochromatic, analogous, triadic, and complementary. ? The information under “Color” on page 5 has been updated to reference the new appendix. The added sentence is “For more information on harmonious colors, go to Appendix B.” 2) Regarding scale and proportion: ? The discussion of scale and proportion on page 8 has been updated to provide sample ratios of sign size to wall size that are considered to be appropriate. The new text is found in the first paragraph on page 8 and begins, “Typically, a ratio of 1/3 text to 2/3 wall area . . .” The added text continues to the end of the paragraph. 3) Regarding “overcrowding” an architectural element: ? The text under #4 on page 22 has been expanded to include an example of appropriate sign size within a sign band on a wall. The text begins, “For example, an appropriate height for channel letters in a 30” high sign band is . . . .” The new text continues to the end of the paragraph. ? The illustration at the bottom of page 22 has been added for further clarification. As indicated in the September work session, to maintain coordination among documents, the guidelines for fuel pump canopies in the ARB Design Guidelines must also be updated to correspond to the revised sign guidelines. Ms. Maliszewski said staff recommends the Board ratify the ARB Sign Guidelines as revised and ratify the Architectural Review Board Guidelines for Fuel Pump Canopies as revised. Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. No speakers came forward, and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Davis pointed out that the action the Board needs to take is a little unusual, because the motion would be to ratify the guidelines that have been approved and adopted by the ARB. He said there are two sets of guidelines – one for the signs, and one for the fuel pump canopies, but one motion could ratify both. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to ratify the revised ARB sign guidelines and ARB guidelines seconded for fuel pump canopies as presented. Mr. Rooker the motion. Ms. Thomas said she appreciates the changes made, and thanked staff for their responsiveness to suggestions from the work session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Boyd. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD GUIDELINES FOR FUEL PUMP CANOPIES 1. Fuel pump canopies may be required to provide customers with protection from the elements and to provide lighting levels required for dispensing fuel. Such fuel pump canopies are functional elements of present-day gas/convenience stores and their character and appearance shall reflect a minimalist design consistent with that function. 2. Fuel pump canopies shall be the smallest size possible to offer protection from the elements. Canopies shall not exceed the sizes identified in “Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies” as outlined in Appendix C of the ARB Design Guidelines. 3. The size of the canopy fascia and canopy support columns shall be in proportion to the overall size of the canopy structure. The fascia shall not exceed 36 inches in total height, including any accent bands. 4. Canopy fascias shall not be illuminated. 5. Lighting of fuel pump canopies shall be of the lowest level that will provide safe dispensing of fuel. All canopy lighting shall be flush-mounted and shielded, downward directed, and shall not emit October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) light above the horizontal plane. All canopy lighting shall meet the .5 foot-candle spillover requirement in compliance with zoning ordinance regulations. 6. Canopy related elements, including fuel dispensers, support columns, spandrels, planters, etc. shall be compatible with the character of the building and site and shall not be used for advertising. 7. The architectural elements of a building should not be altered to reflect trademark canopy design. 8. Canopy fascias shall be limited to the use of one principal color, with ARB review. 9. Colors, materials, forms, and detailing may be used to coordinate canopies with a site, its building(s), and structures. 10. Fuel pump canopy applicants should refer to “Standards for Fuel Pump Canopies” as outlined in Appendix C of the ARB Design Guidelines. _______________ Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2004-00015. Bethel Baptist Church Amendment (Signs #90 & 92). Public hearing on a request to amend SUP for existing church to allow for parking lot expansion, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord which allows for church uses in the RA. TM 21, P 25, contains approx 3.004 acs. Znd RA. Loc just E of Rt 29N at the intersec of Rt 641 (Burnley Station Rd) & Rt 600 (Watts Passage). Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 2004.) Mr. Cilimberg said this request would amend an existing special use permit for Bethel Baptist Church and allow expansion of the parking lot and increase seating capacity. He said the parking would be increased from 54 spaces to 119 spaces to satisfactorily accommodate the seating capacity change that would go from 216 seats to 345. Mr. Cilimberg stated that there were two favorable factors cited in the staff’s review: (1) churches are supportive to the rural areas of the County, and (2) the original church building has been located at the site since 1935, and expansion such as this often ensures a continuing activity for the church. He said that an adjacent property owner expressed concern about expansion of the parking area, and there has been a history of non-compliance with prior approved special use permits and site development plans. With that in mind, Mr. Cilimberg said staff did recommend approval subject to thirteen conditions but the Planning Commission modified that list, removing Condition 2 regarding the ornamental fence, and the second sentence of Condition 13 referring to additional landscaping consisting of a mixture of evergreen and deciduous plant material. He noted that those changes were reflected in the minutes and action letter. The Commission did not feel the fence was necessary, and the additional landscaping needed to be specified for County approval. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission wanted the character of the church to remain consistent with the rural setting in which it is located. He concluded that their recommendation is for approval with 12 conditions as noted in the Commission’s rd September 3 action letter. Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. Mr. Wendell Lamb, Pastor of the Bethel Baptist Church, addressed the Board and thanked the County for the work that has been done so far. He expressed concern with condition 12 referencing additional 25 percent of landscaping materials, which is above the minimum requirement of the present ordinance. Mr. Lamb asked that that condition be removed because of the extra expense it would cost, and said they would fulfill the ordinance as required. He added that there is already a good wooded buffer between the church and the neighbors in the back, and the neighbor to the left has a garden site and does not want landscaping that would shade his garden. Mr. Lamb offered to have their site planner, Brian Smith, answer any additional technical questions. Mr. Dorrier asked how condition 12 got into the recommendations. Mr. Cilimberg responded that originally the condition recommended not only the 25 percent, but also the materials to be used. It was the staff’s feeling that considering the location of the parking area adjacent to the state routes as well as the adjacent property, that it would be reasonable to beef that landscaping up. It has been a condition used on other occasions with churches, but basically that was the intent. He added that the Planning Commission questioned the recommendation given the rural location, but the majority of the Commission felt it should remain. Mr. Cilimberg added that given this location at the intersection of Routes 641 and 600, and adjacent to other residential areas, staff felt the landscaping recommendations to be appropriate. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Board. Motion was then offered by Mr. Rooker to approve SP-2004-0015 subject to the 12 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Mr. Wyant commented that the requirement for additional screening is used arbitrarily, and in the rural areas there is natural screening. He would like to see the Board go with what isrecommended in the Ordinance. Mr. Rooker noted that there was originally more recommended, and the site is at the corner of two roads making it a highly visible spot, and the decision to grant it or not grant it is discretionary. None of these conditions are Code conditions. October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) Mr. Wyant said in looking at the landscape plan, it is fairly heavily landscaped, and there are no specifics given as to where the additional 25 percent is going, so the minimum screening seems to achieve the objective. This issue was brought up to him by somebody else. The Board will be discussing another similar plan tonight that does not require the additional landscaping. He thinks there should be consistency applied. Mr. Rooker asked staff for clarification on the additional 25 percent. Mr. Cilimberg responded that he had not reviewed the plan, and he was not certain as to its placement. In looking at the landscape plan, it does appear to be more than a normal plan might require, but he is not sure how much more. He suggested that the site plan consultant, Brian Smith, address the issue. Mr. Brian Smith said the landscape plan is a generic plan, and there was no canopy calculation, and no specific shrubs and trees are included. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Boyd. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) 1. The church's improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall be developed in general accord with the site plan entitled “Bethel Baptist Church”, prepared by Brian P. Smith, PE Civil Engineering, Inc., and dated April 1, 2004, last revised August 17, 2004; 2. The Church’s sanctuary shall not exceed three hundred forty-five (345) seats; 3. Health Department approval of existing well and septic systems; 4. Commercial setback standards for side and rear setbacks, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained adjacent to residential uses or residentially zoned properties (including RA zoned property). The front setback shall conform to the Rural Areas standard as set forth in Section 10.4 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; 5. A twenty (20)-foot undisturbed buffer, as set forth in Section 21.7.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained along the eastern property line. There shall be no removal of the existing pines within this buffer; 6. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit; 7. VDOT approval of new entrances and closure of existing entrances shall be required. The entrance to Burnley Station Road (Route 641) shall be closed and the existing entrance [approximately fifteen (15)-feet wide] to Watts Passage (Route 600) shall be closed and relocated to the south. The proposed new entrance shall meet commercial standards and radii and profiles of the entrance shall be provided on the site plan; 8. The residential dwelling on the property shall be used only as a parsonage residence; 9. All existing gravel areas not included in the existing and proposed parking areas and travelways shall be replaced with vegetative cover; 10. All parking areas shall drain to the proposed BMP/storm water basin; 11. All exterior light fixtures shall be shown and approved on a site development plan and shall be full cutoff luminaire, fully shielded and arranged or directed to reflect light away from adjoining properties and away from adjacent roads; and 12. An additional twenty-five percent (25) of landscaping materials, above the minimum landscaping materials required by Section 32.7.9.7, shall be installed within the parking area. _______________ Agenda Item No. 11. SP-2004-00020. Elizabeth Bright-ALLTEL Turner Mountain Rd (Sign #27). Public hearing on a request to allow the construction of personal wireless facility. The applicant proposes to construct monopole approx 110 ft tall. Ground mounted equipment will be loc adjacent to the pole. The proposed diameter of the pole is approx 30.5 inches at the base & 14.5 inches at the top. This application is being made in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ord which allows for microwave & radio- wave transmission & relay towers in the RA Dist. TM 58, P 61A, contains 5.2 acs. Znd RA. Loc on E side of Rt 676 (Tillman Rd) approx 0.25 miles N of Rt 250 (Ivy Rd). Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 2004.) Mr. Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, said this application is for construction of a metal monopole, the second on the facility, located on Tillman Road, just north of Ivy Road. He said the pole would be the second on the site, would be six and one-half feet taller than the tree line, and three flush- mounted panel antenna are proposed, as well as base-station equipment. Mr. Fritz said the site is located just below the ridge line of Turner Mountain near another site; the other pole is also metal. He reported that the applicant met in the field and did a balloon test with staff, and worked with staff to relocate the site location in order to minimize the impact on a variety of other properties included historic resources in the area. Mr. Fritz said the applicant was also contacted by an abutting property owner with concerns about screening, and the applicant has agreed to provide screening. Mr. Fritz said the Planning Commission added a condition to the staff’s recommendation which gives the species selection to the County landscape planner. He added that the Commission also discussed whether the pole should be metal or wood, and the general conversation was that metal should be allowed when there is an existing metal pole on the site, or if there is a compelling reason to put wires in the pole, or because it needs to be brought in sections due to winding roads. Mr. Fritz noted that this October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) proposal does not require any road improvements as access already exists. He said that this is a Tier II facility, with only two dead trees needing to be removed. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with the amended landscape condition, and with a wooden pole. Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. Mr. Pete Caramanis, representing ALLTEL, addressed the board. He said he is proud of how the application has turned out, noting that the initial balloon test revealed several problems such as skylighting, and other issues not anticipated in the original design. Mr. Caramanis explained that ALLTEL went back to the drawing board after that test, and worked closely with County staff to devise a better site. He said the tower has been moved closer to the existing tower, is ten feet lower than originally planned, and has better screening. Additionally, Mr. Caramanis said that the closer proximity to the existing tower allows the current road to be used, requires less ground disturbance, and only necessitates the removal of trees that are already dead. He emphasized that the proposed tower is less visible than the existing one on the site, and added that they observed it from a number of locations, adding that a neighboring homeowner to the site, Harvey Wilcox, accompanied them as they drove around and looked at the site. Mr. Caramanis said that Mr. Wilcox was pleased with the site, and attended the Planning Commission meeting to support the request. He added that Mr. Wilcox had written a letter to him about the landscaping, which they have included in the plan. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas to approve SP-2004-0020 subject to the 24 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. She added that she has heard positive comments from neighbors, and ALLTEL used their experience with the other existing pole to guide them in their planning seconded this time. Mr. Wyant the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Boyd. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: 1. With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the conditions listed herein, the facility including the monopole, the ground equipment building, and any antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the concept plan entitled, “Alltel - Turner Mountain Road Site (Bright Property),” last revised on August 9, 2004 and provided in this staff report with Attachment A; 2. The calculation of pole height shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing, natural ground elevation; 3. The top of the pole, as measured Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL), shall not exceed seven (7) feet above the top of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet, identified as number eighty-one (81) on the tree survey (Sheet C7). In no case shall the pole exceed one hundred (100) feet in total height at the time of installation without prior approval of an amendment to this special use permit or personal wireless facility permit; 4. The diameter of the monopole shall not exceed thirty and one-half (30-1/2) inches at its base, and fifteen (15) inches at the top; 5. The metal monopole shall be painted a brown wood color that is consistent with the trees surrounding the site; 6. The ground equipment cabinets, antennas, concrete pad and all equipment attached to the pole shall be the same color as the pole and shall be no larger than the specifications set forth in the application plans; 7. Only flush-mounted antennas shall be permitted. No antennas that project out from the pole beyond the minimum required by the support structure shall be permitted. However, in no case shall the distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be more than twelve (12) inches; 8. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted on the monopole; 9. No antennas or equipment, with the exception of a grounding rod, not to exceed one (1)-inch in diameter and twelve (12) inches in height, shall be located above the top of the pole; 10. No guy wires shall be permitted; 11. No lighting shall be permitted on the site or on the pole, except as herein provided. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. 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 the 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; 12. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be permitted; 13. Size specifications and other details, including schematic elevations of the equipment cabinets shall be included in the construction plan package; 14. Site grading and all construction around the facility shall be minimized to only provide the amount of space that will be necessary for placement of the monopole and equipment cabinets. October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) Graveling of the total lease area shall not be permitted and all grading and construction activity shall remain outside of the drip lines of the trees that are to remain; and 15. The facility shall be screened from the property line located to the east with a species of shade tolerant screening trees to be approved by the Planning Division Landscape Planner. Vegetation provided for such screening shall consist of a double staggered row of trees, planted fifteen (15) feet on center. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met: 16. The applicant shall submit a recorded fall zone easement in accordance Section 5.1.40b; 17. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that has been used to justify the height of the monopole shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator; 18. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the pole, the equipment cabinets or vehicular or utility access, an amended tree conservation plan, developed by a certified arborist shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for approval. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify any existing trees to be removed on the site - both inside and outside the access easement and lease area. All construction or installation associated with the pole and equipment pad, including necessary access for construction or installation, shall be in accordance with this tree conservation plan. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning and Community Development, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the pole and equipment pad. A special use permit amendment shall be required for any future tree removal within the two hundred (200)-foot buffer, after the installation of the subject facility; and 19. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site plans for construction of the facility. During the review of the application, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed. After the completion of the pole installation and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or to any facility operation, the following shall be met: 20. Certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the pole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above sea-level (ASL) using the benchmarks or reference datum identified in the application shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator; 21. Certification confirming that the grounding rod’s: a) height does not exceed two (2) feet above the monopole; and, b) width does not exceed a diameter of one (1)-inch, shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator; and 22. No slopes associated with construction of the facility shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met: 23. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the facility, shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless service provider that uses the facility, including a drawing indicating which equipment, on both the tower and the ground, are associated with each provider; and 24. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney. _______________ Agenda Item No. 12. SP-2004-00023. Grace Community Church (Sign #41). Public hearing on a request for a church building to be constructed on 19.4 ac parcel, in accord w/Sec 18.10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord. A waiver from the critical slopes requirements, as set forth in Sec 18.4.2 of the Zoning Ord, has also been requested. Znd RA. TM 21, P 11. Loc on Rt 606 (Dickerson Rd), W of Rt 29 & S of border w/Greene County. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 2004.) Mr. Cilimberg said this request is for a new structure that would include parking and accessory recreation uses, noting that the footprint at build-out would be approximately 19,500 square feet with a seating capacity of 500, with parking spaces totaling 170. The proposal includes a half-court basketball court, a tot lot and a playground. Mr. Cilimberg said it is anticipated the church will be developed in phases, and would not change the character of the district; however, he added that the size of the ultimate church in combination with the other existing church uses in this area may further diminish the rural character of this particular location. Mr. Cilimberg indicated that the site proposed for development is located in a setting unique to the rural areas in that it is adjacent to the development area and there are two existing churches already in that immediate area. He noted that the tree preservation, additional landscaping, and additional setbacks would help mitigate impacts to the rural area, and are set out in the conditions recommended for the special use permit. Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval, subjected to 11 conditions, including a recommendation for additional landscaping. Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) Mr. Mark Keller of Terra Partners addressed the Board, and introduced Steve Edwards, Keith Scott, Rev. Don Ward, and Glenn Wood. Mr. Keller referenced drawings presented that show how the facility at build-out will look on the site. He said the first phase of the project would be considerably smaller than the overall development, yet after the completion, the capacity of the church would reach 500 compared to 250 or so now. Mr. Keller stated that the first phase includes the sanctuary, and noted the location of other nearby churches. Mr. Wyant asked Mr. Keller if he was in agreement with the 11 conditions. Mr. Keller replied, “yes”. Motion was offered by Mr. Wyant to approve SP-2004-023 subject to the 11 conditions seconded recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Boyd. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) 1. The church’s improvements and the scale and location of the improvements, with the exception of storm water management facilities and the front setback (The required front setback shall be seventy-five (75) feet from the edge of the right-of-way after the twenty-five (25) foot dedication referenced in Condition number 11.), shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan entitled, “Special Use Plan for Grace Community Church,” prepared by Terra Partners, LLC, and dated May 17, 2004, last revised July 27, 2004; 2. If the lawful physical construction of any structure necessary for the use authorized by this permit is not commenced within five (5) years after the permit is issued, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted hereunder shall terminate; 3. The church's sanctuary shall not exceed five hundred (500) seats; 4. All exterior light fixtures shall be full cutoff luminaire and fully shielded and arranged or directed to reflect light away from adjoining properties and away from adjacent roads; 5. Commercial setback standards, as set forth in Section 21.7.