HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 05 1999 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 5, 1999
Iftw, The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
January 5, 1999 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were: Mr.
Jared Loewenstein; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. William
Finley; and Mr. Rodney Thomas. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Planner; Ms. Susan Thomas, Planner; Mr.
William Fritz, Planner; Mr. Juandiego Wade, Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
Absent: Mr. William Nitchmann.
The meeting convened at 6:00 p.m. A quorum was established with 6 members present.
Mr. Cilimberg called the meeting to order and presided over the election of Commission Chairman for
1999. Mr. Rooker nominated Mr. Finley for Chairman; Ms. Washington seconded the motion. The
Commission unanimously approved the nomination, with Mr. Finley abstaining from the vote.
Mr. Finley presided over the remainder of the meeting, including the election of Vice -Chairman and
Secretary. Mr. Rooker nominated Ms. Washington for Vice -Chairman; Mr. Rieley seconded the motion.
The Commission unanimously approved the nomination, with Ms. Washington abstaining from the vote.
Mr. Loewenstein nominated Mr. Cilimberg for Secretary; Mr. Rieley seconded the motion. The
Commission unanimously approved the nomination.
Mr. Finley thanked fellow Commissioners. The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously
approved continuing the meeting time and place for 6:00 p.m. Tuesdays in the same second -floor room
of the County Office Building, and agreed to reevaluate the meeting parameters at any time if desired.
The minutes of the December 8, 1998 and December 15, 1998 meetings were unanimously approved as
amended.
Public Hearing:
Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District
Mary Joy Scala presented the staff report on the proposal to add 7.12 acres to the Panorama
Agricultural/Forestral District. The property is described as Tax Map 31, Parcel 21E, located on Route
661, Reas Ford Lane in the Rio Magisterial District.
Public comment was invited. Mr. Kirvin Ridgley, owner of the property proposed to be added,
addressed the Commission and told them of his wish to have the property added. No additional public
comment was offered.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of the proposal. The motion passed
unanimously.
Addition to Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District
Mary Joy Scala presented the staff report on the proposal to add 42.0 acres in one parcel to the Carter's
Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District. The property is described as Tax Map 114, Parcel 68, located off
of Route 708 near Blenheim in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Public comment was invited; none
`war was given.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of the proposal. The motion
passed unanimously.
Addition to Lanark Airicultural/Forestal District
Mary Joy Scala presented the staff report on the proposal to add 39.71 acres to the Lanark
AgriculturaVForestal District. The property is described as Tax Map 103, Parcels 43L and 43L1, located
at the intersection of Routes 627 and 795 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Public comment was
invited; none was given.
Mr. Thomas asked if the Lanark District was adjacent to Carter's Mountain, and mentioned his concern
over the trees disappearing from the end of Carter's Mountain. Ms. Scala replied that the area Mr.
Thomas mentioned is a parcel recently subdivided which is not a part of an agricultural/forestal district.
Mr. Rieley informed Mr. Thomas that a 6-lot family subdivision recently went up in that area.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Washington seconded approval of the proposal. The motion passed
unanimously.
SP 98-60 Triton/Bever (Sign #60)
The applicant requested deferral to February 2, 1999 for a proposal for a special use permit to construct
a 195-foot monopole as part of the Triton Communications system network. The proposed site is on
Tax Map 78, Parcel 49E, which is zoned LI, Light Industry and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
The site consists of 2.4 acres located in the Hunters Hall Industrial Subdivision between Route 250 and
I-64.
Mr. Finley opened the public hearing for the proposal. Mr. Steve Blaine, the applicant's counsel
addressed the Commission and informed them that adjoining landowners were contacted about the
deferral, and suggested that the public hearing be reopened when the item is rescheduled so that
landowners and the applicant can speak. Ms. Babette Thorpe of the Piedmont Environmental Council
addressed the Commission and asked that public comment be allowed when the item reappears.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of deferral of SP 98-60 to February
2°d, 1999. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-61 Triton CommunicationsNiminia Power (Sign #61 & 62)
Request for a special use permit to allow installation of panel antennae on an existing high -voltage
transmission tower in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.2.2.6 and Section 24.2.2.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 17F2, consists of approximately 0.9
acres and is located at 101 Riverbend Drive (State route 1116), at the intersection of State Highway 250
East (Richmond Road) and Route 1116 (Riverbend Drive) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The
property is zoned HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor. The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property for Regional Service in Neighborhood Three.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report. Mr. Loewenstein asked staff when the Pegasus item would come
before the Commission; Ms. Thomas said she did not know the exact date. Mr. Rieley expressed
concern over the staff report statement that "no factors have been identified that are unfavorable to this
request." He commented, "It seems to me that 9 five-foot antennas 145 feet above the ground plus a
145-foot tall monopole certainly could be described as factors unfavorable to the request," and asked
Ms. Thomas if she agreed.
