Loading...
1998-08-19August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 19, 1998, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Mr. Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Public. There were none. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve items 5.1 through 5.3 and to accept the remaining items for information. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Item No. 5.1. Proclamation designating September 1 through September 6, 1998, as "Albemarle County Fair Week". By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following proclamation: WHEREAS, ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK for the past 17 years, the Albemarle County Fair has entertained tens of thousands of guests during its annual production; and WHEREAS, WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair is unique in many ways, founded by a group of community spirited people who wanted something special for their neighbors and friends to enjoy and enrich their lives. The theme has always emphasized the County's agricultural and forestal heritage; and the Albemarle County Fair is a non-profit corporation operated by dedicated volunteers, officers and directors; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair offers an atmosphere conducive to families and their children. A friendly, safe, carefree atmosphere is the hallmark of the event. Unique in the state in that all food and drink is sold by local non-profit organizations as an opportu- nity for them to raise monies for their worthwhile programs; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Fair supports agricultural and rural life- styles, offers exhibits of home-art skills, crops, large live- stock, small livestock and poultry, with competitions in livestock and numerous other farm skills, and nightly entertainment for all to enjoy; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the week of August 19, 1998 (Regular"Night'Meeting) (Page 2) ' SEPTEMBEI~ i; 1998 .THRQIIG~{ SEPTEMBER 6, 1998 as ALBEMARLE COUNTY FAIR WEEK O0OiSl and urge all citizens to actively participate in the sched- uled activities and programs sponsored and supported by the more than 300 volunteers, public and area businesses. Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: Education, $1,000 (Form ~98011). The executive summary states that, at its meeting on July 27, 1998, the School board approved the appropriation of $1,000.00 for the State Assistive Technology EqUipment Funds. The Virginia Department of Education has designated $1,000.00 to Albemarle County for assistive technology equipment. This money will be used to purchase adaptive equipment for students with disabilities. Staff recommended approval of the appropration, in the amount of $1,000.00 as detail on Form #98011. By the above shown vote, the Board approved the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 98/99 NUMBER: 98011 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: STATE ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT FUNDS. EXPENDITURE COST CTR/CATEGORY 1211261102800701 DESCRIPTION ADP EQUIPMENT AMOUNT $1. 000.00 TOTAL $1,000.00 REVENUE 2200024000240210 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT SPEC. EDUC. ASST. TECH FUNDS $1,000.00 TOT~_L $1,000~00 Item No. 5.3. Set public hearing for September 2; 1998, for temporary easement for Southside Shopping Center. The executive summary states that the Southside ShOpping Center is a "Planned Development - Shopping Center" located on the east side of the intersection of Mill Creek Drive and Avon Street. The development currently has an approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for rough grading the site occupying the southeast corner. To address the concerns and comments from both the County and VDoT, the developer located their primary entrance (Mill Creek Drive) close to the rear property line and as far from Avon Street as possible. Due to this layout and the site topography, the erosion control basin for the project must be constructed at the location of the primary entrance. Erosion control regulations require that the basin remain in place until the site improvements are constructed and all disturbed areas are stabilized. Only then could the basin be filled and the primary entrance constructed. Such sequencing of the construction is more complicated and has been done on other sites. However, it requires the stockpiling of fill material onsite, which may not be possible in this case. The temporary easement will allow the developer to construct the necessary sediment basin offsite, thereby allowing them to rough grade the primary entrance with the rest of the site. Granting the easement will not have an impact on the County's ability to develop the property in the future. However, the construction activity will remove trees that would norma!ly'~serve as a~buffer'be~ween the County property (zoned R15) and the shopping center (zoned PD-SC). Should the Board decide to grant the easement, staff recommends that it be conditioned on the easement August 19, 1998 (Regular Nigh~ Meeting) (Page 3) being replanted with the ql/an=lty of trees (four to five feet high) necessary to restore the buffer. Staff recommends the Board set the public hearing for its September 2, 1998 meeting. By the above shown vote, the Board set the public hearing for September 2, 1998,' to consider granting a temporary easement for Southside Shopping Center. Item No. 5.4 ~--~ ~4 _~4L~ :"~ August ...... ~ (Removed from agenda ) Item No. 5.5 Copy of "Proposal 'for the North Grounds of the University of Virginia", produced in a joint effort between the University of Virginia School of Architecture and the Institute for Sustainable Design, was received for information. Item No. 5.6 Copy of Planning Commission minutes for July 28, 1998, was received for information. Item No. 5.7 Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail Board Authority for June 11, 1998, was received for information. Item No. 5.8 Letter dated August 6, 1998, from the Honorable Tom Bliley, Member of Congress, to the Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris, forwarding copy of guidelines regarding cellular telephone towers. "Knowing of your interest in cellular telephone tower regulations, I wanted to update you in this important matter. Yesterday, voluntary guidelines regarding cellular telephone towers was reached between the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Local and State Government Advisory Committee and industry officials. The guidelines call for local governments and local cellular companies to work together to find places to locate towers and call for local governments to limit freezes on new tower placements to 180 days. I have taken the liberty of enclosing a copy of the guidelines as well as statements by William Kennard, Chairman of.the FCC and Kenneth Fellman, Local and State Government Advisory Committee Chairman regarding yesterday's announcement. I hope you find this information useful." -- Ms. Thomas asked that staff clarify whether this increases the County's options when dealing with towers. Mr. Davis replied, ~No." Ms. Humphris added there are mediators available,·if the County places a moratorium on towers due to differences between the utility companies and local government, but no one has to abide by the decisions, so this has no effect on the County. Agenda Item No. 6. Appointments. Mr. Bowerman nominated Mr. R°dney S. Th°mas as the Rio Magisterial District representative on the Alemarle County Planning Commission, to serve out Mr. David Tice's term, which expires on December 31, 2001. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. MarShall, Mr. Martin, Mr Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 000153 Agenda Item No. 7. Public hearing to consider the transfer of the Monticello High School property to the Albemarle County School Board pursuant to Virginia Code §§15.2-1800 and 22.1-125. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 11, 1998.) Mr. Tucker said that the original tract of land purchased by the County for the new Monticello High School was approximately 107 acres. The dedica- tion of the right-of-way for the Connector Road (Mill Creek Drive, approxi- mately nine acres) resulted in subdivision of the property and created Tax Parcel 91-2E (approximately 14 acres) and a residue Tax Parcel 91-2 (approxi- mately 84 acres). The new high school is located on Tax Parcel 91-2. The subdivision plat further divides Tax Parcel 91-2 into three parcels, creates two access easements, and two drainage easements. ...... ~:: The residue of Tax Parcel 91-2 (approximately 66 acres) is being conveyed to the School Board pursuant to Virginia Code §22.1-125, which requires that title to all school property be vested in the School Board. The subdivided parcel contains all school buildings, parking lots, stadium, and all of the play fields. Tax Parcel 77-48 is a five-acre parcel with access to Mill Creek Drive. In the master planning of the site, this property was considered for potential development of a future County or community facility. Ownership of the parcel is to be retained by the County. Tax Parcel 77-49 (approximately 13 acres) contains the dam, sediment forebay and the stormwater management lake. The dam is regulated by the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the County is the permit holder. As such, the County is responsible for the inspection of the dam and recertification of the permit. Construction of the sediment forebay was required as part of the mitigation for wetland impacts and is an essential part of the stormwater management plan. In order to assure future compliance with this plan, this facility must be protected and maintained. The lake is providing the storm- water management for the school and future County development. Protection of the lake and specifically the surrounding wetlands is essential to assuring its function in the future. For tkese reasons, staff believes the public would be best served by ~he County retaining ownership of the lake parcel. To assure future access to the lake sediment forebay and the dam for inspection and maintenance, access easements have been provided on the plat. A drainage easement has been provided over the storm sewer system conveying runoff from Mill Creek Drive to the lake. Thi~e~s~e~ is a requirement for VDoT acceptance of the road into the State Secondary Road System. A large drainage easement has also been provided over the stormwater wetland that was constructed as part of the wetland mitigation plan. This easements will assure future protection of the facility and allow for inspec- tion and maintenance by the County. Virginia Code §15.2-1800 requires the Board of Supervisors to hold a public heading prior to conveying any interest in County-owned property. As stated above, §22.1-125 requires that title to all school property be vested in the School Board. At the current time, the Monticello High School property is owned in fee simple by the County. Transfer of the portion of the property encumbered by the high school site to the School Board needs to occur contem- poraneously with the completion of construction and opening of the new high school. Mr. Tucker said staff recommends (a) approval of the conveyance of the 66-acre parcel upon which Monticello High School and related buildings and play fields are located to the County School Board; (b) approval of the plat and deed conveying the property; and authorization of the County Executive to sign the plat and deed on behalf of the County. Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public.hearing. Mr. Marshall then informed the public Mill Creek Drive had been formally opened during a ceremony recently. Ms. Humphris offered the motion to approve the c~onveyance of the 66-acre parcel upon which Monticello High School andrelated buildings and play fields are located to the County School Board, to approve the plat and deed conveying August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 000154 (Page 5) the property, and to authorize the County Executive to sign the plat and deed on behalf of the coUnt~.'' Mr' M~rtin seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. The deed is as follows: THIS DEED is dated this __ day of __, 1998, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor, and THE COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, Grantee. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of TEN DOLLARS ($10), cash in hand paid, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby GRANT, BARGAIN, SELL and CONVEY with SPECIAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the · Grantee that certain parcel of land located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia containing 65.972 acres, more or less, as more particularly shown and designated as "Residue of Tax Parcel No. 91-2" on a plat made by George L. Nyfeler III dated July 9, 1998, revised August 5, 1998 and entitled "Plat Showing Division of Tax Parcel No. 91-2," a copy of which plat is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Plat"), which parcel is a part of the property acquired by the Grantor by Deed dated Septem- ber 18, 1995 from Charles Wm. Hurt and Shirley L. Fisher as Trustees for Hillcrest Land Trust, and Hurt Investment Company, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia in Deed Book 1492, Page 678. Reference is made to the Plat for a more particular description of the land conveyed herein. This conveyance is made expressly subject to the restric- tions, conditions, rights-of-way and easements, if any, contained in duly recorded deeds, plats and other instruments constituting the chain of title to the property conveyed herein, insofar as same affect said property, which have not expired by a time limitation contained therein or otherwise have become ineffective. The Grantee shall be deemed a successor in interest to the Grantor under the Agreement for the Purchase of Real Estate dated July 20, 1995. The Grantor, actin9 by and through its County Executive, duly authorized by resolution of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, does hereby convey the interest in real estate made by this deed. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-97-12. Fried (Gray Rock) (Signs ~18&19). Public hearing on a request to rezone approx 53.02 acs from PRD to R-4. TM55, Ps65&65A(pt of). Property located on N sd of Rt 691 (Jarman's Gap Road) approx 1.3 mls W of Crozet. Property recommended for Urban Density Residen- tial (6.01-34 du/ac) in the Community of Crozet. White Hall Magisterial District. (Deferred from June 17, 1998.) (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 1 and 8, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg said the Board of Supervisors last heard this petition on June 17, 1998 and referred the petition draft to the Planning Commission for further consideration. The Planning Commission reviewed the petition on July 28, 1998 and recommended denial by a vote of four to two. Reasons for disapproval are cited in the Commission's action letter (on file in the Clerk's office). Subsequent to the Commission meeting, the applicant made additional revisions to the proffers as follow: 3.1, Recreational Areas: Walkinq/Jogging Trails: has been amended to add another tot lot in the location of Lot 10 on the Conceptual Plan. 000 155 August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) This location would require fencing of the tot lot area as it could abut two roads. 