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained along the side and rear property lines; 6. Day care or school uses are prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment; 7. Subject to the approval of the Virginia Department of Transportation, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall surface State Route 606 (Dickerson Road) from just beyond the church entrance southward to the end of the existing asphalt surface; 8. If phasing of site development is proposed, each phase shall include only the parking and infrastructure necessary to support the improvements of that phase; 9. As part of the site plan application, a tree conservation plan shall be submitted and approved to the specifications of Section 32.7.9.4(b) of the Zoning Ordinance; 10. The applicant shall dedicate twenty-five (25)-foot dedication of right-of-way along the State Route 606 property frontage. Any plats and/or deeds necessary for this dedication shall be provided by the applicant prior to site plan approval; and 11. An additional twenty-five percent (25) of landscaping materials, above the minimum landscaping materials required by Section 32.7.9.7, shall be installed within the parking area, to offset removal of trees and plant material from the site for construction. The additional landscaping shall consist of a mixture of evergreen and deciduous plant materials. _______________ Agenda Item No. 13. SP-2004-00026. Mission Link Project/Calvary Baptist Church Amendment (Sign #9). Public hearing on a request for modification of conditions of prior SUP (SP-2001-59) to permit construction of accessory structure at existing church on 2.997 acs, in accord w/Sec 13.2.2(10) of the Zoning Ord. Znd R1. The driveway is to be aligned with the Southern Parkway. TM 77, P 43. Loc on Avon St Extd across from Southern Parkway. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 2004.) Mr. Fritz said this is a request to amend the existing conditions for Calvary Baptist Church, which is located on Avon Street, to construct a 1,600 square foot accessory structure to store food, clothing, medicine, educational materials and other supplies used in the church’s mission trips. The reason the item is now before the Board is the specificity of the prior special use permit conditions, which have specific square footage limitations; this application exceeds that. Mr. Fritz commented that this project requires minimal improvements – just the construction of the building, as the site is already graded and cleared, and is not visible from the Entrance Corridor district. Staff reviewed the request for compliance with provisions of the Ordinance and recommends approval. Mr. Fritz stated that staff found several factors favorable to the request: (1) the use provides for an area for the church to store humanitarian supplies; (2) the structure will not be visible from Avon Street or from the developed portion of adjacent properties; (3) the existing site improvements’ access, parking, stormwater facilities, etc., are all adequate for the structure and no other improvements are needed. He added that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval, and had one discussion regarding placing a sidewalk from the parking area to the building, but did not require it. Mr. Fritz noted that if the applicant were to decide to add a sidewalk, it would not require an amendment to this special use permit and could be done administratively. October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. Ms. Cindy Newsome addressed the Board, offering to answer any questions. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed before the board. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to approve SP-2004-0026 subject to the six conditions seconded recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Boyd. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) 1. The church’s improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall be developed in general accord with the submitted preliminary site plan entitled, “Site Plan Calvary Baptist Church” received May 26, 2004 and initialed WDF 9/8/04; 2. The total square footage of the building including the proposed expansion shall not exceed thirteen thousand, one hundred (13,100) square feet; 3. Yards and setbacks for structures shall be in accord with the R-1 setbacks, as specified in Section 13.3 in the Zoning Ordinance, to be in effect on March 20, 2002. Parking areas shall be setback at least ten (10) feet from all property lines, except the southern portion of the property that abuts the Southside Shopping Center; 4. There shall be no day care center of private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit, or amendment to this permit; 5. VDOT approval of the proposed entrance aligning with the Southern Parkway must be granted prior to final site plan approval; and 6. A tree conservation plan for the rear forested area of critical slopes in accordance with Section 32.7.9.4(b) shall be submitted with the final site plan. It may only be disturbed under the conditions of connecting to the available public sewer in the rear of the property. Following such activity, the slopes shall be reconstructed and replanted as deemed necessary to comply with Engineering requirements and the approved final site plan. The tree conservation plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. _______________ Agenda Item No. 14. SP-2004-00030. Old Mills Trail (Signs #11, 12 & 13). Public hearing on a request to permit fill in the floodplain for the purpose of constructing Class B greenways hiking trail, in accord w/Sec 30.3.05.2.2(3) of the Zoning Ord which allows for fill in the floodplain. TM 77, P 41 & TM 78, P 58L, contain total of 26.213 ac. Znd C-1, EC & RA. The trail will be located w/in the floodplain of the Rivanna River just N of Free Bridge Lane along Elks Dr. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 2004.) Mr. Fritz said this is a request for completion of greenway trails in the Pantops area, which would extend from Elks Drive past Route 250 along the Rivanna River, past the Riverbend Garden Apartments. He noted that a special use permit is required because it involves fill in the floodplain. The trail is being constructed by the Parks Department. Mr. Fritz stated that the review of the trail focused largely on the Engineering Department’s review of potential impacts and general safety and maintenance. Staff is recommending approval. He added that the trail makes use of existing Service Authority easements that minimizes the amount of impact required. Mr. Fritz said the trail and bridge designs are adequate for emergency and gator/ATV type vehicles. Mr. Fritz noted that the project is being done with a grant from the Virginia Conservation and Recreation Fund, and the downstream portions from this trail switch from an “A” to a “B,” and this is an “A” trail that will be done with crushed stone. He said the Planning Commission recommended approval with two conditions as stated in the staff report. At its meeting, the Commission discussed that it may be appropriate for a Zoning Text Amendment to occur to allow for minimal trails – Category B Trails – to be permitted by-right with the inclusion of some standards in the design manual. Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. No one came forward, the public hearing was closed, and the matter was placed before the Board. moved Mr. Rooker then for approval of SP-2004-0030 subject to the two conditions seconded recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas the motion, acknowledging the Planning Commissions discussions and commenting that this “is an exciting development to have a nice trail like this, particularly using land that’s already been graded for the utility right-of-way.” Mr. Wyant commented that he is glad the County is using an aggregate trail rather than a paved one because of stormwater runoff. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Boyd. October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) (The conditions of approval are set out below:) 1. Approval by the Service Authority of the grade changes that may affect the sewer lines located within the greenways trail; and 2. County Engineer approval of the construction plan. _______________ Agenda Item No. 15. SP-2003-53. Unity Church of Charlottesville Amendment (Sign #48). Public hearing on a request to amend SUP to allow a church (increasing from 200 to 250 seats), in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord which allows for "church building and adjunct cemetery.” TM 61, Ps 4 & 4B, contains 4.44 acs. Znd RA. Loc on Rt 743 (Hydraulic Rd), approx .25 miles N of the intersec of Hydraulic Rd & Lambs Rd. Jack Jouett Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 2004.) Mr. Cilimberg said this request would amend an existing special use permit for this church, increasing its seating from 200 to 250. He commented that this proposal is not expected to create any significantly different impact for the adjacent properties, but staff did note that the proposed sanctuary building is located several feet from the water lines serving a residential parcel to the west, and the concept plan includes notes regarding both upgrading and adjusting the locations of these water lines as necessary during the construction of the church. Mr. Cilimberg said the plan also shows water meters located within the entrance island, and the Albemarle County Service Authority will require that this location be changed, which can be accomplished during the site plan process. He stated that staff recommends conditions to address both ARB and Service Authority concerns, and recommends approval with those eight conditions, some of which have suggested modifications by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. Ms. Lynn Foster, a member of the building team for Unity Church, addressed the Board. She offered to answer any questions. She presented an artists rendering of the proposed sanctuary building. Mr. Dorrier commented that the proposed building looks like an impressive facility. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Board. moved Mr. Rooker approval of SP-2003-0053 subject to the eight conditions recommended by seconded the Planning Commission. Mr. Wyant the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Boyd. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) 1. The church sanctuary shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) seats; 2. Construction of the two hundred fifty (250)-seat sanctuary shall commence within thirty (30) months of the approval of this permit or it shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted by this permit shall thereupon terminate; 3. The site shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Unity Church”, revision 4 (“6/28/04 Comments”), prepared by Muncaster Engineering. Adjustments to the number of parking spaces approved by the Zoning Administrator, and a rearrangement of the parking spaces to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board, shall be deemed to be in general accord with the conceptual plan. Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities or structures must be determined by the Zoning Administrator to be in general accord with the conceptual plan, the staff report, and the Architectural Review Board action of August 2, 2004; 4. The applicants shall relocate the twenty-two (22)-space parking lot shown north of the driveway nearer to the traffic circle; 5. The applicants shall provide plantings to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board; 6. Location of water meters and water lines on the site shall be adjusted to the satisfaction of the Albemarle County Service Authority; 7. The property may not be further divided; and 8. There shall be no more than one (1) residential dwelling on this property. _______________ Agenda Item No. 16. ZMA-2004-010. UVA Research Park Amendment (Sign #96). Public hearing on a request to amend existing proffers for 5.9 ac in Fontaine Research Park to allow increase of 40,000 sq ft, for maximum of 535,000 sq ft of research & laboratory space. Znd CO & EC. TM 76, Ps 17B & 17B6. Loc in Fontaine Research Park on S side of Rt 29 (Fontaine Ave) immediately E of Rt 29/250 By-Pass. (The Comp Plan designates this property as Office Service in the southern portion of Neighborhood 6.) Samuel Miller Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4, 2004.) Mr. Cilimberg said this request would amend an existing proffer that was approved in a prior rezoning for the Fontaine Research Park, and would allow additional square footage for research and laboratory space. Because the use requires less parking than the previously approved office use, he said, existing parking capacity will accommodate the additional building area. Mr. Cilimberg noted that if October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) approved, the proffer amendment would add 40,000 square feet, increasing the total park capacity to 535,000 square feet. The applicant has agreed to provide bus shelter within the park for transit riders. He stated that staff and the Planning Commission both found that the research park request for additional square footage meets the objectives of the land use plan for infill development in the urban area, in a location where jobs will be placed near areas of dense population. Mr. Cilimberg added that staff and the Commission further found that the building expansion could be accommodated by the existing site plan without adverse impact to the physical environment, other activities on the site, or nearby properties and neighborhoods. He noted that staff and the Commission recommend approval of the request with proffers as updated and signed. Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing. Ms. Valerie Long, representing the applicant, addressed the Board, and introduced Mr. Tim Rose and Mr. Bruce Stouffer of the University of Virginia Foundation. Ms. Long emphasized that the main goal of the proffer amendment is to increase the permitted density of the park by the 40,000 square feet, noting that it will not require additional parking. She offered to answer any questions. Ms. Thomas noted that Item 10 in the proffers should correctly state the “Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.” Mr. Davis agreed that the intent is clear. Ms. Thomas commented that she is appreciative of the bus shelter, and noted that the Fontaine Apartments plan includes a proffer for a walking path from those residences to the Fontaine Avenue movedseconded Research Park. She then approval of ZMA-2004-010 as proffered. Mr. Wyant the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Boyd. (The proffers are set set out below:) ZMA-2004-010 PROFFERS FONTAINE RESEARCH PARK October 13, 2004 TAX MAP PARCELS 76-17B, 17B(1), 17B(2), 17B(3), 17B(5), 17B(6), 17B(7), 17B(8), 17B(X), and 17B(W). 53.52 Acres, Zoned Commercial Office (CO) Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County, Virginia Code (the “Code”), and consistent with the Water Protection Ordinance, or “Ordinance” (Chapter 17 of the Code) the Owners (as defined below), or their duly authorized agents, hereby voluntarily proffer the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property. The proffers contained herein supersede all previous proffers pertaining to the above-referenced parcels. Any previous proffers applicable to such parcels have either: i) been fully satisfied, ii) are no longer applicable, or iii) have been incorporated in their entirety into these proffers. These conditions are proffered as part of the requested zoning (ZMA 2004-010) and it is agreed that: 1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and 2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. The Applicant of ZMA 2004-010 is the University of Virginia Foundation (the “Applicant”), successor to the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation, which is successor to UREF Research Parks, Inc. The owners of parcels of land within the Fontaine Research Park include the University of Virginia Foundation, the University of Virginia Health Services Foundation, and the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (collectively, the “Owners”). 1. Proffer number 1 from ZMA 2000-04 has been satisfied. 2. Development shall substantially adhere to the Fontaine Research Park Master Plan, prepared by Draper Aden Associates, last revised August 18, 2000 (“Master Plan”), submitted with the proffers for ZMA 2000-04, which proffers were accepted as part of the Board of Supervisors approval of ZMA 2000-04 on September 20, 2000. The Master Plan replaces in its entirety all previous proffered plans, including the Zoning Application Plan, dated May 1992, and prepared by McKee/Carson. 3. Proffer number 3 from ZMA 2000-04 has been satisfied. The pedestrian path that was constructed pursuant to proffer number 3 from ZMA 2000-04 is located within the common areas of the Research Park and will be maintained by the Owners under a common maintenance agreement, until such time as the common areas are conveyed to The Fontaine Research Park Association (or such other name as may be selected pursuant to the Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions for Fontaine Research Park, dated January 20, 1993, and recorded at the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia in Deed Book 1286, page 604) at which time the path will be maintained by the Association. October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) 4. The University of Virginia Foundation will construct a pedestrian system within the Research Park, in general conformance with the system shown on the Master Plan. Specific features for conformity shall include pedestrian connection from buildings to other buildings and parking areas. 5. The University of Virginia Foundation will limit total development on the site to 535,000 square feet of floor area. Support commercial uses shall be limited in building area to 20,000 square feet of gross floor area. 6. All buildings will be limited to four stories in height. The University of Virginia Foundation will maintain the existing landscape buffer area to screen the project from Fontaine Avenue and residential neighborhoods adjoining the Fontaine Research Park. 7. Strict architectural and landscape architectural guidelines and restrictions shall continue to govern the design and construction of all buildings and parcel specific site development. Such architectural guidelines and restrictions shall be applied and enforced in accordance with the Declaration of Protective Covenants and Restrictions for the Fontaine Research Park, dated January 20, 1993, and recorded at the Clerk’s Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle, Virginia in Deed Book 1286, page 604. 8. Best Management Practices will be implemented in all areas of earth disturbing activity. Storm water management shall be accomplished through a combination of new storm water management facilities and modification of existing storm water and/or erosion control facilities, as modified and as shown on the Master Plan. All required stormwater management and BMP structures are existing and complete as required by the Master Plan. The University of Virginia Foundation will not create any land disturbance in the area indicated as Resource Protection Area on the Master Plan, except for pedestrian pathways and the storm water management facility, (as shown on the Master Plan) without the approval of the Planning Commission. The Resource Protection Area is intended to be delineated as all the area within 100 feet of the boundaries of the 100 year flood plain elevations. 9. At such time as the Board of Supervisors approves of a plan of development for a pedestrian/bicycle and greenway improvements for the Morey Creek/Stribling Avenue area, the University of Virginia Foundation shall dedicate a strip of land, at least one hundred feet (100’) in width along Morey Creek up to the Southern Railway right-of-way (as it exists on September 20, 2000), then north, along the Southern Railway right-of -way to the intersection of such right-of-way and Stribling Avenue (the “Greenway”). The Greenway will be conveyed in fee simple or in the form of an easement, as the Board of Supervisors’ approval may require, and the University of Virginia Foundation shall be responsible for the cost of a survey and preparing the deed or deed of easement, as applicable. The University of Virginia Foundation may reserve in such dedication necessary access across the Greenway to the Southern Railway right-of-way in the event that such right-of-way is ever used for commuter rail service. The Greenway may be established at any time as determined by the Board of Supervisors. A pedestrian connection to the Greenway shall be made at such time as improvements arc made to establish the pedestrian and bicycle paths as part of the Greenway, and improvements are made to Stribling Avenue to include paving and street lights. 10. The University of Virginia Foundation has adopted, and shall continue to implement, a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) for the Research Park, incorporating traffic reduction amenities (such as pedestrian access, as depicted on the Master Plan), facilitating employer traffic reduction measures and promoting educational programs. The TDMP shall offer employee surveys to be conducted by, or with the guidance of, the Thomas Jefferson District Commission, or a similar organization. Surveys will be available to develop specific programs for employers within the Research Park tailored to commuter needs. The TDMP shall stress increased awareness of available alternative transportation means in and around the University community, including van service between the medical campuses, University and City transit systems, employee benefits, and parking shuttle service. The TDMP will establish or promote means for reducing single occupancy vehicle use, including but not limited to providing educational programs on ridesharing, striping high occupancy vehicle parking spaces and installing bicycle racks near buildings. The TDMP shall be available to existing and future employers and employees at the Research Park via appropriate and effective means. 11. On or before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the building identified as the Future ART (Advanced Research and Technology) Building on the concept plan dated September 3, 2004, and initialed SET and labeled as Attachment B as part of the staff report for ZMA 2004-010, the University of Virginia Foundation shall construct at its expense a bus shelter of a design and in a location to be reasonably determined by the University of Virginia Foundation upon consultation with University Transit Service, JAUNT, the University of Virginia Health Services Foundation, and the Albemarle County Transportation Planner. The shelter shall be of a standard size and design based upon the projected usage and site constraints, shall include a bench with a back, and shall be maintained by the Owners under a common maintenance agreement. _______________ October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) (The next two items were heard concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 17. ZTA-2003-002. Personal Wireless Service Facilities. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Secs 3.1, Definitions, 5.1.40, Personal wireless service facilities, 10.2.1, By right, 10.2.2, By special use permit, 12.2.1, By right, 12.2.2, By special use permit, 13.2.1, By right, 13.2.2, By special use permit, 14.2.1, By right, 14.2.2, By special use permit, 15.2.1, By right, 15.2.2, By special use permit, 16.2.1, By right, 16.2.2, By special use permit, 17.2.1, By right, 17.2.2, By special use permit, 18.2.1, By right, 18.2.2, By special use permit, 19.2.1, By right, 19.2.2, By special use permit, 20.3.1, By right, 20.3.2, By special use permit, 20A.6, Permitted uses, 22.2.1, By right, 22.2.2, By special use permit, 23.2.1, By right, 23.2.2, By special use permit, 24.2.1, By right, 24.2.2, By special use permit, 25.2.2, By special use permit, 27.2.1, By right, 27.2.2, By special use permit, 28.2.1, By right, 28.2.2, By special use permit, 30.3.5.1.1, By right within the floodway, 30.3.5.2.1, By special use permit within the floodway, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This proposed amendment would define terms related to personal wireless service facilities, establish a three-tier process for reviewing applications for personal wireless service facilities based upon prescribed criteria, & allow personal wireless facilities by right or by special use permit in the identified zoning districts depending on the tier under which the facility qualifies consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy (Deferred from July 14, 2004). (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on September 14 and September 24, 2004.) __________ Agenda Item No. 18. ZTA-2004-007. Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facilities Fees. Public hearing on an ordinance to amend Section 35.0, Fees, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code to impose fees to cover the cost of services rendered by the County in reviewing and approving the information, reports, documents and plans required to be submitted for Tier II personal wireless service facilities under proposed amended section 5.1.40 (“Tier II review”) of Chapter 18, and other expenses incident to the administration of the Zoning Ordinance related thereto. The fees for each Tier II review would be $790.00. The proposed fees are authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(6). (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on September 14 and September 21, 2004.) Ms. Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning, said that at its meeting on July 14, 2004, the Board held a public hearing on an ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance to implement the second phase of regulations pertaining to personal wireless service facilities by revising several existing regulations and adding the three-tiered review system recommended by the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy. The Board deferred action on this item, requesting that staff make revisions to the proposed language to address issues raised at the public hearing and to take the necessary steps to establish a fee for Tier II facilities. Key substantive revisions recommended are: Section 3.1 Definitions - Avoidance area: Properties held in conservation and open space easements have been removed from this definition. Some easement-holders have become receptive to allowing at least one facility that meets the Tier II criteria within their easements. The removal of conservation and open space easements as an avoidance area will place the main focus upon visual impacts while allowing organizations holding the easements to govern the uses that are appropriate within them. The Board discussed the idea of relaxing the avoidance area designation applicable to multiple facilities to allow the horizontal collocation of up to four Tier II facilities within 200 feet of one another. The revised definition removes the language that would have established avoidance areas within 200 feet of any existing or approved personal wireless facility. However, staff recommends that only three facilities be allowed within 200 feet of one another to establish an avoidance area. A fourth facility and any subsequent facilities could be placed within 200 feet of the three other existing or approved facilities by special use permit. A similar limitation currently applies to collocating antennas on a single structure – the fourth antenna triggers the requirement for a special use permit. Also at the Board’s request, locations within 200 feet of State scenic rivers, National parks and National forests have been removed as avoidance areas. When reviewing requests for the installation of new facilities, staff recognizes that the potential for negative visual impacts of personal wireless service facilities should be considered from all off-site properties from where the site can be seen, including these types of resources. Furthermore, the plans for these facilities will continue to be reviewed in each case to ensure that there are no resulting negative environmental impacts upon any neighboring properties, such as disturbance from grading, tree cutting or construction. Section 5.1.40.a.6 (a) Personal wireless service facilities: As a housekeeping effort, staff recommends a reduction in the amount of time that an applicant has to contact the agent to schedule a balloon test and the time by which the test has to be performed to ten days and 40 days after submittal of the application, respectively. This is because the review schedule for Tier II permits will be much shorter than that which is allowed for special use permits. Section 5.1.40.a.8 Personal wireless service facilities: Language has been added to require the submittal of a copy of a recorded deed of easement and written consent from all holders of any conservation and/or open space easement within which a personal wireless service facility is proposed. Section 5.1.40.d.2 [Tier II facilities]: Language requiring the provision of adequate opportunities for onsite screening of Tier II facilities has been added at the Board’s request. October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) Section 5.1.40.d.4 [Tier II facilities]: Language has been added (as subsection (4)) to reinforce the portion of the avoidance area definition regarding the maximum number of treetop facilities that can be located within 200 feet of one another and reviewed under Tier II regulations. Please note that the addition of subsection (4) has resulted in an increase in the number of criteria for Tier II facilities from 12 to 13 items. Section 5.1.40.d.6 [Tier II facilities]: At the Board’s request, staff deleted language that would require an applicant to demonstrate that the physical constraints of a site necessitate a height that is more than seven feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet. The proposed language now focuses only on visual and environmental impacts. Section 5.1.40.d.7 [Tier II facilities]: The requirement that ground equipment must be colored brown to match that of the monopole has been revised. As an alternative to being colored brown, the equipment may be screened from the public view within an approved structure, or behind some form of facade or fencing that is determined to be consistent with the character of the area and is colored brown. Section 5.1.40.d.13 [Tier II facilities]: Staff has revised the language allowing an applicant owning an existing treetop facility to increase its height related to the growth of trees surrounding the site. This revision removes the previous vague language granting the agent authority to approve such a request upon finding that the proposed height increase will not cause additional adverse impacts. This new language will instead base the agent’s decision on the more objective qualities of increases in tree heights and the potential of increased skylighting of the facility. Fees: In attempting to address the Board’s questions regarding the fee schedule for the three different types of facilities, staff has determined that Tier I and Tier III facilities will continue to be accepted with building permit and special use permit applications, which already have fees assigned. Because of the similar level of review, staff recommends that Tier II facilities are assessed the same fee that is established in Section 35.f.3 for final site development plans that require Planning Commission review after approval of the preliminary site development plan. However, because the Tier II facilities will require development of a totally new set of applications and checklists, it is staff’s opinion that Tier II facilities should be listed as a separate category in Section 35 "Fees" in the Zoning Ordinance, requiring a separate zoning text amendment. This newly proposed amendment to the fee schedule has been addressed in ZTA-2004-007, which was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on September 28, 2004. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the ordinance dated September 29, 2004. Ms. Thomas asked about screening so that resources specifically identified for protection in a conservation easement are shielded. She also asked if it might be better to say the facility would be “located on or adjacent to a conservation easement,” to ensure that people who have given an easement would not have to view towers. She wants to either change the text so that it protects the easement property from the site of the tower and its edge, or be assured that as written either here or elsewhere in the Ordinance, the Board can be sure that the property would have that kind of protection. Mr. Rooker clarified that Ms. Thomas wants the amendment to state that if the facility would be located on lands subject to an easement, or adjacent to an easement, it should be sited so that it is not visible from any resources identified for protection in the easement. Mr. Davis said it would not be a problem to make that change in wording. Ms. Thomas also pointed out a typographical error. Mr. Dorrier opened the public hearing for both ordinances. Ms. Valerie Long addressed the Board. The July work session on this amendment was one of the most productive sessions she has had with the Board and the Planning Commission, and she really appreciated the “give and take” that happened at that meeting. She is very supportive of the amendment, but expressed concern over Section 13, Part D, which addresses the issue as to whether the height of the pole can be increased upon determination or evidentiary information that the trees have grown. Under the current wording, the language reads that the pole should never be seven feet or ten feet above the tallest tree, but the practical reality is that it provides protection for both the County and the applicant, should the tallest tree fall or if tree height increases through growth. Ms. Long said that the way the language is written now, instead of just having to demonstrate that trees have grown, an applicant must demonstrate that the increase in the tree height will not have an increased impact on visibility or provide for additional skylighting. She described this as a step backwards, noting that several of her clients have already had difficulties working with the existing procedure because they have tried to raise the pole height and have found it challenging. Ms. Long stated that it would be appropriate if evidence is provided that the trees have grown, the pole should be able to be raised an equivalent height, and added that under the proposed new language, the applicant would have to lower the pole if the tallest tree falls regardless of the impact on visibility. There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Thomas stated that if a pole at present height is not skylighted and is the correct height above an existing tree, and that tree grows and the tower is increased, its location could increase its chance of being skylighted because skylighting doesn’t always have a relevance to the tallest tree. She said that the tallest tree blocks the view of the tower from one direction, but raising a tower could certainly increase its chance of being skylighted from all other angles, even though one angle is taken care of by the tallest tree. It’s a 360 degree situation. October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23) Ms. Sprinkle noted that a reference tree is not necessarily in one location – it can be behind, in front, or wherever, and since staff is only using a reference tree, there are a lot of different things that can happen once that tree grows. Mr. Wyant commented that soft woods like pines tend to fall easier, and everything would grow relative within the 25 feet of that tower. Ms. Thomas said that the Board would always consult Mr. Perkins in these matters, and he assured them that it was unlikely that mature trees would grow very much. She asked about the County’s experience, if trees have increased in height and if towers have had to be increased. Ms. Sprinkle replied that she has only heard of two, and has not been made aware of any problems. Mr. Rooker commented that he does not feel that strongly about this, as there are not that many cases where a tower height can be increased, and it seems logical to raise the tower height along with the height of the tallest tree. Ms. Thomas said that skylighting is what should be avoided, and that is what should be looked for. Mr. Rooker agreed, but said that it should be part of the special use permit process, and the applicant would have to file an amendment to the permit. Mr. Davis stated that the other route for an applicant would be to file a Tier II application that would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission to meet those requirements at the increased height. If the agent couldn’t make that finding, the applicant could reapply as a Tier II and if the Planning Commission rejected it, then it would become a Tier III with a special use permit. Mr. Rooker suggested that the issue could be addressed if it becomes a problem. Motion seconded was then made by Mr. Rooker, by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt ZTA-2003-002 as amended. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Boyd. (The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:) ORDINANCE NO. 04-18(2) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Definitions Sec. 5.1.40 Personal wireless service facilities Sec. 10.2.1 By right Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 12.2.1 By right Sec. 12.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 13.2.1 By right Sec. 13.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 14.2.1 By right Sec. 14.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 15.2.1 By right Sec. 15.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 16.2.1 By right Sec. 16.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 17.2.1 By right Sec. 17.