Ms. Thomas replied, "It certainly is additional industrial -type facility, but I guess I considered the lattice
tower to be enough of a cage that I thought that was the impact more than the monopole. I guess my
assessment was based on... a certain sense of practicality in that I felt this was a better site than so many
others and I didn't think the technology would go away .... I guess I felt the lattice tower was the big
aesthetic issue, and the monopole would be relatively inconspicuous compared to that. But you're
exactly right — we're adding 17 t/2 feet and more metal."
Mr. Rieley said there certainly are negative points, and Ms. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the applicant had considered whether it would be possible to obtain similar
coverage with a lower structure. Ms. Thomas said she did not discuss that with the applicant. In
response to Mr. Finley's question, staff confirmed that the last similar structure approved for the area
was 18 feet high.
Mr. Rooker asked if the ARB had the authority to deny the construction entirely based on the aesthetic
appropriateness. Mr. Kamptner said the ARB may impose conditions related to the visual impacts of the
structure, but they do not have the ability to deny the use itself. Mr. Rooker asked what the ARB has
done in the past related to towers in the Entrance Corridor areas. Mr. Fritz said that in the past the ARB
has addressed the color of the structure itself, the color of cable going up to the antenna, the antenna
itself, the light design and shielding, and color & design of ground equipment, and any screening of
equipment.
Mr. Rooker asked if the consultant had reviewed any of these proposals. Mr. Fritz referenced the staff
report in the Commission's packets for the January 12th meeting related to the Zoning Text Amendment
for fees. He said that this would enable staff to bring the consultant on board for assistance on case -by -
case projects. Mr. Fritz reminded the Commission that staff is working on the overall policy review, and
stated that that work continues in their next meeting with the Board of Supervisors in a January 20th
worksession. He clarified that that meeting will include Ted Krinus, the Board and planning staff as part
of the ongoing process to develop a policy for wireless telecommunications throughout the county. Mr.
Fritz said staff would be able to bring the consultant on board for applications made after the Board
hears the Zoning Text Amendment in February.
Mr. Blaine addressed the Commission and mentioned that the structure is needed at the proposed height
to obtain desired coverage. He presented a photo presented to the Board of Supervisors showing the
network for the Triton buildout, which illustrated a total of 16 sites under consideration, 13 of which are
on existing structu es. Mr. Blaine said the Riverbend site is intended to provide coverage along the
1 , and said even at the Vepco tower height the 17 t/Z foot structure does not provide
Route 250�
ideal coverage, but because of agreements Triton made with Vepco, they cannot extend the monopole
any higher.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Blaine if the 17 '/2 foot total is the absolute minimum height at which the
system could be made effective. Mr. Blaine replied that that is the height required to prevent another
facility from being constructed to provide coverage in that corridor and added, "if the desire is to
minimize structures to look for colocation in existing structures, then this sight is consistent with that
policy .... In terms of the ARB and other aesthetic considerations, I think the staff s recommended
conditions include painting the structure to match the existing Vepco tower, screening [at the base of the
tower] if desirable."
Mr. Thomas asked if there were any plans to have colocation on the existing structure; Mr. Blaine
replied there are no current plans, but this proposal would not preclude colocation. Public comment was
invited; none was given, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
VWJ
Mr. Rieley asked Ms. Thomas if there were no transmission towers in this area, if staff would
recommend the facility for approval. Ms. Thomas replied, "I don't think I would be as supportive. I
guess I'd want specifics on what exactly the stand-alone structure would look like and how it would be
sighted. It was the lattice tower as sort of an existing cage and the lattice construction that I thought was
relatively positive in this one." Ms. Thomas added that she did not support the concept of a privacy
fence. "I felt with the lattice tower, your eye tends to look through the tower... and with a privacy fence
of 6-feet around the base, I felt that the traveling public's eye would be drawn to it because it's sort of a
visual block."