3,2. Buffer Area Easement: has been amended to confirm that the 50-foot buffer along the western boundary consists of 30 feet of dedicated open space and a 20-foot easement on the propOsed lots. This proffer provides for additional plantings and buffer maintenance. Staff urges the applicant and abutting owners to determine planting locations prior to final plat submittal. 3.4. Walking Trail: [Sidewalks:] Greenway Corridor: has been amended to specify walkway widths if sidewalks/walkways are provided on one or two sides of roadways. While the determination of' sidewalks on one or both sides of the roadway can be made at time of subdivision approval, it is recommended that the Board address this'issue at this time. Ms. Thomas asked if the density is now below two dwelling units per acres, which would allow the Commission to deal with the issue of sidewalks. Mr. Cilimberg said when the number of proposed lots was 154, the density was at two dwelling units per acre, but that it may be slightly below that now. Mr. Bowerman suggested asking the Commission to examine the issue of sidewalks during site plan review. Mr. Davis said this item is already proffered, giving the Planning Department the ability to require sidewalks regardless of what the applicants want. Mr. Bowerman asked if this matter would be reviewed if the subdivision now falls below subdivision requirements. Mr. Cilimberg replied, ~Yes, if the proffer is accepted." Mr. Steve Blaine, representing the applicant, the Fried Companies, said the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Savage, were present. He said the revised proffers, dated August 11, 1998, were reviewed by the County Attorney and advised that they are in compliance with County regulations pertaining to rezonings of this type. Recent changes to the proffers were made in response to comments made at the July 28, 1998 Commission meeting. The consensus of the Board at its June 17, 1998 meeting was that the applicant had made significant changes to the plan, which were favorably received by the Board. Mr. Blaine then addressed each of the staff comments made in Mr. Keeler's action letter dated August 6, 1998 as follows: The plan does not include the entire property. This application applies to the 54 acres of Gray Rock Farm located below and south of the pond area. The applicant has contracted to purchase all 74 acres of Gray Rock Farm. The northern 21 acreD above ~he ponds are subject to a separate zoning district classification allowing 70 townhouse units. The applicant proffered to limit the overall density of the total farm to 158 units, a reduction of over 25 percent from the total allowed density on the northern tract plus what is proffered in the application. This was done in response to neighbors' concerns. The proffered plan complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the County zoning ordinances, specifically those that apply to the R-4 district. The two parcels are sepa- rated by ponds. The applicant proposes to integrate the two parcels by using the pond area for open space and a trail system. Further, they will be integrated by development through the use of a play area and a tot lot. Vehicle access would go through the wooded and pond area, requiring a stream crossing or filling and grading the pond area, which would destroy part of the greenway system envisioned by the applicant. 2 o Not enough usable space. Mr. Rieley said the play area should be at the same elevation as the houses in the area. In response, the applicant proffered to add a tot lot, and it was moved away from the pond area. There is now a play area, a multipurpose court and a picnic shelter, plus tot lots on either side of the project, within a five-minute walk of any house~in the project. Total open space area is 25 percent of the area to be developed, exceeding PUD requirements. 3 o Lack of sidewalks on both sides. Mr. Rieley felt sidewalks should be on both sides of the street. In response, the applicant has offered to build a six-foot-wide asphalt tra~l connecting all houses in the neighborhood on one side of the street, connecting to the open space trail system. The seamless, softer pavement surface is better for joggers, and is wide enough to allow pedes- August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 000 .56 trians and joggers to pass each other. Mr. Blaine said this is a plat review issue, not a zoning issue. The application would be subject to the R-2 threshold for requiring sidewalks. The Subdi- vision Ordinance states, at this density, the County may require sidewalks on one or both sides, implying that sidewalks are not required in all instances. He provided the Southgate development at Highlands as an example, saying there are 58 units on 15 acres, which is higher density than this Project. They have smaller lots. The Southgate developer is seeking a more urban profile for that rOad and sidewalk system, and the developer is aiming for VDoT maintenance. In Gray Rock trails will be maintained by the homeowners association. Mr. Blaine said this is not a safety issue. Because of the grid system in the proffered plan, there will be no more than eight-house-long blocks, so it does not warrant sidewalks on both sides. Pond safety. The two ponds at Gray Rock comply with all County public safety ordinances and policies. Mr. Blaine provided a handout with additional information (on file in the Clerk's office). Me showed a photograph illustrating why the applicant wants to preserve the pond area for aesthetic purposes. When this issue came up at the February 3, 1998 Commission meeting, Mr. Jack Kelsey, County Engineer, was asked about requirements for ponds in residential subdivisions. Mr. Kelsey stated that, unless it is a newly constructed storm retention facility, the County does not require shelving design requirements. The recom- mended width of shelving for stormwater retention ponds only is four- to six-feet wide and'depths from the top of the water surface to the shelving are 30 to 36 inches. On August 5, 1998, the applicant had the depth of the ponds measured from six feet out. It was determined that the depths around the ponds are never more than 36 inches at six feet from the edge of the pond. The applicant thinks the thick vegetation surrounding the ponds will deter children. He does not think there need to be any adjust- ments made to the ponds, but is willing to work with staff to find deterrents for children. He spoke with Mr. David Hirschmann to discuss supplementing plantings and adding rock, as possible suggestions. 5o Lack of housin~ mix. The proffered plan meets the Zoning Ordi- nance and the Comprehensive Plan. Plans have been reviewed by expert engineers who state they meet the requirements of R-4 zoning in the growth area. If there is a legal requirement that requires this applicant to mix product types, Mr. Blaine said he has not found it in the R-4 designation. It is unfair to hold this applicant to a standard that does not exist. The applicant's revised plan includes a range of lot sizes from 11,000 to 19,000 square feet when combining both parcels. This range will allow a variety of housing styles and types, single-level, multi-story, large and small houses. It has been suggested, but not by the Commission, that commercial uses be included, but this is not in conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan. Business owners have said they support this plan, and Mr. Blaine distributed copies of a petition to sUpport this claim (on file in the Clerk's office). Regarding the executive summary comments on proffers, Mr. Blaine offered the following comments: 3.1 3.2 Recreational areas: walking/jogging trails to fence in the play areas. The applicant agrees Buffer areas easement. The applicant agrees to consult with adjoining landowners for siting trees that are contemplated in the buffered area proffer. The fifty-foot buffer allows preservation of the fifty-foot road area. 3.4 Walking trail: [sidewalks:] greenway corridor. The applicant wants it accepted. He said the Board can then direct staff to allow the six-foot asphalt option. Mr. Blaine then mentioned proffer nUmber 3.5 , the stormwater management plan. He said property owners across Route 691 are interested in what is being done to protect their property from stormwater runoff. In February the August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 0001~7 (Page 8) applicant proffered to g°'~e~o~'~ ~S r~qUired at that time t© protect stream beds and preserve water quality. This is now covered under the County's Water Ordinance. The consensus of the Commission is that the applicant made significant changes. It was indicated at the Commission meeting that, if the applicant had addressed the pond, sidewalk and play areas, there would have had a four- to-two favorable decision. There have been five public ~earings on this matter, and the applicant has met five times with neighbors, so this has gone beyond policy issues. He felt some Board members' personal preferences on neighborhood issues were now coming into play. He asked the Board to respect his client's view that he has presented features necessary to make this a successful project. Ms. Humphris said the plan shows there will be 158 dwelling units in the northern and southern parcels, but she thought there were supposed to be 154 units. Mr. Blaine said there are 153 units. One was lost to the tot lot. Ms. Humphris said she did not know a tot lot had been added on the west side. Mr. Blaine said that was added in response to concerns the Board had previously expressed. Although this was not shown in the material in the Board agenda packet, it is shown on the proffered plan. Ms. Humphris said this was originally designated open space. She wanted to know about this area's topography. Mr. Blaine said there is ample room for a tot lot in the area. Ms. Humphris said she did not 'understand Mr. Blaine's R-4 zoning comments, and how it related to PRD. Mr. Blaine said his PRD comment was regarding the amount of open space that may be required. Depending on the density levels it could be up to 25 percent. The open space here is 25 percent. Ms. Humphris asked if anyone addressed the problem of access to lots one and 92 on the main access road. Mr. Blaine said this has been addressed by proposing pipe-stem lots, so the driveways will be fee simple for each lot. He added that the lots near the entrance off the boulevard will be handled by shared driveways with other lots, so there is an entrance off the internal road. Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant was amenable to changing the location of the second tot lot. Mr. Blaine said this location was chosen taking into consideration the fact that people want to be near tot lots, but do not want them in their back yard. This is near an inter-parcel connection. The tog lot Would only be next to one reSidenCe, and would be within a five- minute walk of one-half the homes. Mr. Blaine added the same amenities would be at both tot lots, although one might be a little larger. Ms. Humphris asked about proffer number 2.2, which states, "At such time as the Northern Tract is developed, Applicant, or the developer of the Northern Tract will provide a gated access (gravel drive) for emergency vehicles through the Northern Tract to State Route 684." The last sentence states that "at such time as northern tract...will provide...access." She asked if this implied the applicant might not be the developer of the northern tract. Mr. Blaine said, ~No. The tract is likely to be developed by the same developer, and proffers run with the land anyway." He added that it refers to emergency access. He said the proffer could be removed at the Board's request. Ms. Thomas asked about proffer number four, which addressed the northern tract, saying this is an important issue. She felt this proffer hinged on the word ~diligently". She asked how Mr. Blaine would describe a ~diligent zoning request". Mr. Blaine said this is a term commonly used in contracts when buyers purchase tracts subject to a rezoning contingency. The seller wants to make sure a buyer pursues that, because a contract ties the property up. It is a level of diligence that requires an applicant to proceed in a diligent fashion. He said this proffer is specific about what remedies the County has, as an incentive to make sure the proffer ~has teeth". Ms.~ Thomas asked who determines what is "diligent". Mr. Blaine said it is up to the County to make sure any plan moves along in compliance with all proffers. Mr. Marshall then opened the public hearing. Mr. Richard Berman, a resident of western Albemarle, questioned the time, money and e~ffort being spent on the same item over and over again, August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) .: 000155 saying that the number of dwelling units continues to rise. He does not know if Crozet can stand this amount of growth. Traffic is already much greater than it used to be, with most taking Route 240 to the Highlands and Western Ridge Subdivisions. That kind of population will overwhelm Crozet merchants, which means, the addition of strip malls, gas stations, etc. If the Board wants to maintain the rural and agricultural aspects of this part of the County, and its beauty, uncontrolled development will destroy the area. Since this area is already zoned for 70 townhouses and 31 single-family homes, he wondered why the number continues to rise. He noted that the applicant does not yet own the property. He believes the applicant is trying to "wear everyone down". The Board should consider aspects of the Comprehensive Plan and growth areas suggested 20 years ago and how they apply to western Albemarle County right now. With what is happening to the-County at this time, the designated growth areas are outdated. Mr. David Van Horne. said asphalt sidewalks do not hold up like concrete ones. Residents will get stuck with maintaining them. He asked if anyone had done a fiscal impact study on the cost to the County versus what a by-right development would cost the County. Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, said the applicant believes it is the residents' job to tell the Board of Supervisors that, when it comes to designing new development, the neighbors know better. However, the proposed plan is not better, and was denied by the Commission. Residents who attended the Development Initiatives Study Committee (DISC)design charette approved design recommendations the applicant has rejected. He said there are two developments in the area being discussed that use better property design. The question is whether the Board knows better, since it is their vote that counts regarding development and design. Mr. Loach said he hopes Mr. Martin and Bowerman, who sit on the DISC committee, are aware of what this proposal will do to the area. He then showed a picture he had previously given to the applicant, that proved the Community wanted mixed-use housing in the area. Originally 70 town homes were to have been integrated into the overall design of the proposal. The applicant is the one who lowered the density and did away with affordable housing. The Board must consider the CHK buildout analysis which showed that there are only 377 buildable parcels available in the growth area, only one-third are greater than 20 acres, and only 17 are in the range of 100 acres. He said this would have taken great courage in the past, but now it will just take common sense. With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing. Ms. Thomas said people on the east side may not want a tot lot in their backyards, but it is hard to make connections between subdivisions. Putting the tot lot next to that connection would doom it (the connection), because that would require either taking one-third of the tot lot to make the connec- tor road, or putting a road right next tO the tot lot. She is glad to hear there is a proposed tot lot to the west as well. Regarding the fiscal impact on taxpayers, Ms. Humphris said staff provided the Board a statement which says the per dwelling cost to taxpayers will be $4,789. Mr. Marshall said he thinks the tot l°t is in the best place possible. It could be fenced in to be sure the children stay out of the street. It will be convenient to half of the subdivision. Regarding sidewalks, Ms. Thomas said she conducted research of neighbor- hoods. There are not a lot of sidewalks in County subdivisions, and not many are at this density. At Willoughby, frontage is usual~y 70 feet; this application is 80 feet. Willoughby has concrete sidewalks on one side, providing a nicer appearance. She is in favor of concrete versus asphalt, with sidewalks on both sides of the street. Asphalt puts future maintenance expense on the homeowners, and since concrete is paid for up-front, there will be fewer ongoing maintenance costs. Mr. Marshall said homeowners will be responsible for the upkeep, no matter what is used. He then asked about the cost difference between the two. Mr. Blaine said concrete costs one-third more than asphalt, and concrete sidewalks still require maintenance. Mr. Perkins said the Board needs more information on costs. Both materials will deteriorate, and he added that asphalt allows encroachment of plants. August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 0001~9 (Page 10) Regarding traffic calming, Mr. Perkins said subdivisions that do not have sidewalks encourage traffic calming because drivers know people will be walking in the road. Sidewalks do not mean children will not be in the road. He thinks sidewalks should be on both sides of the road, at least on the entrance road. He does not see the necessity of having sidewalks On every street in every subdivision. Two streets, Hilltop Street and Myrtle Street in Crozet do not have sidewalks, and they are very safe. · In fact, had there been sidewalks on these streets, they would have been dug up to install the sewer line, which would have been at tremendous expense to taxpayers. Mr. Perkins.said some people say they do not want any density; others say they want more. It is hard to get a consensus of the public. Growth in Crozet depends on the size of the sewer line. He does not want to see any more growth, but it will come. This plan could be made better, but the applicant has done a good job of meeting the Commission's concerns. A proposal for a nearby development was turned down because the density was too high. This one does not follow the Comprehensive Plan, because it is not 'dense enough. That is the only reason the Board can use to deny this request. Mr. Bowerman asked about the price range of houses to be built. Mr. Blaine said it is between $150,000 and $200,000. Mr. Martin said he used to live in a community where the developer was supposed to put in sidewalks but did not. He did not want them anyway, because he did not want to lose any of his yard. Sidewalks would not make his community any safer, but it might make it look better. People walking without sidewalks naturally calms traffic, because they yell at speeders. He sug- gested letting staff decide this issue. Mr. Marshall asked how much adding a sidewalk to the front of a house would cost. Mr. Bowerman said when the developer extended the concrete sidewalks in the Raintree subdivisions, VDoT said they would not maintain them anymore. That allowed the developer to put the sidewalk next to the curb for the balance of the project. That left the sidewalk 1,000 to 1,500 feet short of Rio Road. The Board then elected to make improvements to Old Brook Road, which included extending sidewalks out to Rio Road. Rio Road had a sidewalk on one side that joined the new sidewalk. Asphalt was used, because there was a significant difference in the price between asphalt and concrete. Asphalt requirers more maintenance, especially due to weeds. Ultimately this expense will be borne by the homeowners association. He believes sidewalks are needed in this case, because of the density and the tot lots, but the Commission could decide that issue at site plan approval. Regarding Mr. Loach's comments, Mr. Bowerman said there are a lot of things he would like to see in the Gray Rock community, but there is not enough flexibility in the Ordinance-to allow for some things that may be desired. The overriding issue in this case is the Comprehensive Plan. Additional density increases the pressure on the existing infrastructure. The Board has made difficult decisions from time to time that made common sense and later had to be defended in court. He thinks the proposed design of the community is objectionable, and reason enough to deny. The Board must deal with the tot lot issues, and others. No one on DISC agrees one hundred percent with everything. Regarding the tot lot, Mr. Bowerman said if it was on, for example, lot number 40, and a house is built next door, the house will be sold to someone who may want to be in that location. It is not necessaily true that it would be an attractive nuisance. It is difficult enough when trying to connect neighborhoods, and putting an.impediment to the connection would make it even more difficult. Connecting roads and tot lots need to be in place so buyers can decide whether to purchase a particular lot. Mr. Perkins said lots 12 or 13 could also provide a good tot lot site. Ms. Humphris said lot number ten is to the east of center. There are more lots adjacent to it than any other lot. The consensus of the Board is to keep the tot lot out of the area that will be used to connect with other neighbor- hoods. Mr. Blaine said the applicant would accept the suggestion and make that change to the proffered plan. Mr. Davis said proffer number 3.1 would have to be amended, and it could be signed that night. Mr. Blaine said the applicant would probably need to poll young mothers, but that lot number 40 might work. August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 000260 Ms. Humphris said this appeals to her, because the land is so beautiful, and anyone who gets to develop this land has an opportunity to do something very special. She does not think this proposal has a heart or centerpiece. Perhaps the tot lot could be designed in lot number 40 in such a way that it is a special place, the heart of the community, a multi-purpose place, safe and attractive to the community. She wants to implement infill as much as possible. The consensus of the Board was to suggest lot number 40 be used as a tot lot. Mr. Blaine said he could get the applicant to initial the change to that proffer, and did so at this time. Ms. Thomas said Planning staff asked for guidance as to where the development should go. Greater density is not acceptable to neighbors until they see the amenities. Squeezing a cul-d-esac sprawl pattern is not accept- able; a grid pattern is much more acceptable. The Board should not ignore historic land forms such as old road traces. This applicant is not ignoring those things. Regarding the buffer, the applicant has dedicated the road trace side as a buffer. Turning neighborhoods back onto the community road at this density is not acceptable, because it would dramatically change the frontage to Jarman's Gap Road. The play area has to be safe and accessible, and the applicant moved it. The Board gave mixed signals about common green space, saying there must be pedestrian ways at this density, and agreed that Planning staff will determine what those pathways are made of. The ponds are safe. She advised the Board that she spent several hours with someone wading through the ponds and was told they were safe enough. She is, however, concerned about pond safety in general. The applicant has paid attention to the Crozet Community Study and met with the community as requested. She is not happy with the way the two parcels are being handled, due to the confusing messages from the Board. She hopes diligence takes care of the concerns raised. Only 17 parcels are left in this designated growth area of 100 acres or more, and it is too bad the Board did not insist on a.design for the entire area. The Board talks about affordable housing, but has not made it a real issue by approaching legislators. The County is also not making an issue of water quality drainage. Mr. Bowerman asked if all the runoff runs goes into streams or lakes. Ms. Thomas said one-third of the runoff does. Mr Bowerman said it is important to have good soil erosion measures in place during construction. Mr. Davis said the Water Protection Ordinance will require all sediments remain on site to the extent that it can be controlled. Mr. Perkins moved to approve ZMA-97-12, as proffered by the applicant and signed on June 12, 1998, with proffer number 3.1 amended and signed during the meeting. The motion was seconded byi. Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Ms. Thomas. The proffers are as follow: I. DENSITY No more than 127 single family, detached dwellings will be constructed on the Property. II. ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 2.1 Dedication. As a condition of plat aPproval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall dedicate along the entire southern boundary of the Property, an area of land for widening State Route 691 (Jarmans Gap Road) not to exceed thirty (30) feet to the centerline of the existing pavement. Applicant shall grant easements for temporary construction of improvements to State Route 691, as needed. 2.2 Road Improvements. Access shall be restricted to an inter- nal public road network to be designed and constructed in accordance with the Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards in effect at the time of subdi- vision plat approval. As a condition of plat approval for August 19, 1998 (Regular Night '~e~ng) (Page 12) O00161 the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall con- struct as a single improvement, a one-hundred (100)-foot right-turn lane and one-hundred (100)-foot taper for west- bound right-turn movement into the Property on State Route 691. As a condition of plat approval for the section of the subdivision containing proposed Lots sixty-seven (67) and sixty-eight (68), and until such time as the property sub- ject to ZMA-84-29 ("Northern Tract") is developed, Applicant shall provide an emergency access easement to State Route 691 in the area between Lots sixty-seven (67) and sixty- eight (68) shown on the attached Conceptual Plan dated May 28, 1998 prepared by Dewberry & Davis (the "Conceptual Plan") (copy attached). At such time as the Northern Tract is developed, Applicant, or the developer of the Northern Tract will provide a gated access (gravel drive) for emer- gency vehicles through the Northern Tract to State Route 684. 2.3 2.4 Disposition of Dedicated Property. In the event any of the property dedicated pursuant to proffer 2.1 is not used for the purpose for which it is proffered, with such use being undertaken within twenty (20) years of receipt of the prop- erty by the County, then the property shall be conveyed as common open space to the Association (defined in 5.5(a) below). State Route 691 Contributions. The Applicant shall partici- pate in the improvement of State Route 691 by paying to the County a sum calculated at the rate of $500.00 per residen- tial building lot platted within the Property after the date of the rezoning in accordance with the ZMA-97-12 applica- tion. The $500.00 payment shall be made at the time of recordation of the record plat or plats, for each lot for the subdivision, or phases of the subdivision to be devel- oped on the Property. In the event that the $500.00 contri- butions, after they are received by the County, are not used, within twenty (20) years after recordation of a plat of the one-hundred-twenty-seventh (127th) lot, then the contributions may be used by the County for any other road improvements serving the Crozet area, deemed by the Board as at least in part being necessary by the proposed development on the Property. '~ .......... ~' 2.5 Inter-Parcel Access. The Applicant shall reserve a fifty (50)-foot right-of-way for a future street to provide inter- parcel access to the adjoining parcel to the east of'the Property, known as the Bargamin tract (Tax Map 55, Parcels 66, and 66A) . The location of the reserved area for inter- parcel connection shall be between Lots nine (9) and ten (10), as shown on the Conceptual Plan. At such time as the Bargamin tract is developed with a connecting road between Lots nine (9) and ten (10), Applicant will construct and dedicate the street on Applicant's Property, and the remain- ing acreage, if any, within the area between Lots nine (9) and ten (10) shall accrue to the adjoining lots. In the event that the area reserved for a street is not used for the purpose for which it is hereby Proffered within seven (7) years from the date of approval of ZMA-97-12, then such reservation shall be released and the Applicant then may use the area between Lots nine (9) and ten (10) for a building lot (notwithstanding the density limitation contained in Article I above) or at Applicant's option, such area may accrue to the adjoining lots. III. RECREATIONAL AND BUFFER AREAS 3.1 Recreational Areas: Walking/Jo~ing Trails. Applicant, or the Association, (defined in 5.5(a) below) shall manage the ponds, and shall establish and maintain recreational im- provements and picnic areas in the open space areas adjacent to the ponds, as shown on the Conceptual Plan, for use by homeowners within the Property. Except as specifically set forth herein, the recreational and Picnic improvements to be August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13 ) ..~.~"~,.%.!~!~.