HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 12 1999 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
January 12,1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
January 12,1999 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were: Mr.
William Finley, Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr.
William Nitchmann; and Mr. Rodney Thomas. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Director
of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County
Attorney. Absent: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Mr. Dennis Rooker.
Mr. Benish provided a summary of the Board of Supervisors January 6, 1999 meeting. He told
Commissioners that the Board approved a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning & Subdivision
Ordinances regarding development fees for public projects and for the payment of delinquent taxes
related to development proposals on those properties; with that resolution, they requested the Planning
Commission hold a public hearing on the item. Mr. Benish said staff would be providing a report on the
issue. He said the Board also held their first worksession on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Chapter 2 — "Natural Environment and Cultural Assets," and have scheduled the first public hearing on
the item for January 13, 1999; future worksessions will be scheduled prior to a second public hearing
and eventual adoption of the section.
Consent A e� nda
SDP 98-140 Stone Family Site Plan Waiver — Request for site plan waiver to add a third dwelling unit
on the approximately 7-acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Commission moved, seconded and
unanimously approved the Consent Agenda.
1*aW Public Hearins
SP 98-062 Triton Communications/Virzinia Power
Triton Communications/Virginia Power request for a special use permit to allow installation of panel
antennae on an existing electrical transmission tower in accordance with Section 18.2.2.6 of the Zoning
Ordinance. The site is located on a 9.6-acre parcel zoned R-15, Residential, and EC, Entrance Corridor.
The two antennas will result in an additional 20 feet in total power pole height. Property, described as a
portion of Tax Map 76, Parcel 46-C, is located on the southeastern side of Interstate 64/Susnet Avenue
intersection. The site is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is recommended for Urban
Density Use [6.01-34 Dwelling Units/Acre] in Urban Neighborhood 5.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, and mentioned that the property, zoned R-15, is undeveloped
except for the transmission line that runs on the northern side of the property along I-64. He said the
applicant is proposing to attach two panel antennae to one of the monopoles that is I I0-feet high that are
supporting the transmission line; this would be an additional 20 feet, creating a maximum height of 130
feet. Mr. Morrisette reported that it is staff s anticipation that mass development will occur in this area
and said that there are no residential structures immediately in the vicinity of the tower site. Mr.
Morrisette reported that the tower site is 50 feet from the I-64 right-of-way, but said the interstate is
wider there to possibly accommodate later interchange construction, making the tower site 250 feet from
the actual road.
Mr. Morrisette reported that staff reviewed SP 98-062 under the Open Space Plan, the only resource
identified applicable to this proposal. He said the site is visible from I-64 from both directions, but it is
staff s opinion that the additional 20 feet doesn't change the character of the overlay district. Mr.
Commissioners that staff worked extensively with the applicant to attempt to lower the antennae, and the
applicant has responded that they need to obtain coverage for the region where I-64 and Route 29 meet,
needing the additional 20-feet height to overcome the hill there and some tree canopy. Referencing
"Attachment D" of the staff report, Mr. Morrisette said staff has been working to camouflage the site,
and staff has proposed a method to place a fiberglass shield over the entire attachment to retain the same
diameter for the entire height of the pole. He added that the shield could be painted to match the
monopole itself.
Mr. Morrisette concluded that staff supports this request, and encourages collocation on an existing
tower site rather than establishment of a new site. He said staff feels that this is not a "big obtrusion" to
the overlay district or the surrounding area, and believes this is an appropriate place to put an antennae
of this type. Mr. Morrisette said no clearing is necessary for this site, although the existing utility
easement has some underlying brush and the entrance needs to be modified slightly to allow a truck
entrance. VDOT is not requiring additional entrance upgrades. He said the utilities will be placed
beside the tower, and the actual utilities and easement to access them will be screened by existing
vegetation along the northern property line, but also by existing vegetation within the right-of-way of I-
64. Mr. Morrisette added that the applicant has not demonstrated other sites that could service the area
for which they're seeking coverage.
In response to Mr. Finley's question, Mr. Morrisette said that the ARB review would come under the
applicant's permit to establish the site.
Mr. Rieley indicated he was not comfortable with just accepting the applicant's word on the necessary
height for the antennae. Mr. Morrisette replied that he felt the stealth shield was "enough of a
compromise" to blend in with the existing tower in the existing utility corridor. Mr. Rieley asked if the
applicant had provided sections (site line) demonstrating the fact that the additional height was required.