Mr. Rieley said, "I know we try very hard to find places to put these where they're not objectionable and
where they are with like facilities. As with the one we saw near State Farm a few weeks ago, I'm really
worried that we may be making a big mistake and we may simply be assuming something that is not true
— that this lattice structure is going to conceal what we're putting behind it. This is an enormously
significant location — it's on 250 right as you come into Charlottesville; it's one of the places lots of
people who've lived here for many years say used to be the most dramatic entrance into Charlottesville
as you came over the hill and the river and the city are before you. And I'm terribly worried that (A) I
don't believe we would ever approve this as a stand-alone structure and (B) this lattice structure will not
hide this pole. So the only argument you're left with is `it's already ugly, let's go ahead and make it
uglier. I don't think that's an acceptable argument in a location that is as significant shine is."
He continued, "I didn't feel to badly about the State Farm one, because I think its a mistake that we
could learn from. It would be like the Keswick one; if it didn't work out, it would teach us a lesson and
we wouldn't do that anymore. But I'm extremely worried if we make a mistake in this location, we're
all going to be embarrassed about it for a very long time, and I really think we should wait until we get
the consultant on board before we make a step of this magnitude."
Mr. Thomas said, "I pretty much agree with everything you're saying; I still have a big problem with the
height — going above that structure 17'/2 more feet. I had a problem with the one at State Farm also, but
this one is more visible from the traffic on the highway on the Entrance Corridor like it's located."
Mr. Loewenstein added, "I think that's my principal concern too — this is in the Entrance Corridor. I
agree with Mr. Rieley that it's going to be very difficult to assume that the lattice tower will effectively
conceal that monopole even though I recognize that it's smaller in diameter than a lot of the monopoles
that stand independently. But I think it's still going to be an immense problem in that location, and I'm
not sure that all of the options of both location and tower height have been fully explored. In fact,
according to the staff report, that appears not to be the case. So I would have a difficult time supporting
this as it stands."
Mr. Rooker said, "I think the applicant is to be commended for seeking a scheme of tower locations that
uses existing structures. I think that ultimately is beneficial to the community, but I have to agree with
the other Commissioners that this particular location, as close as it is to Route 250 — a major Entrance
Corridor, it just seems.to me this is not the place to locate a tower of this kind .... it would be nice if we
had the State Farm tower which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in place to look at before we
were faced with this, but unfortunately that's not the case, and so we're left to conjure up in our minds
what this is going to look like. And if the mistake is made, we really can't go back in the other direction
at that point. So I also am opposed to this at this point. It's also troubling that the ARB doesn't really
have the authority to do much to improve the aesthetic situation that may result from the building of this
tower."
4
Ms. Thomas referenced the photograph presented to the Commission of an existing facility similar to the
one proposed. Mr. Blaine said the photo shows a similar tower located in Richmond on River Road, and
said the monopole shown is the same height as the one proposed.
Ms. Washington asked staff if tower applications entered prior to the consultant being aboard cannot be
deferred based on the fact that the consultant is not in place. Mr. Kamptner said there is no mechanism
to accept the fee if the application is entered before the ordinance becomes effective and wouldn't get
the review unless the County decides to pay the cost. He said that the Commission has up to 90 days to
make recommendation, and the Board has up to one year to take action. Mr. Fritz said the filing date of
the proposed application was October 26t', making the deadline just a few weeks away.
Mr. Cilimberg said, "The only alternative in the deferral would be the applicant's willingness, and if you
felt there was some value in deferral and the applicant was willing to defer, you could take that action
with their concurrence. Otherwise, you're taking an action and recommendation to the Board, and then
the Board deals with it."
Mr. Rieley commented that the Board would also not have the benefit of the consultant's input. Mr.
Fritz commented, "The problem is not getting the consultant on board, the problem is paying for the
services, and if the county wanted to pay for the services out of the general fund, the county could do
that."
Ms. Washington asked, "If we denied this application based on the fact it's in the entrance corridor and
because of a lot of the uncertainties that have come up, that means the applicant could not file for a
year."
Mr. Fritz responded, "The application would simply move forward to the Board of Supervisors with a
recommendation of denial, and the Board of Supervisors would then do whatever they thought was
appropriate — act on it, approve it, deny it, defer it, whatever."