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 18.2.1 By right Sec. 18.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 19.3.1 By right Sec. 19.3.2 By special use permit Sec. 20.3.1 By right Sec. 20.3.2 By special use permit Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses Sec. 22.2.1 By right Sec. 22.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 23.2.1 By right Sec. 23.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 24.2.1 By right October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) Sec. 24.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 25.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 27.2.1 By right Sec. 27.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 28.2.1 By right Sec. 28.2.2 By special use permit Sec. 30.3.5.1.1 By right within the floodway Sec. 30.3.5.2.1 By special use permit within the floodway Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Sec. 3.1 Definitions Antenna array: An orderly arrangement of antennas mounted at the same height on a tower or other structure and intended to transmit a signal providing coverage over a specific area for a single provider of personal wireless services. Avoidance area: An area having significant resources where the siting of personal wireless service facilities could result in adverse impacts as follows: (i) any ridge area where a personal wireless service facility would be skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural and forestal district; (iii) a parcel within a historic district; (iv) any location in which the proposed personal wireless service facility and three (3) or more existing or approved personal wireless service facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet; or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any state scenic highway or by-way. Personal wireless service facility: A facility for the provision of personal wireless services, as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 332 (Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), including those Federal Communications Commission licensed commercial wireless telecommunications services such as cellular, personal communications services (PCS), specialized mobile radio (SMR), enhanced specialized mobile radio (ESMR), and unlicensed wireless services and common carrier wireless exchange access services. Reference tree: A tree designated for determining the top height of a treetop facility’s monopole mounting structure. This may either be the tallest tree within twenty five (25) feet of the proposed monopole or a shorter tree that has been strategically identified for screening and camouflaging purposes. Ridge area: All land within one hundred (100) vertical feet of, and including, the ridgeline and peaks of a mountain or chain of mountains, as identified on a ridge area map approved by the board of supervisors. Ridgeline: The uppermost line created by connecting the peaks of a mountain or chain of mountains, and from which land declines in elevation on at least two (2) sides, as identified on a ridge area map approved by the board of supervisors. Skylight: Locating a personal wireless service facility in such a way that the sky is the backdrop of any portion of the facility. Skylight has the same meaning as “skylining,” as that term is used in the wireless policy. Tier I personal wireless service facility or Tier I facility: A personal wireless service facility that: (i) is located entirely within an existing building but which may include a self-contained shelter or cabinet not exceeding one hundred fifty (150) square feet that is not within the building or a whip antenna that satisfy the requirements of section 5.1.40(c); (ii) consists of one or more antennas, other than a microwave dish, attached to an existing conforming structure other than a flag pole, that do not exceed the height of the structure, and are flush mounted to the structure, together with associated personal wireless service equipment; or (iii) is located within or camouflaged by an addition to an existing structure determined by the agent to be in character with the structure and the surrounding district. Tier II personal wireless service facility or Tier II facility: A personal wireless service facility that is a treetop facility not located within an avoidance area. Tier III personal wireless service facility or Tier III facility: A personal wireless service facility that is neither a Tier I nor a Tier II facility, including a facility that was not approved by the commission or the board of supervisors as a Tier II facility. Treetop facility: A personal wireless service facility consisting of a self-supporting monopole having a single shaft of wood, metal or concrete no more than ten (10) feet taller than the crown of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, measured above sea level (ASL), and includes associated antennas, mounting structures, an equipment cabinet and other essential personal wireless service equipment. Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 5.1.40 Personal wireless service facilities The purpose of this section 5.1.40 is to implement the personal wireless service facilities policy, adopted as part of the comprehensive plan. Each personal wireless service facility (hereinafter “facility”) shall be October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) subject to following, as applicable: a. Application for approval: Each request for approval of a facility shall include the following information: 1. A completed application form, signed by the parcel owner, the parcel owner’s agent or the contract purchaser, and the proposed facility’s owner. If the owner’s agent signs the application, he shall also submit written evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. If the contract purchaser signs the application, he shall also submit the owner’s written consent to the application. 2. A recorded plat or recorded boundary survey of the parcel on which the facility will be located; provided, if neither a recorded plat nor boundary survey exists, a copy of the legal description of the parcel and the Albemarle County Circuit Court deed book and page number. 3. The identity of the owner of the parcel and, if the owner is other than a real person, the complete legal name of the entity, a description of the type of entity, and written documentation that the person signing on behalf of the entity is authorized to do so. 4. Except where the facility will be located entirely within an existing structure, a scaled plan and a scaled elevation view and other supporting drawings, calculations, and other documentation required by the agent, signed and sealed by an appropriate licensed professional. The plans and supporting drawings, calculations and documentation shall show: (a) The location and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements on the parcel including access roads and structures, the location and dimensions of significant natural features, and the maximum height above ground of the facility (also identified in height above sea level). (b) The benchmarks and datum used for elevations. The datum shall coincide with the Virginia State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), United States Survey Feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88), and the benchmarks shall be acceptable to the county engineer. (c) The design of the facility, including the specific type of support structure and the design, type, location, size, height and configuration of all existing and proposed antennas and other equipment. (d) Identification of each paint color on the facility, by manufacturer color name and color number. A paint chip or sample shall be provided for each color. (e) Except where the facility would be attached to an existing structure, the topography within two thousand (2,000) feet of the proposed facility, in contour intervals not to exceed ten (10) feet for all lands within Albemarle County and, in contour intervals shown on United States Geological Survey topographic survey maps or the best topographic data available, for lands not within Albemarle County. (f) The height, caliper and species of all trees where the dripline is located within fifty (50) feet of the facility that are relied upon to establish the proposed height and/or screening of the monopole. All trees that will be adversely impacted or removed during installation or maintenance of the facility shall be noted, regardless of their distances to the facility. (g) All existing and proposed setbacks, parking, fencing and landscaping. (h) The location of all existing accessways and the location and design of all proposed accessways. (i) Except where the facility would be attached to an existing structure, residential and commercial structures, and residential and rural areas zoning district boundaries. (j) If the proposed tower will be taller than one hundred fifty (150) feet, the proximity of the facility to commercial and private airports. 5. Photographs, where possible, or perspective drawings of the facility site and all existing facilities within two hundred (200) feet of the site, if any, and the area surrounding the site. 6. For any proposed monopole or tower, photographs taken of a balloon test, which shall be conducted as follows: (a) The applicant shall contact the agent within ten (10) days after the date the application was submitted to schedule a date and time when the balloon test will October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 26) be conducted. The test shall be conducted within forty (40) days after the date the application was submitted, and the applicant shall provide the agent with at least seven (7) days prior notice; provided that this deadline may be extended due to inclement weather or by the agreement of the applicant and the agent. (b) Prior to the balloon test, the locations of the access road, the lease area, the tower site, the reference tree and the tallest tree within twenty five (25) feet of the proposed monopole shall be surveyed and staked or flagged in the field. (c) The test shall consist of raising one or more balloons from the site to a height equal to the proposed facility. (d) The balloons shall be of a color or material that provides maximum visibility. (e) The photographs of the balloon test shall be taken from the nearest residence and from appropriate locations on abutting properties, along each publicly used road from which the balloon is visible, and other properties and locations as deemed appropriate by the agent. The applicant shall identify the camera type, film size, and focal length of the lens for each photograph. 7. If antennas are proposed to be added to an existing structure, all existing antennas and other equipment on the structure, as well as all ground equipment, shall be identified by owner, type and size. The method(s) by which the antennas will be attached to the mounting structure shall be depicted. 8. If the proposed facility would be located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, a copy of the recorded deed of easement and the express written consent of all easement holders to the proposed facility. b. Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable regulations in this chapter. 1. Notwithstanding section 4.2.3.1 of this chapter, a facility may be located in an area on a lot or parcel other than a building site. 2. Notwithstanding section 4.10.3.1(b) of this chapter, the agent may authorize a facility to be located closer in distance than the height of the tower or other mounting structure to any lot line if the applicant obtains an easement or other recordable document showing agreement between the lot owners, acceptable to the county attorney addressing development on the part of the abutting parcel sharing the common lot line that is within the facility’s fall zone (e.g., the setback of an eighty (80) foot-tall facility could be reduced to thirty (30) feet if an easement is established prohibiting development on the abutting lot within a fifty (50) foot fall zone). If the right-of-way for a public street is within the fall zone, the Virginia Department of Transportation shall be included in the staff review, in lieu of recording an easement or other document. 3. The area and bulk regulations or minimum yard requirements of the zoning district in which the facility will be located shall not apply. 