Mr. Morrisette responded that the applicant had not.
Mr. Thomas asked what the diameter of the stealth shield surrounding the antennae and the diameter of
the existing tower. Mr. Morrisette said the applicant could answer that more precisely. Mr. Rieley
suggested that the recommended conditions of approval stating the addition would be the same height of
the existing pole diameter should be changed to say it shall not exceed the diameter of the pole at the top
of the pole. In response to Mr. Thomas' question, Mr. Morrisette confirmed that the shield would be
painted silver to match the tower.
The applicant's representative, Steve Blaine, addressed the Commission. He said that the two -panel
design of the antennae is due to the fact that the site has a limited coverage objective — projection in the
I-64 corridor. He said the height of the panels themselves are longer (10 feet instead of 5 feet) because
of their function in a linkage capacity with other antennae, doing the job of 3 individual antennae in each
panel. Mr. Blaine said that while examples of similar shields exist in the industry, he was hesitant to
proffer them, as this stealth shield will have to be specifically engineered and designed for this site. He
suggested if the County wants additional oversight, the ARB could be used to approve the final design
engineering. Mr. Blaine distributed a catalog showing a sample of a similar shield used in the industry,
but reiterated that the item is not based upon field conditions or this specific tower design. He stated he
this design type/feature has not been used anywhere in Albemarle County and has not been used by
Triton.
Mr. Rieley asked if the applicant had explored using an approach similar to the tower on the 250 Bypass
(near Dairy Road), which has the telecommunications piece located between the topmost wires and the
wires below, and stated he was impressed with its unobtrusiveness.
10
Mr. Blaine responded that the applicant had explored that approach, but found it did not provide the
desired coverage. He added that the Dairy Road site has no trees near the height of those panels, and is
quite a distance over which the signal can be sent without interference as opposed to the site in question,
which has trees surrounding it. Mr. Blaine added that because of the topography, it must accomplish a
line of site at the 130' elevation, and referenced Triton's propagation models, which show that the lower
heights did not work.
Further public comment was invited. None was given, and the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Thomas commented that he liked this design better than the "reindeer" style he has seen on other
sites, especially if it can be concealed and blended in with the tower itself. He added that he would like
to see the height lowered, but said, "it's much better than what I've seen in the past."
Mr. Rieley agreed, and said, "I think this one's worth a try. This is an approach we haven't seen in the
past, and the fact that there's a monopole there that's already of substantial [size] and that this is,
percentage -wise, a relatively minor addition to that, even though from a view perspective it's going to
add a lot....as you drive from Route 29 East on 1-64 you see this for a long way, and for most of the
distance, the top of this tower is almost even with the tops of the trees behind it, which makes it almost
invisible. So this is going to add a 20-foot pole on top of that tower, so that's a concern. Nevertheless,
we're struggling with ways to accommodate these [antennae], and I think this is worth a try, particularly
since we don't have model and it will be interesting to see how well it does."
Mr. Morrisette said that staff took into account the fact that heading further east the corridor actually
crosses on I-64 and you actually see two or three more towers, not just this one.
Mr. Finley commented that the fact it will all be the same color will improve its appearance.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded recommendation of SP 98-062 for
approval of a special use permit to allow installation of the panel antennae with staff conditions as
presented, with staff Condition #2 modified to state "The attachment shall not exceed the diameter of the
existing power pole." The motion passed unanimously. The Commission requested that the applicant
provide staff with information regarding the expected diameter prior to the Board of Supervisors
meeting when the item will be considered.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval for a site plan waiver for SP 98-
062 with conditions as set forth by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
ZTA 98-08
Proposal, in accord with the provisions of Section 33 of zoning ordinance, to amend Section 35 of the
zoning ordinance in order to amend the fee collected to cover the cost of reviewing applications for
special use permits for personal wireless service facilities and the cost of advertising therefor. The
proposed amendment will raise the fee for these facilities from $780 to a maximum of $5,780. The
authority for imposing such a fee is section 15.2-2286(A)(6) of the Code of Virginia; the authority for
amending Section 35 of the zoning ordinance is section 15.2-2286(A)(7) of the Code of Virginia.