~? ~i~%~,i~'~%~ii~? constructed within the open space areas shall be constructed as a condition of the platting of the sixty-third (63rd) lot within the Property fifty (50) percent of the lots to be developed. Applicant shall construct a tot lot and basket- ball court in the areas indicated on the Conceptual Plan and shall construct an additional tot lot on the area designated Lot forty (40) on the Conceptual Plan. The two (2) tot lots shall contain the equipment required by Section 4.16.2.1 of the Ordinance. The basketball court shall conform to the specifications of Section 4.16.2.2 of the Ordinance. Appli- cant shall establish a walking/jogging trail through the wooded area and along the ponds, as shown on the Conceptual Plan. The surface of the walking/jogging trail shall con- sist of wood chips, and tree clearing shall be kept to a minimum. Applicant shall construct a picnic shelter in the area shown on the Conceptual Plan. The open space, tot lot, basketball court, picnic shelter and walking trail located in the area of the ponds as shown on the attached Conceptual Plan shall also be for the mutual benefit of the residents in the development on the Northern Tract. In order to provide access to the open space and recreation areas, Applicant shall install at least one (1) pedestrian access at a grade of not greater than ten (10) percent. 3.2 Buffer Area Easement: As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall estab- lish a fifty (50)-foot Buffer Area along the western bound- ary of the Property, as depicted on the Conceptual Plan. Applicant shall plant within the fifty (50)-foot Buffer Area fifty (50) shade trees (the equivalent of one (1) tree for every forty (40) linear feet of Buffer Area). The trees to be planted within the Buffer Area will be spaced and grouped to take advantage of, and to supplement existing vegetation. Trees will be chosen from VDoT's major tree listing. Trees will be two (2) to two and one-half (2 1/2) inches caliper at the time of planting. The fifty (50)-foot Buffer Area shall consist of thirty (30) feet of dedicated open space to the Association and a twenty (20)-foot easement which shall run to the benefit of the Association and shall be enforced by the Association, as provided by the Declaration. The trees proffered herein shall be planted in the area dedi- cated to the Association. The fifty (50)-foot Buffer Area shall be maintained by the Association'and by the owners of the lots encumbered by the easement in a natural state, and shall not be disturbed other than to: i) construct fences or walls, approved by the Association, ii) remove underbrush, or iii) plant landscaping trees for screening. 3.3 Landscapin9: Utilities: As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant, or the Association shall maintain and replace as necessary, outside the thirty (30)-foot area to be dedicated for improvements to Jarmans Gap Road, (State Route 691) tree screening along Jarmans Gap Road for the length of the subdivision (except for the entrance area). Except in the areas where either the cul-de-sacs shown on the Conceptual Plan terminate near Jarmans Gap Road, or near the joining of Lots eighty (80) and eighty-four (84), LOtS eightY-four (84) and eighty-flve (85), and Lots eighty-eight (88) and eighty-nine (89), in which street trees will be provided, the screening shall consist of double staggered rows of evergreen trees planted fifteen (15) feet on-center, in accordance with Section 32.7.9.8.4 of the Ordinance and shall be located within a permanent open space area twenty (20) feet in width (mea- sured from the edge of the State Route 691 dedication). The twenty (20)-foot open space area along State Route 691 shall be maintained by the Association, and may include stormwater management BMPs. Applicant also shall plant street trees along the internal road system, at forty (40)-foot inter- vals, (staggered, on both sides of the roads) as sections of the subdivision are platted. Street trees shall be main- tained and replaced as necessary, by the Applicant, or the August 19, 1998 (RegUlar Night Meeting) (page 14) 000163 Association and shall be from species approved by the County in accordance with applicable Ordinances. All utilities installed within the Property shall be underground. 3.4 Walking Trail; Sidewalks: Greenwa¥ Corridor. Applicant shall install a walking trail along the internal loop road (and connecting to the interior road and cul-de-sacs, as shown on the Conceptual Plan). The surface of the internal walking trail shall consist of asphalt, and shall be main- tained by the Association. The internal walking trail shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in width and may be located within the area dedicated for internal streets. The inter- nal walking trail shall be installed as .each section of the subdivision containing that portion of the internal walking trail is platted. If the County Department of Planning and Community Development recommends pursuant to approval of the first preliminary plat for the subdivision that sidewalks be provided on both sides of the street, Applicant shall sub- stitute four (4)-foot-wide sidewalks for the six (6)-foot- wide walking trail. At such time as the Board of Supervi- sors approves of a plan for a greenway, or hiking/biking system connecting Jarmans Gap Estates, Grayrock, Orchard Acres and downtown Crozet, Applicant shall dedicate the walking/jogging trail along the area of the ponds, described in 3.1 above for use within such a trail system or greenway. 3.5 Stormwater Manaqement Plan. As a condition of plat approval for the first section of the subdivision, Applicant shall develop a stormwater management plan which incorporates best management practices that, to the extent practicable with the lot and street layout, minimizes pollution to the tribu- tary of Powell's Creek and to Lickinghole Creek. Such plan shall be approved by the Department of Engineering and may include utilizing the existing ponds in their present, natural state, retaining open space, and grass-lined swales along interior streets. This proffer is in addition to the required contribution for the regional stormwater retention under the Ordinance. IV. NORTHERN TRACT The area depicted on the attached Schematic Plan for Grayrock North, prepared by Muncaster Engineering, dated June 3, 1998 ("Schematic Plan") is subject to zoning under ZMA-84-29, ("Northern Tract"). The Northern Tract is currently zoned PRD to allow seventy (70) townhouse units. Applicant proffers to reduce the permitted density on the Northern Tract from seventy (70) townhouse units to a maximum of twenty- seven (27) single family, detached units and to submit a rezoning request for the reduction of permitted density thereon to twenty-seven (27) single family, detached units. Applicant shall submit such rezoning request within six (6) months of the approval of ZMA-97-12. Applicant acknowledges that its submittal of such rezoning request shall be for the consideration by the Board of Supervisors and that the Board's acceptance of these proffers shall in no way be construed as the Board's pre-approval of such request. Applicant shall diligently pursue the rezoning request (under either a PRD or R-1 classification). If Applicant diligently pursues the rezoning of the Northern Tract as provided herein, and such rezoning is denied, this proffer shall have been deemed satisfied and Applicant shall be free to develop the Northern Tract under the existing zoning. If the Applicant fails to submit its rezoning request or fails to pursue the application dili- gently, then the Applicant shall be deemed in violation of these proffers, and 'the County may exercise all available remedies at law or in equity against the Applicant and the Property, including but not limited to the suspension of issuance of building and other permits for the development of the Property until the applicant is in compliance with such proffers. Applicant shall submit as part of its re-zoning application for the Northern Tract, a proffer that the development of the Northern Tract shall be in general accord with the Schematic Plan, subject to adjustments for final engineering and to comply with the requirements of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance and Virginia Department of Transportation Subdivision Street Standards. August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) ~:. 000i64 Vo OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 5.1 Declaration. The Applicant shall prepare and place on the Property, a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Re- strictions (the "Declaration"). The Declaration's purpose will be to facilitate the planning and development of the Property in a unified and consistent manner. The Declara- tion shall set forth covenants, conditions and restrictions for private enforcement only by homeowners within the Prop- erty. The clear intent of the Declaration will be that the County of Albemarle will have no rights or obligations to enforce such covenants, conditions and restrictions. The Declaration shall not be interpreted as authorizing any relaxation of state or Albemarle County regulatory or mini- mum code standards, except as allowed by the regulations of the Ordinance. 5.2 Design Standards. The Declaration shall impose design and architectural guidelines for each residential lot within the Property; the architectural and design standards for the respective development areas (the "Design Guidelines") will ensure high quality architectural and landscape design and a harmonious residential community. 5.3 Fixed Standards. (a) The following elements of the Design Guidelines shall be referenced in the Declaration: (i) Types of materials to be used in construction of dwellings; (ii) Required setbacks from properties adjacent to the Property, lot/building ratios, height re- strictions; and (iii) Types of materials to be used and standards for landscaping. 5.4 DesiGn Guidelines. The Design Guidelines~:also shall: (a) Provide the standards for development within the Project and explain how such standards are imple- mented; (b) Provide for creation of a Design Review Committee. (The County of Albemarle will not participate on such Design Review Committee. The Design Guidelines shall not be interpreted as supplanting any applicable design review by the County's Architectural Review Board); (c) Provide an outline of the procedures and contacts for approvals by the Design Review Committee in connection with design and construction within the Project; and (d) Include requirements for builders to install water low flow showers and toilets as water C0nserva~iSh tech' niques. 5.5 Maintenance of Landscapinq. Open Space and Common Areas. The Declaration shall provide a mechanism for establishing and maintaining landscaping, open space, (including open space, and landscaping required by these proffers) and common areas within the Property, including the following: (a) The Applicant shall organize a Home Owners Association (the "Association") as a nOn-stock organization Under the laws of Virginia for the care and maintenance of all such lands and improvements owned or entrusted to such association (the "Common Areas"); August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) .~ ~ (b) O00±65 The Association shall be bound by the Declaration's covenants, conditions and restrictions running with the land. The Applicant or such Association shall be responsible for the perpetuation, maintenance and function of all Common Areas; (c) The Applicant or such Association shall provide a means for identifying Common Areas as to location, size, use and control in one or more restrictive covenants, and such covenants shall set forth the method of assessment for the maintenance of such Common Areas. The Declaration's method of identifying Common Areas shall not supersede any applicable re- quirements to identify common areas in a site develop- ment plan or subdivision plat; (d) The Declaration shall be in full force and effect for a period of not less than twenty-five (25) years and shall be automatically extended for successive periods of twenty-five (25) years unless terminated in a manner set forth in the Declaration; and (e) The Association shall continue in effect so as to control the availability of the facilities and land thereby provided and to maintain the Common Areas for their intended function. Such Association shall not be dissolved nor shall such Association dispose of any Common Area space, by sale or otherwise, except to successor organizations conceived and organized under the same standards and principles set forth herein for the Association to own and maintain the CommOn Areas. VI. REZONING APPLICATION AND ILLUSTRATIONS 6.1 6.2 Plans and Illustrations. Applicant presented as part of its Rezoning Application, an in~tial conceptual plan. Except for the Conceptual Plan attached to these proffers, any plan submitted as part of Applicant' s rezoning application, or as part of the rezoning process shall be deemed illustrative only, and such plan shall not be deemed a proffer. Conceptual Plan Exhibit. These proffers refer to the Con- ceptual Plan which is being used to illustrate certain proffers, and to show the general lot and internal street configuration. Subject to adjustments for final engineering and to comply with the requirements of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance and Virginia Department of Transporta- tion Subdivision Street Standards, development of the Prop- erty shall be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan. House locations shown on the Conceptual Plan are for illus- trative purposes only. VII. MISCELLANEOUS 7.1 7.2 Certificate. The undersigned, Robert S. Savage, and Ann S. Savage certify that they are the only owners of the Property which is the subject of this application. The Applicant. These proffers shall run With the Property and each reference to the "Applicant" within these proffers shall include within its meaning, and shall be binding upon, Applicant's successor(s) in interest and/or the developer(s) of the Property or any portion of the Property. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-98-15. Zion Hill Baptist Church (Signs #28&29) . Public hearing on a request to enlarge an existing church [10.2.2.35]. TM65, P106. Property located on N sd of State Highway 22 (Louisa Road), approx 1.3 mls E of junction with State Highway 231 (Gordonsville Road). Znd RA & EC, & designated RA in Comp Plan. (This property is not located in a designated growth area.) Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 3 and 10, 1998.) August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) ~. .... OO01G6 Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is a permanent part of the record and on file in the Clerk's office. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with conditions. The Planning Commission, at its August 11, 1998 meeting, unanimously recommended approval of SP-98-15 with four conditions. Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. Mr. Ernley Chapman, Chairman of the Trustees Board of the church, said the purpose of the request is to enlarge the church dining hall. The existing building is outdated, and they need to improve the quality of the room and provide more space. They also need to enlarge the pastor study, kitchen facilities and bathroom facilities. The church has been there a number of years, and the community supports the request. He concurs with the recommen- dation which calls for additional landscaping work, and VDoT's recommendation that the entrance off Route 22 be upgraded. Ms. ThOmas asked if the applicant is amenable to all four conditions recommended by the Commission. Mr. Chapman said, "Yes." Ms. Humphris mentioned the Board had received a copy of a letter from Ms. Margarite Pickard regarding the valuable historic character of the church. Ms. Pickard had provided a list of suggested conditions. Ms. Humphris asked if the Board could require additional conditions, and if so, what they might be. Mr. Cilimberg said the proposal is in accord with Ms. Pickard's sugges- tions. The Board could include those conditions if they so desired. The site is in an entrance corridor, and a permit will be involved. A site plan will also be required, and Entrance Corridor provisions and conditions will be required by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the Public hearing. Mr. Martin moved to approve SP-98-15 subject to the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. The conditions are as follow: Church development shall be limited to the improvementsshown on the sketch plan dated July 20, 1998 (copy on file in the Clerk's office) and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, and children's play equipment; Approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance to the yard requirements; Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment; and Two (2) of the three (3) existing entrances along Route 740 will be closed, and the third will be improved to support two-way traffic by having a thirty (30)-foot width and twenty-five (25)- foot radii. The entrance from Route 22 will be improved to provide a vehicle landing and adequate width at the right-of-way line as determined by the Engineering Department. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-98-20. Chestnut Grove Baptist Church (Signs #90&95) . Public hearing on a request to add a 25-foot addition to existing church. Site located on 1.000 acs at 8825 Chestnut Grove Rd. Znd RA. TM133, P42. Property located on Rt 723 in Esmont (This property is not located in a designated growth area.) Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 3 and 10, 1998.) Mr. Marshall questioned the advertised description of this item. He said the church is not in Esmont; it is in Chestnut Grove. August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff recommends approval of SP-98-20 subject to four conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 14, 1998, unanimously recommended approv&l of the application subject to the same two conditions. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Rooker, a Planning Commissioner, suggested adding a condition that stated the septic system would be kept functional and would not operate above its capacity. Mr. Cilimberg said that is already a Health Department requirement. Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. Mr. William Rush, Deacon and Trustee of the church, said the church was built in 1969. The community has grown a lot, which has resulted in a larger congregation. The church needs additional space for its baptismal, pastor study, etc. The church has contacted the Health Department and is amenable to all its requirements. With no one else present to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing. Ms. Humphris moved to approve SP-98,15 subject to the first condition recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. The condition is as follows:. Day care use and other non-church activities shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment. (Note: The other condition recommended by the Planning Commission, pertaining to the septic system, was dropped, since that is already a Health Department requirement.) Agenda Item No. 11. SP-98-23. Colonial Baptist Church Mission Building (Signs #52 &72). Public hearing on a request, in accord with provisions of §10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow printing & distribution of church literature in a 3,040 sq ft bldg to be constructed adjac to existing church on 10.389 acs. TM94, P46. Znd RA & EC. Property located on Rt 250 E, .7 mls E of S.R. 744 (Hacktown Road). (This property is not located in a designated growth area). A site plan showing proposed development 6f the property is being reviewed concurrently w/this request. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 3 and 10, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg Summarized the staff's report, which'is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff recommended approval of SP-98-23 subject to one condition. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 21, 1998, unanimously recommended approval of the application subject to the one condition. Mr. Cilimberg added there would be an average of 12 trips per month associated with the church printshop activities. Ms. Humphris said the Commission approved the prophet's chamber dwell- ing, but disapproved the printing activities. They did not stipulate any suggested building size. Mr. Martin said the Commission probably assumed the church would reconsider what size the building should be if printing activi- ties could not take place. Mr. Martin said there was some misunderstanding concerning the number of trips per day. Staff said there would be no more than four trips per day, but the pastor's letter said that included some activities that should not be considered. Mr. Cilimberg said the church now says there will be 12 trips per month associated with printing activities. Staff had focused on UPS traffic. There are only four trips per day proposed, and that is not easily enforce- able. If the Board needs to address printing service trips, they should be addressed as a more encompassing number. August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. 000:1.68 Mr. Ed Leake, pastor of the church, said the church addressed several concerns in a memo to the Board. There are 12 commercial trips per month, including service vehicles. The purpose of the' building is to carry out the ministry of the church. The building serves a two-fold purpose. The prophet's chambers are included in that location, but will not use the entire building. His congregation is involved in the printing business. It is not a commercial concern, as the church does not charge for its publications. Spreading the gospel is a ministry of the church. There are no paid employ- ees, as staff are all volunteers. There will not be a great increase in commercial deliveries, and volunteers perform their work on days when they would normally be at the church anyway. He provided copies of the church literature of the Board. He said the church distributes its literature to the community, joint security complex, throughout the state, and worldwide. With no one else rising t° speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing. Mr. Martin said he Visited the church, as did Ms. Thomas. This is not a commercial operation, because there is no charge for the literature distrib- uted by the church. The small quantity of Printed material is nowhere near what would be done by a commercial printer. He feels a moral responsibility to support what the church considers their mission. Mr. Davis pointed out that in approving a special use permit, the Board would not be approving a print shop. The special use is a church use. As long as the use is consistent with a church and is an accessory function of the church, it would remain legal under the permit of a church. If it was ever changed so that it became a commercial operation, it would be in viola- tion of the Zoning Ordinance, and the County would have the obligation to require that it be shut down. Approving the application would not mean giving away monitoring power. Ms. Humphris thinks the Board has to set aside the fact that this is a church's application. She asked about a letter from the Chief of Zoning, which says this is out of proportion to the church it serves and out of scale for accessory uses in the RA district. Ms. Humphris said she cannot see how a printing operation with this much equipment can be calle~ a small operation. She does not want the Board to set a precedent for what occurs in a rural area. Mr. Martin said what is occurring is not a commercial use, and the church does not charge for the material.. Ms. Humphris said the zoning Ordinance does not differentiate between non-profit and for-profit activities. Mr. Martin said the Zoning Ordinance does take into account the fact that a church can be in almost any district, and that accessory uses to a church are permissible. Mr. Davis said the Chief of Zoning's opinion was somewhat ambiguous. The fact that the special use permit can proceed for this use is an indication that there was no determination made that this was not for accessory use. The Chief of Zoning's concern had more to do with the RA designation. The intensity and scale of the operation is not as great as first thought. Mr. Cilimberg said the reason the whole question of the printing operation arose was because of the new area of development. There have been no zoning violations cited, but the Zoning Department said the request for an additional building, because of the printing operation, should be addressed as a special use, just as a request for a day care operation would be addressed. Ms. Humphris said this is a non-worship use request for a print shop and mailing service. The Commission said day care is allowed in rural churches by special use permit, but day care is considered to add to'the fabric of a community by helping families that live in the community. This is an indus- trial use. Mr. Perkins disagreed, saying there are only five volunteers, all of whom are members of the church, and there is little commercial activity. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Leake about the necessity for all the equipment. Mr. Leake said the church never said'there were five offset presses. The Commission said they thought there was floor space for that many. Mr. Leake said the church uses three offset presses now, and hopes to eventually downsize to two because of changes in technology. August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) ~ .... ~ ~'~ ........ ~ .................... · 000 .69 Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Leake to explain why he was not happy with the condition limiting use of the building to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Mr. Leake explained that volunteers who get off work at 5:00 p.m. would not arrive at the church until after 5:00 p.m., and the 7:00 p.m. closing time would not provide enough time for volunteers to complete their work. He said the church prefers the hours to be from 9:00 a.m. until 9:00 p.m. Ms. Thomas asked if changing the word "employees" ~o ~volunteers" would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Leake said current workers are volun- teers, but that might change eventually. The church, for example, might hire someone to manage the operation on a part-time basis. Ms. Thomas said that would change the situation, and she suggested the word change in order to be sure this remains a church activity. Mr. Martin agreed, referring to the term ~non-worship function~. Churches charge for day care as a service. In this case, the church raises money and provides the service as part of their worship. They are sending Christian literature around the world at their expense. Ms. Humphris said Mr. Nitchmann, of the Planning Commission, noted that, if the applicant asked to do this as a Home Occupation permit in a rural area, it could not be approved, because it would be limited to 1,500 square feet; this request is for 3,000 feet. A home occupation is limited to one family member and one other person; this is for five people. She is concerned this establishes a precedent that would be hard to defend. Mr. Davis said the use that is allowed is a church use. There are lots of different activities associated with churches. The Zoning Ordinance allows accessory uses as part of the church use umbrella. Because of the land use impact, activities are typically limited, because of traffic generation and other concerns. For example, day care is typically disallowed unless the applicant amends the special use permit, because that generates traffic and other land use impacts that may not be acceptable on a particular location. The same principle applies in this case. As long as the printing operation is accessory, and part of the ministry of the church, it is allowed under the umbrella of the special use permit unless the Board restricts the special use permit to prohibit it because of land use reasons. Mr. Martin said the Board routinely allows churches to have 150 people or more at a sit down dinner; those activities would not be allowed under a home occupation. High decibels of music during services in rural areas are allowed; that would not be allowed under a home occupation. This is an extension of worship, and there is no conflict, as this is the church's mission. The applicant is only talking about a small number of boxes of literature per week, and traffic is not an issue. Ms. Humphris said she is bothered that someone else in a rural area might want to set up a print shop, which would not be allowed. Saying that this is an accessory use of a church would not be appropriate, in her mind. Mr. Bowerman said for this church, if no one is paid, this is part of the church's mission and accessory to the church. It is clearly distinguishable from anyone else in the rural area doing the same thing. The scale of the operation is small. The fact that these are volunteers who associate this activity as part of their church makes it an accessory use. Ms. Thomas added that this particular piece of property is large enough that this use does not intrude upon or imPact the neighbors. She feels the Board, if it approves the request, should change condition number three to say "Commercial setbacks shall apply to this site." Mr. Bowerman said churches must have commercial entrances. Mr. Davis suggested saying, ~Commercial setbacks shall apply to the print shop uses on this site." Mr. Cilimberg suggested, since nothing references the site plan, which meets the require- ments of the special use permit, to substitute the wording, ~Additional development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the final site plan revised May 29,1998." Ms. Humphris asked if the conditions should say "employees/volunteers". Mr. Cilimberg said it would be hard to distinguish between the two and difficult to enforce. It would have to be self-enforced. Mr. Davis said compliance could be determined by various methods. He suggested condition number two be revised to say, ~...five (5) volunteers..." AUgUSt 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 000170 Mr. Marshall suggested that condition number two be revised to say, "...hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m .... " Mr. Martin suggested changing condition number two to state, "...no more than twelve (12) commercial delivery truck trips per month, as described in I. Facts, item number 8, from the August 10, 1998 memorandum from Colonial Baptist Church." Mr. Martin then moved to approve SP-98-23 subject to the three revised conditions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Ms. Humphris. The conditions are as follow: Sanctuary and classroom expansion, or day care and other non- worship uses will require amendment to this petition; Print shop and mailing service is limited to'distribution of church-related items; five (5) volunteers; hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; and, no more than twelve (12) commercial delivery truck trips per month as described in I. Facts, item number 8, from the August 10, 1998 memorandum from Colonial Baptist Church; and 3 o Additional development shall be limited to the final site plan revised May 29,1998. Ms. Thomas said it is an integral part of this church and the action taken does not set a precedent. Mr. Perkins asked whether the five volunteers need to always be the same five individuals. Mr. Davis replied, "No." (Note: At 9:23 p.m. the Board took a break.) (Note: At 9:35 p.m. the Board returned.) Agenda Item No. 12. SP-98-25. Virginia National Bank (Sign #24). Public hearing on a request to reestablish use of drive thru windows for bank in accord with provisions of §24.2.2(13) of the Zoning O~dinance. This site was previously used as a bank but the use was discontinued and, therefore, an SP is required to reopen the drive thru windows. TM61, Pl20Z. Znd HC & EC. Property located S of & adj to the Brown's Auto Dealership opposite Fashion Square Mall. (This property is recommended for Regional Service in Neighbor- hood 1.) Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 3 and 10, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg read the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of §31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommended approval subject to conditions. The Planning Commission, at its July 21, 1998 meeting, unanimously recommended approval of SP-98-25 with one condition. Mr. Bowerman asked if the site development plan shown is the one in place today. Mr. Cilimberg said the plan shown today illustrates a difference in how travel will move through the drive-through window area and the parking spaces. Representing the applicant, Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, of Gloeckner Engineer- ing, said there has been'a bank on this site for a number of years. They propose to add additional parking. Mr. Bowerman said he.was not clear what changes were being made. Mr. Joe Chambers 'provided a drawing and explained the changes. Mr. Martin stated that he has money deposited in Virginia National Bank, but that it is less than $10,000. Mr. Davis said this does not represent a conflict of interest. August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. Mr. Marshall 'closed the public hearing. O00&? With no one rising to speak, Hotion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-98-25 subject to one condition. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. The condition is as follows: Drive-through windows will be limited to four (4) tional and one ATM window). three tradi- Agenda Item No. 13. SP 98-26. Albemarle First Bank. (Signs #20&23). Public hearing on a request, in accord with provisions of §22.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ordinance, to operate a bank w/a three-lane, drive-up teller facility on approx 1.028 acs located at 1265 Seminole Trail, situated at the SE corner of Rt 29 N & Westfield Rd. The existing bldg on the site (currently used as medical offices, previously used as a bank with a drive-up teller facility) will be renovated to accommodate the new use. TM61W, Sec2, BlockB,. Pl. Znd C-1 & EC. (This property is designated as Community Service in Neighborhood 2 of the Comprehensive Plan.) A site plan showing proposed development of the property will be required. Rio Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 3 and 10, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg read the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and recommended approval of SP-98-26 with one condition. The Planning Commission, at its August 11, 1998 meeting, unanimously recommended approval of SP-98-26 with one condition. Mr. Jay Taggert, speaking on behalf of the applicant, said they are willing to close the entrance to Westfield Road. Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. With no one rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing. Mr. Bowerman said the applicant asked for two lanes plus an ATM machine, but staff recommended two lanes and one free egress so that traffic will not back up on or offsite. Closing the Westfield Road entrance eliminates that concern. He is worried that traffic might still back up at times. Mr. Douglas Gilpin, the project architect, said the applicant wants to use the ATM lane as a combination ATM/bypass lane, since it works well for existing banks. The property line distance does not allow another location. From a security standpoint, the bank wants to keep the ATM under cover of the overhead canopy, which is well lit and in plain view of the bank. ATM transactions generally occur after-hours; customers use the other lanes during the day. Mr. Bowerman said there are site considerations because of the size of this site. other banks generally have three drive-thru lanes plus an ATM machine, or four drive-thru lanes and a bypass, so there.is usually another way to get out. ATM transactions are fast, but can occur during business hours. He supports the site plan, but only because there is no other alterna- tive. Mr. Gilpin said a person exiting Will be going directly onto westfield Road. It will therefore be clearly defined that the drive-in teller area bends to the left of the building, well before someone would be trapped in a drive-thru lane. Hotion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-98-26 subject to one condition. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: MS. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 23 ) .:.: ~.,,. ~: The Condition is as follows: 1. Eliminate the western Westfield Road entrance. 000172 Agenda Item No. 14. SP-98-09. Arrowhead CV 15.2 (Sign #73). Public hearing on a request from CFW Wireless, in accord with the provisions of §10.2.2(6), to allow construction of telecommunication facility on TM88, P26. Znd RA. Property located on E sd of Rt 29 (Monacan Dr) on W sd of Rt 745 (Arrowhead Valley Rd). (This property is not located in a designated growth area.) Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 3 and 10, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg read the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff recommends approval with conditions. The Planning Commission, at its July 14, 1998 meeting, unani- mously recommended denial of the application. Mr. Tom Whittaker, representing CFW Wireless, said the Board is review- ing four applications at this meeting; three call for wooden poles, and one calls for a tower. There are lots of emotions regarding towers, in general, and he thanked the Board for their patience. The three wooden pole mini-cell applications were all recommended for approval by staff. These are the least invasive applications possible, and the applicant is trying to make them as unobjectionable as possible. The Commission said there is a need for informa- tion from an independent source, and that they will vote.down all applications until such source is identified. CFW is committed to bringing in the least objectionable applications possible. The Arrowhead site was denied by the Commission because of its proximity to a land conservation area, and the fact that no other sites on the property were available. He said they could only move north, which is not acceptable. Road frontage of the conservancy is large, and moving to the other side moves the tower away from where it is most useful. Mr. Whittaker said these sites are very hard to see unless you know where to look for them. Mr. David Van Roijan said his comments apply to most of the applica- tions. His neighborhood has been dealing with numerous tower applications. The applicant says they cannot lower the towers, but he disagrees. The applicant said they cannot bury buildings underground, but he disagrees. He added that small transmitters can go on light poles, and signals can be transmitted through leaves. He said the applicant said that at Red Hill a propagation study suggested co-location, but he does not wish to share with competitors. Towers proposed for Route 29 South are opposed by neighbors. said the applicant has not looked at other sites. He said he met with Mr. Shearer, and found a different site on the same parcel, and asked if the applicant had looked at the location. He received no answer. He offered to work with the neighborhood and the applicant, and got no response. He asked the Board to wait to hear the consultants' recommendatioHs before approving any more towers~ He Mr. Burt Woods, a resident at Arrowhead, said he is tired of fighting the application. He submitted a plan that shows an alternative location. He feels a wooden pole is superior to what has been proposed before, and should be used within the Route 29 South corridor. This is a commercial venture, and towers should be put on top of buildings in the area. He said he found many alternative sites. The proposed site is about 150 feet from a proposed building site for a family member. He does not oppose the tower, but asked that it be placed elsewhere. With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing. Ms. Thomas said she appreciates the neighbors' concern that more information is needed before more towers are approved. The Commission said this is being done piecemeal, and they are still not sure these are the best locations for towers. The Board tries to protect land under conservation easements, as the~ are one of the few tools that can be used to preserve land in the County. She agreed there may be a better site in the Arrowhead location, and would like to defer this item until the Board receives a report from the consultant. She is concerned about deferring the item because it means the public and applicant have to keep coming before the Board. The County seems to be asking applicants to use wooden poles, make them not August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (page 24) visible, and place them at the treetop level. She hesitates to put them near conservation areas. It is not up to the Board to suggest alternative sites, but the consultant could. Ms. Humphris said the Board should not lose sight of the fact that the consultant simply provides information; the Board has to develop a plan. She is disappointed CFW did not investigate alternative sites. She said a Commission member said he was told other locations were examined and that no other locations were acceptable. She would like to see the data that supports that claim. It is difficult for the public to have to repeatedly attend the public hearings. It is not appropriate to put towers next to conservation easement areas. Mr. Bowerman asked what the consultant is going to do. He wondered if, after the consultant, provides information and the Board develops a strategy, the Board would be able to determine specific locations, or will someone else examine each application, examine the data, and make a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Cilimberg said a second consultant will examine individual applications, independent of the first consultant. Ms. Humphris said the Board will have a plan in place before the work of the site-specific consultant begins. Mr. Cilimberg said the consultant will be on a retainer and will begin work on applications right away, even before a strategy and standards are in place. Ms. Humphris asked that that be examined and clarified. Mr. Martin said such a process will take a great deal of time. Mr. Bowerman said it would also help the applicants know what to ~shoot for". Ms. Thomas asked when the neighbors become involved, and whether they would work with the consultants. Mr. Cilimberg said that is not a part of the request for proposal. Mr. Martin said it would be up to the applicant to consult with neighbors. Mr. Marshall asked what the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is going to allow. He believes CFW is being treated unfairly because 360 Communications already has coverage where CFW does not. He wondered how many more companies are coming. Ms. Thomas said nine licenses have been issued, but so far only three companies have submitted requests. Ms. Humphris said it is legally permissible to declare a maximum 180-day moratorium in hopes the Board will obtain guidance from the consultant. Ms. Thomas said the Board can defer the request without a moratorium. Mr. Davis said the Board can, under federal law, have a moratorium for up to 180 days, but Virginia law does not allow a moratorium in zoning matters. He said the Board, as with any land use matter, has a window of up to 12 months to make a reasonable decision on an application, but cannot discriminate against tower applications. To defer the application, the Board would have to identify a reasonable time period in order to get information necessary on which to base a reasonable decision. If the Board feels the consultant's report is necessary, and can be presented in a reasonable amount of time, it can proceed in this fashion. However, he added the ad hoc consultant will not be able to give as much specific information as the Board says is needed, since a plan will not yet be in place. Mr. Bowerman said the Board has been asking applicants to work with communities to come up with satisfactory solutions. If an applicant suggests three possible sites and reasons why they cannot be pursued, the Board then has a better understanding of what the alternatives are.' The Board does not currently know if there are other suitable locations. Ms. Thomas said neigh_bors have raised the question about the implications of installing one taller tower, and the impact it would have on subsequent towers. Ms. Humphris said CFW has a plan, but they are not sharing it with the Board. Ms. Thomas said the Board also needs assistance on how to deal with additional telecommunications companies coming into the area. Mr. Bowerman asked if no one argued against the Bellair site. Ms. Thomas explained that, with that site, there were no earth-disturbing activities, there was little impact on roads, the tower was not visible, and therefore the neighbors did not object. Mr. Bowerman said Arrowhead is clouded by a conservation easement, and confusion about the best location for an adequate site. Ms. Thomas said the Board also knew where the next tower would have to go following Bellair; they do not know that in this case. 000:1.74 August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) Ms. Humphris said the Commission was disappointed there was no evidence of any work being done to investigate other sites. She also stated that data was not made available to the Board. Mr. Martin said people have objected to some locations in the past, but the Board approved other towers because there were towers already located in those areas (for example, in Forrest Lakes). Therefore, the public is afraid to allow one tower, for fear that more will follow. Ms. Thomas then made the motion to defer SP-98-09 indefinitely, pending a report from the consultants, in order to make an informed decision. Mr. Bowerman asked about the 12-month deadline for the Arrowhead application. Mr. Cilimberg said the application was filed on February 21, 1998. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Mr. Tucker said staff will provide the Board a brief executive summary outlining what both consultant firms will do, and where the County stands in .negotiations with the second consultant, on the September 2, 1998 consent agenda. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. SP-98-27. CFW Wireless [CVll3] Red Hill (Sign #6), Public hearing on a request, in accord with provisions of §10.2.2(6), to construct personal wireless telecommunication facility on approx 2 acs. Znd RA & EC. TM87, P25B. Property located on S sd of Rt 29. (Monacan Trail) approx 0.5 mls E of Rt 710 (Taylors Gap Rd). (This site is not located in a designated growth area.) Samuel Miller Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 3 and 10, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission heard the applicant's petition to construct a personal communications tower at its July 24, 1998 meeting. The Commission recommended denial of SP-98-27 to allow for the construction of a 150-foot tall tower. In the report, staff had identified the possibility of co-location of the communications antennae on the existing power poles serving the Virginia Power 500 kilovolt transmission line. Since the Commission's action, the applicant has provided additional information regarding the feasibility of such co-location. In their report, staff identified two alternative options for the proposed tower facility: 1) co-location on the existing power poles serving Virginia Power's 500 kilovolt transmission line, and 2) reduction of tower size to 120 feet. Although less invasive, staff finds a 120-foot tower would negatively impact the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The applicant has pursued the possible co-location option with Virginia Power and has determined that the existing structures are incapable of supporting additional facili- ties. The applicant has provided a letter to this effect (on file in the Clerk's office). It states, ~Virginia Power has determined that, due to the age and present loading for any structure that is an FLT'Tower, no additional equipment can be added." Although co-location on the power poles is no longer a feasible option, staff opinion is that the proposed 150-foot-high tower would have an adverse impact on the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Therefore, staff's recom- mendation has not altered in light of this new information. Mr. Marshall then asked the applicant for comments. Mr. Tom Whittaker, representing CFW Wireless, said this site is a classic co-location opportunity, due to the existing imbedded vertical infrastructure. Adding a tower to that infrastructure is an incremental increase to the viewshed. The area is not heavily wooded, so the woOden pole concept will not work in this location. It would be difficult to find a location that would offer a lot of heavy wooded screening. He said CFW approached the site with another licensee, U.S. Cellular, with the idea of co- locating in mind, since there is already a visible infrastructure in place. August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 000175 (Page 26) Mr. Bowerman asked if other sites were investigated, since this-was obviously the one CFW preferred to use. Mr. Whittaker said CFW does not explore multiple sites simultaneously. He added that be'felt personally obligated to the landowner to follow every application to its end point. Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant enters into contracts with landowners to pursue applications as far as possible, and therefore feels bound by a contractual obligation. Mr. Whittaker said there is no contractual obliga- tion, but he feels there is a moral obligation. Mr. Bowerman noted it would be unwise, to look at a site if there was not a willing landowner. Mr. Whittaker said when the search area is small (the search area in this case would be about one-quarter-mile-wide), an applicant would no doubt be talking to someone's neighbor to get a different contract. To help the Board understand the process of selecting a site, Mr. Whittaker said the first thing he does is identify a search area radius. In this area that search area is about a one quarter-mile circle. In other counties, the search area can be m~Ch different, because of elevation differ- ences. When Mr. Bowerman asked how much of an area a one quarter-mile-circle can serve, Mr. Whittaker provided the Bellair site as an example. Right now, while there are leaves on the trees, there is about eight-tenths-of-one-mile radial coverage from the site. CFW has a site in Botetourt County with antennas at a 150-foot level on the towers. That site provides nearly two- and-one-half miles' coverage from the same type of lower-power cell-site. He said the six new licensees that have been added.are all digital technology companies. Some operate at higher powers than CFW. CFW operates at one-fifth the output power of an analog cell-site, so they need a tower every five miles or so. CFW has mini-cells (10 watts of output power), and full-power towers (20 watts of output power). As an example, at the Joshua Run cell-site, any one of the tower cell-sites that were approved late last year, cover in a rural environment about two-and-one-half to three miles' radius. CFW's towers on 1-81 are spaced out about every six miles. Mr. Bowerman asked if the location of one site predicates the location of the next site. Mr. Whittaker replied, "Yes." About one-half the requested sites down Route 29 have already been approved. His company has hopscotched down Route 29 South and they are now attempting to fill in the gaps in the middle, and things are out of sequence. Mr. Bowerman said it would be helpful if the Board knew where all the future sites would be located. Mr. Whittaker said the County has a copy of a map which shows every .one of CFW's proposed and existing sites. Mr. Bowerman said the map limits sites to a one-quarter-mile radius. Mr. Whittaker said the map shows a combination of both full-blown sites and mini-cell sites, as well as approximate center point locations of search areas. He added that a consultant will do the same thing CFW is doing with prediction modeling software or a test transmitter. Mr. Bowerman asked if this site would be useless, if the Arrowhead site is disapproved. Mr. Whittaker said CFW would have to look for alternatives, but moving toward the road means moving downhill. Moving onto the other side of the road, the west side of RoUte 29, there is a hill and a curve in the road to the north, which will block or put a null in the signal. This is the best location. Mr. Bowerman suggested if they did have to move to another location, CFW might require another mini-cell site. Ms. Thomas asked whether CFW prefers to be located on the outside of a curve. Mr. Whittaker replied, "Yes, because you can shoot down both sides, or, if you are on the inside of the curve, you can locate right on the elbow." At Bellair there is a straight-of-way; there is nothing to the east side. The main objective was to fill a gaping hole, which has been done beautifully. Mr. Bowerman asked if CFW is working to provide coverage to 1-64. Mr. Whittaker said, "No." Currently CFW is looking to create coverage on Route 250 West. They can try 1-64 too, but that will require an entirely new search area. CFW is committed to mini-cell sit~s, because they are less visible, but the drawback is that you cannot co-locate on them. Mr. Marshall said the COunty could end up with countless sites as new licensees move into the area. Mr. Whittaker said he wou%d be surprised if more than three licensees show up in this marketplace. Currently there are CFW and AT&T; Sprint PCS is an inevitability; one of the other licensees is bankrupt, one cannot be contacted, one recently filed for bankruptcy, and the 0005.'76 August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 27) ..... other is Adelphia. Adelphia will probably use their backbone cable television system to support transport. CFW cannot attach to utility poles because there are joint-user fees pegged by the State Corporation Commission. Since CFW is under a different regulatory group, they cannot use them. Mr. Marshall then opened the public hearing. Mr. David van Roijen said the consultant will help the County develop a comprehensive policy for coverage and capacity. No one claims to have perfect telecommunications in the mountains. In the City of Charlottesville, on the other hand, you want to have perfect communications, because that is where most businesses are located. There are going to be a lot of towers. In the County, the Board might decide to have some coverage south of town, but not as many towers are needed. The second consultant will then examine each applica- tion and make a recommendation to the Board, based upon coverage and capacity recommendations. Neighborhoods deserve to know what is coming, instead of hearing about possible towers piecemeal. These companie~ are developers, and they should be regulated under a policy. It is unfair to continually defer these applications. He said waiting for the consultant to come on board will not give the Board enough information to make decisions in time to resolve the applications currently before the Board. Mr. Mark Gartley, who works for United States Cellular, said he supports the application, because his company could co-locate on this pole. He distributed a memorandum dated August 19, 1998, which was in response to the staff report (copy on file in the Clerk's office). Mr. Gartley said the character of the neighborhood lends itself to this use, as there is signifi- cant utility infrastructure in place, with two specific overhead transmission lines. The best site would be up on a ridge, but they do desire to blend in with existing the infrastructure. He felt this location would have the least impact on the community. Mr. Ronald Brunk provided two photographs of the location of the proposed towers, taken when the applicant located cranes on-site to show the visual impact. He said the top of the pipe, which represented the top of the tower, was 150 feet in the air and blocked his view. He lives across from the site and said he has good cellular service from 360 Communications. The site is in the Entrance Corridor, and he objects to the impact on property values. He said the Board should not add an additional tower just because there are some already there. Although there are several Virginia Power tower stations in the vicinity, they are far enough away in distance that they, in no way, mask the overwhelming size and visibility of the proposed tower. The highest pole on the proposed two-acre lot is 40 feet. In his opinion, using the same criteria as a wooded site is appropriate in this location. No effort has been made to find an alternative location that is less obvious, but he identified one not far from the proposed site. He said if there are going to be sending devices at least every three miles by at least one company, and additional sets by another company every five miles, the Board needs to require that towers be hidden or disguised or else the landscape will look like a bed of nails. Ms. Irene Brennemen, a resident of Red Hill for nearly 18 years, requested the Board deny the permit because it would adversely impact adjoin- ing property owners, the community and travelers on Route 29 South. The impact on adjoining property owners is the devaluation of their property and another eyesore to look at. The impact on the overall community would also be great. At the corner of Route 29 and Red Hill Road, there is a small lake owned by Mr. A. W. Cutwright. This location is used as a community gathering site. There is no screening between the lake and the proposed tower location. A more elevated site would require a tower with less visual impact. The proposed tower would stand near existing powerlines and transformers, and she is concerned about the potential of a major disaster. She provided a copy of a petition signed by many people in opposition to the application (copy on file in the Clerk's office). Ms. Brennemen said people want good service, but unobtrusive towers. Co-location requires tall towers, and there are creative alternatives. Mr. Satyendra S. Huja, Director of Strategic Planning for the City of Charlottesville, spoke as a citizen, saying he is against the application. He commended the Board for hiring a consultant t6 look at its strategy County- wide. This application is for a metal tower, unlike the other three applica- tions. Such a toWer is not in the Comprehensive Plan, it is contrary to RA zoning, it would adversely impact property values, it is contrary to the August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 28) Entrance Corridor Overlay District, and 000177 it would impact residents. He believes there are other locations available in that area. Mr. Huja said since the application serves no significant public purpose or interest, he asked the Board to deny, not defer, the request. Mr. Bud Wood said he was initially in favor of the request because it called' for co-location. However, once he saw the visual impact of the crane, he decided it was an atrocity. With no one else present to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing. Ms. Thomas said she agrees with Mr.~Wood. Virginia Power said the applicant would not be able to co-locateon their equipment. The Virginia Power towers have been on-site since 1961 or 1963, and cannot support anything else. She said the applicant could build another new tower, but that would be expensive. She sympathized with the applicant, who pointed out that there are other structures there already. She said denial of the request could be based on staff's recommendation that pointed out the impact on the area, the impact on the entrance corridor, the fact that other alternatives should be examined, and the fact that there is existing reasonable use of the property without the tower. Mr. Davis said staff would have to put together a record of denial and bring it back to the Board before the request could be denied. It was the consensus ~f the Board to ask that this be done. Ms. Thomas made the motion to defer SP-98-27 until September 16, 1998, by which time the Board will have been provided a written record to use as a basis for denial. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. (Note: Mr. Perkins left the room at 11:07 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 16. SP-98-30. CFW Wireless [CV134] Keene (Sign #18). Public hearing on a request, in accord with provisions of §10.2.2(6), to construct personal wireless telecommunication facility on approx 9.5 acs. Znd RA & EC. TM121, P89. Property located on E sd of Rt 20 (Scottsville Rd) at its intersection with Rt 712 (Coles Rolling Rd). (This property is not located in a designated growth area.). Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 3 and 10, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff reviewed the request for compliance with the provisions of §31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with 17 conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 14, 1998, by a vote of 5-1, recommended denial of the request based on the following: Other potential locations have not been explored; and Concerns were expressed about the fact that the type of antennae (panel) is much more visible than the omni-directional antennae which were used at the Bellair site. (Note: Mr. Perkins returned at 11:11 p.m.) Mr. Marshall asked for comments from the applicant. Mr. Tom Whittaker displayed a tower panel to the Board. He said the request was turned down by the Commission because of the use of panel antennas instead of whip antennas, as were used at the Bellair site. He said that only recently his company has been able to get panel antennas that have ~receive diversity". That means that if one of the receive elements in the antenna blows out, there is a second element to keep the antenna on the air until it is repaired. The company can also get more ~gain" out of panel antennas, which means more signal is emitted. The pole would be hirer because it would go all the way up to the top of the panel. The top of the antennae, however, August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 29) 000±78 would be at the same height. He said the other site on the Route 20 corridor, Round Hill, is on the September 19, 1998 agenda. Mr. Whittaker said Mr. Rieley, Planning Commissioner, said he would approve the request if the applicant had used Omni antennas. Mr. Whittaker's response was that if Omni antennas were used, that location might have to be moved and there might need to be an additional wooden pole site between Round Hill and Keene, or perhaps Round Hill would no longer apply. In his opinion, this antenna is not obtrusive. Ms. Thomas asked if the whole antenna has to be above the tree. Mr. Whittaker replied, ~Yes, because the pole can be no taller than the top of the tree. The antennas add additional height above the tree tops." Ms. Thomas asked where the next site would.be located if this and the Round Hill site are approved. Mr. Whittaker said the next site woUld be located further south, based on customer feedback. Further north, there is already a tower on Brown's Mountain. He said his company does not currently provide coverage between Keene and Scottsville. Ms. Thomas asked how far south on Route 20 would be covered by this tower. Mr. Whittaker replied, bOne-and-one- half miles." 20. 20. Ms. Humphris asked if the company has a plan in place for all of Route Mr. Whittaker said his company's 1998 plan calls for two sites on Route (Note: Mr. Martin left at 11:17 p.m.) Ms. Humphris asked about what happens in 1999. Mr. Whittaker said the company's future plans will be based on customer feedback. Ms. Humphris asked about the width of the top of the antenna. Mr. Whittaker said it is 24 inches across the top. An alternative would be to place a galvanized pipe on top with another two-inch steel pipe on top of it, and then attach the antennas to the very top. That would provide less height, but has not worked very well in the past. Ms. Thomas asked how he can use just two antennas, when other applicants use something different. Mr. Whittaker said this is a single-sector site; it only has one sector's worth of output. A splitter can be applied to the RF portion of the base station, split the signal, and send all 14 channel elements in two directions, providing 210 degrees of coverage. Mr. Marshall then opened the public hearing. Mr. David van Roijen said the Board still needs a comprehensive plan for all the towers in the area. With no further comments from the public, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing. (Note: Mr. Martin returned at 11:22 p.m.) Mr. Marshall said he has no problem with cellphone service in the area, and heard objections from neighbors. He said Mr. Jim Murray provided a suggestion on how to make the towers less visible, and suggests co-location. He had also asked that other locations be explored, and said there needs to be a plan from the consultant. Ms. Thomas suggested deferrin9 the request as they did the others. She added, however, that she did not think this tower would be very visible. Mr. Perkins said the area is a high point between Carter's Bridge and Scottsville. Mr. Marshall said he has no problem with reception now with 360 Communications. Mr. Davis reminded the Board they cannot discriminate against providers. Mr. Perkins suggested deferring the request for the same reason as the others. Mr. Perkins asked how much distance must be maintained between antennas. Mr. Whittaker replied said a 15-foot distance must be maintained. At the Bellair site, the pole is 80 feet above the ground, which is just above the treetops. His company cannot obtain poles taller than 105 feet. Ms, Thomas said if co-location is done, the towers will be more visible. August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 30) 000:1..79 Mr. Bowerman noted this application was submitted May 18, 1998. He then moved to defer SP-98-30 indefinitely, pending the conSultant's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Mr. Bowerman asked if technology exists that will allow multiple carriers with digital and/or analo~ transmitters to exist on the same pole. Mr. Whittaker said his company can currently transmit two carriers over one nine-panel set of antennas. If they had a cell site that had "max'd out" its capacity, the company would deploy a second carrier, which is a totally separate set of channel elements. That set of elements would require three more antennas. That array of nine antennas could carry those two carriers. He said there is no one in the country using a single set of antennas and coaxial cable to transmit more than one carrier. · ~ · Ms. Thomas said the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) said there were lots of concerns pertaining to towers because of upkeep and responsibil- ity. Roi1 was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None~ Agenda Item No. 17. SP-98-31. CFW Wireless [CV131] Rts 53 & 729 (Si~n #27). Public hearin~ on a request, in accord with the provisions of §10.2.2(6), to construct personal wireless telecommunication facility on approx 4 acs. Znd RA. TM93, P46B. Property located on E sd of Rt 729 (Buck Island Rd) approx mls S of Rt 53 (Thomas Jefferson Pkwy) . (This property is not located within a designated ~rowth area.) Scottsville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 3 and 10, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report, which is on file in the Clerk's office and a permanent part of the record. Staff reviewed the request for compliance with the provisions of §31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with 11 conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meetin~ on July 14, 1998, by a vote of 4-2, recommended approval of the request subject to 12 conditions. Further, Mr. Cilimberg said condition number two should have the followin~ words added to it, ~shall not be painted ...and should have natural wood color." Mr. Marshall asked the applicant for commentS. Mr. Whittaker said the Commission recommended approval of the request, it is identical to the Bellair site tower, and the applicant agrees to all conditions. Ms. Thomas asked if there are other tower sites on the Route 53 & Route 729 stretches of road which are under consideration. Mr. Whittaker said this is just a fill-in site to provide coverage on Route 53 between Carter's Mountain and a site under construction at Lake Monticello. Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. With no one from the present rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing. Mr. Marshall said the Board still needs the consultant's report, and that he will not support any tower requests until one is given to the Board. Mr. Davis said the Board needs to look at each application on its own merit. Mr. Bowerman said that if staff or the public had identified concerns he would agree with Mr. Marshall, but no one is objecting to this tower. He believes it will serve a 9ood purpose. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve SP-98-31 with the 12 conditions recommended by the Plannin9 Commission, including a revision to condition number 2C. Roll was called and the motion passed by the followin9 recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martins Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Mr. Marshall. August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 31) ooo .$o Ms. Thomas said this is a good location for a tower. Towers on either side of the road are set so that the Board is not facing the question of determining subsequent site locations. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Whittaker to comment on VDoT's policy regarding towers. Mr. Whittaker explained that VDoT invited all utility providers to bid on a comprehensive package to help VDoT deploy intelligent highway systems throughout the state. They wanted a comprehensive bid from one or more providers. The bid was going to be based on ~in lieu of" services, meaning that companies would give rights-of-way to another company in lieu of telecom- munication services from another company for VDoT. This would be available to all providers, wireless, wired, competitive access providers, etc. Since then, individual applicants have wanted to put up towers in VDoT's rights-of- way. A lot of the sites have been built, some after significant legal proceedings. VDoT approached his company, which responded by saying they were interested in building towers on VDoT rights-of-way, and putting antennas on roadway overpasses on 1-64. Mr. Whittaker said he does not know about the cost of the "in lieu of services" or what services his company would provide for them. The matter has not proceeded further. At one zoning hearing someone guessed the cost to be $70,000 per year in Northern Virginia, which is higher than his company is used to paying. His company is currently pursuing mini-cell site search areas near 1-64 to provide the same service. Mr. Perkins asked about the fees paid to landowners who permit towers to be located on their property. Mr. Whittaker said most landowners receive $500 to $1500 per month per site. Most mini-cell sites pay around $400 per month. (Conditions are as follow:) The elevation of the top of the tower shall not exceed the eleva- tion of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet down slope of the tower. The applicant shall provide a statement from a certified land surveyor on the elevation of the tallest tree. Antenna may extend seven (7) feet above the height of the tower. Equipment extending above the tower shall not eXceed three (3) inches in diameter; The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as fol- lows: ao The tower shall be of treated wood. Guy wires shall not be permitted. bo The tower shall have no lighting. The tower shall not be painted and shOuld have natural wood color. 3 o The tower shall be located on the site as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tower Site for CFW Wireless, CV-131" and initialed "WDF 6/25/98" (copy attached); Antennas may be attached to the tower only as follows: So Antenna shall be limited to two (2) fiberglass whip type antenna, not to exceed seven (7) feet in height or three (3) inches in diameter. b. Satellite and microwave dish antennas are prohibited. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the collocation of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: ao The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennas on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: Prior to approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 32) will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting to locate on the tower or the site. (2) The permittee shall provide to the County, upon re- quest, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evi- dence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to locate on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts de- signed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. All lighting shall be shielded from Route 729. Outdoor lighting shall only be on during periods of maintenance; Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, the perm±ttee shall obtain authorization from County staff to remove existing trees on the site. The County staff shall identify which trees may be removed for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by County staff, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access; The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance; The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunica- tions purposes is discontinued; 10. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider; 11. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than two-to-one (2:1) unless retaining walls, revetments, or other.stabilization mea- sures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed; and 12. Any equipment on the ground shall be painted dark green or brown. Agenda Item No. 18. Approval of Minutes: April 3 and December 4, 1996; February 5, 1997; and April 8 and July 8, 1998. Mr. Bowerman said he did not attend the July 8, 1998 meeting, but was given the minutes to approve. He then approved the July 8, 1998 minutes, providing one minute book correction to page one, which had indicated he was present when he was not, and two small typographical corrections. Mr. Perkins approved the February 5, 1997 minutes as read. Ms. Humphris approved the April 8, 1998 minutes with a few typographical changes. Mr. Bowerman approved the April 3, 1996 minutes as read. Ms. Humphris seconded the motions. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ~roved by '~ard Dat. qlql~ ~ August 19, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 33) 000 .82 Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Mr. Martin read a resolution, which had been received from Ms. Katherine Ballard Hoffman and Ms. Toby Zakin, of the Charlottesville National Orgization of Women proclaiming August 26, 1998 as Women's Equality Day. Ms. Thomas offered a motion to adopt the resolution, which was seconded by Ms. Humphris. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, many decades of effort by workers for women's rights were required to give women the right to vote; and WHEREAS, citizens must always be willing to work to assure that the laws and policies in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the United States of America, and this County do not unjustly discriminate against girls and women and any other group; and WHEREAS, unjust treatment based on views of Inequality is often subtle; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate for this County to recognize a day that commemorates the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the amendment that gave the right of sufrage to American women; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby proclaim August 26, 1998 WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY in remembrance of all those women and men who have worked to develop a more equitable community that acknowledges both the real similarities and the important differences between women and men; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors urges all citizens to eliminate all unjust discrimination and prejudice against women, and ensure equality of rights, privileges, and responsibilities for all women and men. Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. With no further business before the Board, Mr. Marshall adjourned the meeting at 11:50 p.m. Cha i rman