Mr. Finley said, "I think I have to be consistent. I voted for the State Farm site, and this is very similar.
Staff opinion is the site will accommodate the proposed telecommunications facilities without creating
adverse impacts. Looking at the picture, I don't see where the monopole makes it too much uglier.
Maybe I'm looking at it more from a mechanical standpoint — I think it even gives a little bit of balance
in there."
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded denial of SP 98-60 with amendment
recommending that the Board engage the services of the consultant to give further advice on the matter.
In a 4-2 vote, the motion for denial of the proposal passed with Mr. Rooker, Mr. Rieley, Mr.
Loewenstein and Mr. Thomas voting in favor of denial, and Ms. Washington and Mr. Finley voting
against denial.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of waiver for reduction of
setback in the event the Board approves SP 98-60. In a 3-3 vote, the Commission failed to approve the
proposed waiver, with Ms. Washington, Mr. Loewenstein, and Mr. Finely voting in favor of the setback
waiver, and Mr. Rooker, Mr. Rieley, and Mr. Thomas voting against the waiver.
Staff clarified that the waiver would come back before the Commission if the proposal is approved.
SP 98-65 Snow's Business Park (Sign #91)
The applicant requested deferral to February 16, 1999 of his proposal for a special use permit to
establish a contractor's outdoor storage and display on Tax Map 90, Parcel 35X. The property consists
of approximately 5.7 acres zoned LI, Light Industry and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The
property is located on the east side of Route 742 (Avon Street) opposite Mill Creek South in the
Scottsville Magisterial District. MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of
deferral of SP 98-65 to February 16, 1999. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-66 University Montessori (Sign #65)
Proposal for a special use permit to allow the expansion of an existing daycare from 37 children to 44 on
the property described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 15A containing 1.775 acres, located on Reservoir Road
[Route 702], approximately 1,800 feet from the intersection of Route 702 and U.S. Route 29 in the
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Wade presented the staff report, noting that the property is zoned R-4, and said the applicant
presently has a special use permit awarded in 1990 for 37 students. He said the building would not be
expanded, but the applicant will change the configuration of the classrooms. Staff recommended
approval with conditions as outlined.
The applicant, Michelle Matiolli, Director of the Montessori School, addressed the Commission. She
stated that they will change their current structure of one class of 12 and one class of 25, to two classes
of 22 each, but nothing else about the property would change. Mr. Rieley asked if the increase would
take the school to the capacity of the building. Ms. Matiolli said that they do not plan on adding any
additional pupils because of the school's philosophy and because of zoning classification as business use
which caps student occupancy at 44.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of SP 98-66 with conditions as
recommended by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
Old Business
Commission Rules & Procedures - Worksession
Mr. Kamptner presented a draft set of proposed rules and procedures as distributed to the Commission,
and read through them, highlighting the changes made:
(1) Section IC & D — separated Secretary and Recording Secretary and their duties.
(2) Section IE — addition of this section allows Commission to create other offices as deemed necessary.
(3) Section 2A — addition of this section identifies the Annual Meeting as the first meeting of the year to
deal with administrative matters as specified.
(4) Section 2B — section amended to delete references to days and times that exist in the current set of
rules so that Commission sets time and date and can revise them at any time. Language further
addresses situations when Chair and Vice -Chair are unable to attend and identifies responsibilities
for announcing that the meeting will be adjourned.
(5) Section 2C — section revised to comply with current state law requirements regarding notice, waiver,
and the scope of what can be considered at a special meeting.
(6) Deleted section in current rules dealing with Executive Sessions because they are dealt with
extensively in state law.
(7) Section 3A — continuation of current rules.
(8) Section3B(5) — as requested by the Commission, addition of time for matters not on the agenda.
(9) Section 3C — as requested by the Commission, addition deals with matters not on the agenda as
1440,,, requested by the Commission, modeled after the Board's policy.
10)Section3D — addition made as requested to set time limits on applicants and other speakers, also
modeled after the Board's policy.
11)Section3E — simplified section on deferrals to reflect practice of the Commission taking the initiative
to defer so that a request for deferral can be received at any time without time limit as stated in the
old rules & procedures.
12)Quorum — restatement of current rules with second paragraph modeled after Board's rules which
deals with the situation of not having enough members to conduct a meeting, but allowing attending
members to adjourn the meeting.