4. Notwithstanding section 4.11 of this chapter, a facility may be located in a required yard. 5. Notwithstanding section 32.2 of this chapter, a site plan shall not be required for a facility, but the facility shall be subject to the requirements of section 32 and the applicant shall submit all schematics, plans, calculations, drawings and other information required by the agent to determine whether the facility complies with section 32. In making this determination, the agent may impose reasonable conditions authorized by section 32 in order to assure compliance. c. Tier I facilities. Each Tier I facility may be established upon approval of an application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) by the agent, demonstrating that the facility will be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter, satisfying all conditions of the architectural review board, and meeting the following conditions: 1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b). 2. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: (i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located within the existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county’s landscape planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of facility or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of the installation of the facility, the applicant shall provide October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 27) a statement to the agent certifying that the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation. 3. Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application shall not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and (iii) each antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the existing structure. For purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes regardless of their use shall be counted toward the limit of three arrays. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be submitted to the agent for review and approval to assure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify all existing trees to be removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and maintenance of the facility. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions surrounding the lease area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may identify additional trees or lands up to two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan. 5. The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and dying trees identified by the arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the tree conservation plan. If tree removal is later requested that was not approved by the agent when the tree conservation plan was approved, the applicant shall submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended plan if the proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the purposes of this paragraph are achieved. 6. The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether surety should be required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or pole is no longer being used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was not filed; (iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole will be unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable regulations or conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower or pole within the county; and (vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the agent. 7. The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the agent by no earlier than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each user of the existing structure, and include a drawing, photograph or other illustration identifying which equipment is owned and/or operated by each personal wireless service provider. Multiple users on a single tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user acquiescing in the report. 8. No slopes associated with the installation of the facility and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are employed. 9. Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building shall be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would protect the facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. d. Tier II facilities. Each Tier II facility may be established upon commission approval of an application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and demonstrating that the facility will be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter, criteria (1) through (8) below, and satisfying all conditions of the architectural review board. The commission shall act on each application within the time periods established in section 32.4.2.6. The commission shall approve each application, without conditions, once it determines that all of these requirements have been satisfied. If the commission denies an application, it shall identify which requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement. October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 28) 1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) and subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9). 2. The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a national park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement. 3. The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s open space plan. 4. The facility shall not be located so that it and three (3) or more existing or approved personal wireless service facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet. 5. The maximum base diameter of the monopole shall be thirty (30) inches and the maximum diameter at the top of the monopole shall be eighteen (18) inches. 6. The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level, shall not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall not be more than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, and shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing natural ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not a material difference in adverse impacts to resources identified in the county’s open space plan caused by the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s denial of a modification to the board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12). 7. Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color; each metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to blend into the surrounding trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole shall be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground equipment cabinet, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a color if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, façade or fencing that: (i) is a color that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the area; and (iii) makes the ground equipment and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other parcel or a public or private street. 8. Each wood monopole shall be constructed so that all cables, wiring and similar attachments that run vertically from the ground equipment to the antennas are placed on the pole to face the interior of the property and away from public view, as determined by the agent. Metal monopoles shall be constructed so that vertical cables, wiring and similar attachments are contained within the monopole’s structure. 9. The following shall be submitted with the building permit application: (i) certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the reference tree that is used to determine the permissible height of the monopole; and (ii) a final revised set of plans for the construction of the facility. The agent shall review the surveyor’s certificate and the plans to assure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied. 10. The following shall be submitted to the agent after installation of the monopole is completed and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: (i) certification by a registered surveyor stating the height of the monopole, measured both in feet above ground level and in elevation above mean sea level, using the benchmarks or reference datum identified in the application; and (ii) certification stating that the lightning rod’s height does not exceed two (2) feet above the top of the monopole and width does not exceed a diameter of one (1) inch. 11. Notice of the commission’s consideration of an application for a Tier II facility shall be sent by the agent to the owner of each lot abutting the lot on which the proposed facility will be located. The notice shall describe the nature of the facility, its proposed location on the lot, its proposed height, the appropriate county office where the complete Tier II facility application may be viewed, and the date, time and location where the commission will consider the application. The notice shall be mailed by first class mail or hand delivered at least ten (10) days prior to the commission meeting. Mailed notice shall be mailed to the last known address of the owner, and mailing the notice to the address October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 29) shown on the current real estate tax assessment records of the county shall be deemed compliance with this requirement. The failure of an owner to receive the notice as provided herein shall not affect the validity of an approved Tier II facility and shall not be the basis for an appeal. 12. The board of supervisors may consider an application for a Tier II facility only upon an appeal of the denial of the application by the commission. An appeal shall be submitted in writing in the office of the agent within ten (10) calendar days after the date of the denial by the commission. In considering an appeal, the board may affirm, reverse, or modify in whole or in part, the decision of the commission, and its decision shall be based upon the requirements delineated in this subsection (d). 13. Upon the written request of the applicant, the agent may authorize the height of an existing Tier II facility’s monopole to be increased above its originally approved height upon finding that the reference tree has grown to a height that is relative to the requested increase in height of the monopole. The application shall include a certified survey of the reference tree’s new height, as well as the heights of other trees to be considered by the agent. The agent shall not grant such a request if the increase in height would cause the facility to be skylighted or would increase the extent to which it is skylighted. e. Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter, initiated upon an application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.2.4, and it shall be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the following: 1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b), subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9), and subsection 5.1.40(d)(2), (3), (6) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during special use permit review. 2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit. Article III. District Regulations Sec. 10.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted in any RA district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations: 22. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: (Added 10-9-02) 48. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 12.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance: 16. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 12.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 16. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 13.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance: 13. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 13.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 12. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 30) Sec. 14.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance: 13. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 14.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 14. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 15.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to requirements and limitations of this ordinance: 15. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 15.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 16. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 16.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: 16. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 16.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 16. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 17.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: 16. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 17.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 18. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 18.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: 16. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 18.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 18. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 19.3.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: 12. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 31) Sec. 19.3.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit, provided that no separate application shall be required for any such use as shall be included in the original PRD rezoning petition: 10. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 20.3.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: 12. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 20.3.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit, provided that no separate application shall be required for any such use included in the original PUD rezoning petition: 8. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 20A.6 Permitted uses The following uses shall be permitted in an NMD, subject to the regulations in this section and section 8, the approved general development plan and code of development, and the accepted proffers: a. By right uses. The following uses are permitted by right: 9. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 22.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted in any C-1 district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character and more specifically, similar in terms of locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.0. b. The following services and public establishments: 27. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 22.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 14. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 23.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted in any CO district, subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations: 14. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 23.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 15. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 24.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted in any HC district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit, as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character, and more specifically, similar in terms of locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.0. October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 32) 45. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 24.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 17. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 25.2.2 By special use permit 6. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 27.2.1 By right Except as otherwise limited by section 27.2.2.10, the following uses shall be permitted in any LI district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations: (Amended 2-13-85) 19. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 27.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 17. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 28.2.1 By right Except as otherwise limited by section 28.2.2.14, the following uses shall be permitted in any HI district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations: (Amended 2-13-85) 25. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 28.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 18. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 30.3.05.1.1 By right within the floodway The following uses or activities are authorized within the floodway as a matter of right: 8. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). Sec. 30.3.05.2.1 By special use permit within the floodway The following uses or activities are authorized within the floodway by special use permit: 7. Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40). _______________ Motion seconded was then made by Mr. Rooker, by Ms. Thomas, to adopt ZTA-2004-007 as presented. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Boyd. (The adopted ordinance is set out in full below:) ORDINANCE NO. 04-18(3) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article IV, Procedure, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 35.0 Fees October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 33) Chapter 18. Zoning Article IV. Procedure 35.0 Fees. Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made to the zoning administrator, the commission, or the board of supervisors shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth hereinafter, to defray the cost of processing such application. Neither the County nor the School Board of Albemarle County shall be required to pay any fee required by this section if it is the applicant. a. For a special use permit: 1. Rural area division for the purpose of "family division" where all original 1980 development rights have been exhausted under "family division" as defined under section 18-56 of the subdivision ordinance - $220.00. (Amended effective 1-1-94) 2. Rural area divisions - $1,240.00. 3. Commercial use - $980.00. 4. Industrial use - $1,020.00. 5. Private club/recreational facility - $1,020.00. 6. Mobile home park or subdivision - $980.00. 7. Public utilities - $1,020.00. 8. Grade/fill in the flood plain - $870.00. 9. Minor amendment to valid special use permit or a special use permit to allow minor expansion of a non-conforming use -$110.00. (Amended effective 1-1-94) 10. Extending special use permits - $70.00. 11. Home Occupation-Class A - $13.00; Home Occupation-Class B - $440.00. 12. For day care centers - six (6) to nine (9) children - $490.00. (Added 6-3-92) 13. For day care centers - ten (10) or more children - $980.00. (Added 6-3-92) 14. All other uses except signs - $980.00. (Amended 7-8- 92) b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $840.00. c. Amendment to the zoning map: 1. For planned developments - under 50 acres - $1,020.00. 2. For planned developments - 50 or more acres - $1,570 .00. 3. For all other zoning map amendments - under 50 acres - $1,020.00. 4. For all other zoning map amendments - 50 or more acres - $1,570.00. 5. Minor amendment to a zoning map amendment - $220.00. d. Board of Zoning Appeals: 1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit - $120.00. (Amended 7-8-92) 2. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals (including appeals of zoning administrator's decision) - $120.00, to be refunded if the decision of the zoning administrator is overturned. e. Preliminary site development plan: 1. Residential - $1,190.00, plus $13.00/unit. 2. Non-residential - $1,580.00, plus $13.00/1000 square feet. f. Final site development plan: 1. Approved administratively - $410.00. 2. If reviewed by the commission before approval of preliminary site development plan - $1,130.00. 3. If reviewed by the commission after approval of the preliminary site development plan - $790.00. 4. For site development plan waiver - $270.00. 5. For site development plan amendment: a) Minor - alterations to parking, circulation, building size, location - $95.00. b) Major - commission review - $270.00. 6. Review of site development plan by the architectural review board - $200.00. 7. Appeal of site development plan to the board of super visors - $240.00. October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 34) 8. Rehearing of site development plan by commission or board of supervisors - $190.00. 9. Rejection by agent of incomplete site development plan: a) Rejected within ten days - $200.00. b) Suspended after site plan review - site plan fee shall not be refunded. $65.00 fee shall be required to reinstate project. g. For relief from a condition of approval from commission or landscape waiver by agent - $180.00. h. Change in road or development name after submittal of site development plan: 1. Road - $20.00. 2. Development - $25.00. i. Extending approval of site development plan - $45.00. j. Granting request to defer action on site development plan, special use permit or zoning map amendment: 1. To a specific date - $35.00. 2. Indefinitely - $75.00. k. Bond inspection for site development plan, for each inspection after the first bond estimate - $60.00. l. Zoning clearance - $35.00. m. Accessory lodging permits - $35.00. n. Official Letters: 1. Of determination - $75.00. 2. Of compliance with county ordinances- $75.00. 3. Stating number of development rights - $40.00. o. Sign Permits: 1. Any sign, except exempted signs and signs requiring review by the architectural review board - $35.00. 2. Signs required to be reviewed by the architectural review board - $75.00. p. Groundwater assessment information required by sections 31.2.2 or 32.5.7: 1. Tier 1 assessment under Albemarle County Code § 17-401 – $50.00. 2. Tier 3 assessment under Albemarle County Code § 17-403 – $400.00 plus $25.00 per lot. 3. Tier 4 assessment under Albemarle County Code § 17-404 – $1,000.00. q. Tier II personal wireless service facility - $790.00. In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice required under Chapter 22, Title 15.2 of the Code shall be charged to the applicant, to the extent that the same shall exceed the applicable fee set forth in this section. Failure to pay all applicable fees shall constitute grounds for the denial of any application. For any application withdrawn after public notice has been given, no part of the fee will be refunded. (Amended 5- 5-82; 9-1-85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7- 8-92) (§ 35.0, 12-10-80; 5-5-82; 9-1-85; 7-1-87; 6-7-89; 12-11-91 to be effective 4-1-92; 7- 8-92; * to be effective 1-1-94; Ord. 02-18(4), 7-3-02; Ord. 04-18(3), 10-13-04) _______________ Agenda Item No. 19. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Wyant said it would be worthwhile for the Board to have a discussion on public-private partnerships. October 13, 2004 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 35) Ms. Thomas mentioned that Gordon Walker met with Mark Graham, Susan Thomas, Diantha McKeel, two developers, and three lawyers in Leigh Middleditch’s office to discuss alternative ways of funding capital improvements. The Public Private Education Act (PPEA) may be a way to finance projects, and is being used in some counties with mixed reviews. People present at the meeting wanted to immediately jump in and get something going, but she thinks the neighborhood person (new County position) might be the best staff person to follow through. Ms. Thomas said that perhaps other Board members or staff might want to become educated about the PPEA and the possible projects it might fund. She added that the private sector viewed it as a way of saving some investment costs, but everyone was hearing the information for the first time. Mr. Davis explained that the PPEA fosters an arrangement by which a private party builds a public facility, and it typically does not have to go through the public procurement process, and the financing is favorable to the private sector who can build it and lease it to the locality. He added that for the proper project, this process has some favorable advantages, but it really depends on how the project is packaged as to whether or not there are any cost savings to a locality. If the Board is interested in pursuing this, staff needs to get information and analyze it before bringing it to the Board for consideration. Mr. Davis stated that the locality must adopt guidelines before accepting these types of projects, which Albemarle currently does not have. He said that there have been roads and schools built through this act with some mixed reviews. Mr. Tucker commented that this is very preliminary, but there is interest in the private sector and if that interest continues, they should put together a proposal and submit it to the County for review, rather than County staff getting in the middle of it. Ms. Thomas said that developers in Crozet would like to see some movement in the County for recognizing that there are going to be some complex finances regarding adjoining properties. She added that it seems premature since the new County staff person should be coming on board in a few months, and suggested that she share the handout she got from the meeting with the Board to be discussed at a future meeting. Mr. Davis said that he could also furnish some background information. Mr. Rooker commented that someone has to propose a project to initiate the PPEA funding. Ms. Thomas said that this situation might be different because the library is a public project. __________ Ms. Thomas said she sent an email asking fellow Board members if they had any objection to a letter of support from the Chairman in support of the Forest Legacy Application from Fred Scott and other landowners. No objection was expressed. _______________ Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn to October 14 at 4:00 p.m. in Room 235 for meeting with the School Board. motion At 8:33 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, was offered by Mr. seconded Bowerman, by Mr. Rooker, to adjourn this meeting until 4:00 p.m. on October 24. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant, Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Dorrier. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Boyd. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by the Board of County Supervisors Date: 02/09/2005 Initials: EWC