13)Section5C — rules reflect manner of vote to reflect Board's desire to have a roll -call vote on any
matter that will come before them. Rules also allow at the Commission's discretion to have a roll -
call or voice vote on any matter that does not go to the Board.
14)Section5E — reflects existing practice to deal with situation where a motion to deny fails; clarifies that
follow-up motion is needed.
IS)Sections SF&G — abstention and motion to amend added, modeled after the Board's rules.
16)Section SH — modifies existing rules by requiring a 2/3 vote and requiring that the motion have a
second.
17)Sections 6, 7,8 — restatement of both current Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors' rules.
Mr. Loewenstein suggested that there be information made available to the public regarding the
guidelines for speaking, presentation, etc. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is working on making that a part of
the agendas available to the public before the meeting. Mr. Loewenstein thanked Mr. Kamptner for his
work on the rules & procedures, and recognized Mr. Bob Watson of CALAC for his attention to the
matter.
Mr. Watson addressed the Commission, and thanked them for their work on the procedures especially
for the change to allow matters not on the agenda to be presented. Mr. Watson expressed concern that
the public would not be allowed to comment on matters "pending for consideration at a future meeting
of the Commission."
Mr. Loewenstein asked him, "what would be the difference between using that time to make such a
presentation that way as opposed to presenting that same information by sending it on to staff who could
then include it in the staff report?"
Mr. Rooker asked how the public would know that an item was pending. Mr. Cilimberg responded that
it would either be before the staff as an application or in their work program. But Mr. Rooker expressed
concern that the public may not know that an item might be scheduled to come before the Commission
in the near future. Mr. Rooker said that that situation may be problematic if a speaker rises to discuss
something that the Commission knows is coming up on a future agenda.
In response to Mr. Loewenstein's question, Mr. Kamptner stated that the Board of Supervisors prohibits
an unscheduled speaker from talking about something that's on the agenda for that meeting. Mr.
Rooker suggested removing the language "nor pending for consideration at a future meeting" in item
3 (C).
Mr. Kamptner said, "the other goal was to not have people speaking about specific matters that will be
later coming to the Board — the forum for that is the public hearing, not to make a preemptive strike by
presenting evidence in this kind of situation where you don't have the background information so you're
receiving it without context."
Mr. Cilimberg raised the possibility that word would get out that a speaker raised issues regarding a
pending application, and others might come to the next meeting to speak on the issue, etc. "That's only
a possibility... but it's something you want to keep an eye on because you are subjecting yourselves to
that possibility that you may get not only but several preemptive strikes at the item before it's in public
hearing..." He added that there may be 10 people showing up to speak and only 3 slots allotted, and
said if that starts happening they may have to modify the procedures.
Mr. Loewenstein emphasized that the purpose of this is to allow matters not on the agenda to be raised.
"I'd like to find a way to strike a balance so that we don't end up with preemptive strikes taking over so
that the real purpose is obscured or lost completely."
Mr. Cilimberg suggested disallowing presentations on those applications that have already been made to
the County.
Mr. Finley expressed concern about how the three speakers are selected, and how to stop them from
speaking about matters that eventually will be on the Commission's agendas.
Mr. Rooker o�fffe�red a recommendation that the Commission allow the public to speak on anything other
than something that is on the agenda, and if that is not working, change the procedure.
Mr. FinleyNoww the three speakers would be chosen, and Mr. Kamptner stated that it would be on a first -
come, first -serve basis. Mr. Cilimberg said that the Board of Supervisors Chairman often knows who is
attending to speak on other matters because either the county executive, clerk, or another board member
has been told. He suggested that the Commission Chairman ask at the meeting if anyone is there to
speak. Mr. Rooker suggested that the Recording Secretary keep a sign-up sheet, with the "rules" for
speakers posted on the board outside the meeting room.
The Commission moved and seconded adoption of the proposed amended Planning Commission Rules
& Procedures revised to strike the language in item 3(C) "nor pending for consideration at a future
meeting"; revise the heading in item 5(E) to state "Effect o Defeat of Motion to Deny or Recommend
Denial"; and item 8 revised to state "the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order." The rules will
be voted on at their January 12, 1999 meeting, and will take effect at all meetings thereafter.
New Business
There was no new business presented.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
v e, C l�
Seere-�ar�
gn