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report, explaining that the Zoning Text Amendment is the result of the release of
•4%0 an RFP for an outside consultant to assist County staff in the case -by -case review of individual
applications. Mr. Fritz said the number of applications received by the County has increased, as has the
level of review that each application receives. Mr. Fritz said the cost of the original proposed contract
I
the fee structure to reflect the level of review appropriate to various types of applications and staff is
proposing a tiered fee structure. He reported the fee would be submitted at the time of application in
order to offset the cost of review; if in an individual case it is determined the cost is less than normally
anticipated for that tier, any unused portion of the fee would be refunded to the applicant. Mr. Fritz
described the tier structures as outlined in his staff report (attached).
He explained that the current special use permit fee for any personal wireless service facility is $780,
and said staff is recommending an increase of the fee with Tier One at $1,500, Tier Two at $3,000, and
Tier Three at $5,000, with the $780 still being collected. Mr. Fritz referenced the level of review for
each Tier in his staff report.
Mr. Fritz said an important component of the Zoning Text Amendment is the development of minimum
submittal requirements — not required to be included in the Zoning Text Amendment — but simply
requested by staff to be endorsed by the Commission and the Board of Supervisors. He said they could
be adopted as reasonable administrative requirements in accord with existing provisions of the
ordinance. Mr. Fritz stated that completion of all the information contained in the minimum submittal
requirements is necessary in order to avoid delay in the review of individual applications, and failure to
submit the requested information will likely result in a delay of the application's processing. The
applicants may submit more information than required, which may reduce the amount of review
performed by the consultant and thus reduce the imposed fee.
Mr. Fritz illustrated the Zoning Text Amendment's impact on various items as outlined in his staff
report, noting that the increased fee will allow the County to conduct a more comprehensive review of
personal wireless service facilities and may allow the County to more accurately determine the potential
impacts of a facility on various County resources. He stated that although the amendment has no direct
effect on housing cost, an increase in the fee will probably be passed on to the consumer. Mr. Fritz told
Commissioners that no effect on length of development review is anticipated, and may allow a reduction
in the typical review period: the applications would still be reviewed under the adopted guidelines of the
Board of Supervisors; however, frequently special use permit requests have to be deferred to allow for
additional study, and it's possible that deferrals would become less necessary thereby reducing the
average review time.
He reported that the new process would have no adverse effect on County staff, and use of an outside
consultant might actually reduce the workload of the current staff, thereby increasing the time available
for other planning matters. Staff s recommendation is that the existing $780 fee remain and additional
fee be collected for the various tiers as outlined, and also recommends that the Commission and the
Board endorse the "Minimum Submittal Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities" as outlined
in the Staff Report "Attachment A".
Mr. Fritz noted that any unused portion of the fee would be refunded to the applicant; the applicant may
reduce the amount of work that must be performed by the consultant by submitting information above
that contained in the minimum submittal requirements. He referenced "Attachment D" of the staff
report, a document that staff would provide to the applicant for each personal wireless service facility
prior to the application being filed, explaining the review would be performed by the consultant and how
the applicant may reduce the total amount of review fee used by the county. Mr. Fritz pointed out that
items #1 - #5 of the "Minimum Submittal Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities" as outlined
in the Staff Report "Attachment A" are existing requirements for all special use permit applications.
Mr. Nitchmann asked what the consultant's time constraints are regarding return of information. Mr.
Fritz responded that the consultant is required to provide staff information "in a timely manner" so that
staff has time to request additional information and not affect the Planning Commission or Board dates
12
as currently printed in review schedules. Mr. Fritz emphasized that use of the consultant would not add
any time, explaining that within 2-3 days of receipt of the application, staff forwards information to the
engineering firm, specifying the exact work that they would need to do. He said that the consultant has
just 2-3 weeks to respond to staff with information, and stated there is no change in the review schedule
proposed at all.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the ordinance is set up so that the applicant must submit the entire fee up front,
then staff reviews the application, examining the criteria and the amount of information presented and
then determines what refund will be granted if it is deemed to be a Tier 1 or Tier 2 review.
Mr. Finley asked what cost structure would apply if the consultant reviews the information and has
certain recommendations and the applicant chooses to make those adjustments, which require more staff
time. Mr. Fritz explained that if the consultant recommends different design, staff informs the applicant
of the alternative and the applicant then has the opportunity to (a) amend their application to include the
new antenna type or (b) submit information that supports their original antenna type — staff then brings
both opinions to the Commission. Mr. Fritz informed Commissioners that this happens frequently in the
review process for many applications; the applicants make modifications based on what staff has told
them will be supported.
He said that staff could go back to the consultant for additional information, and the contract has enough
built-in time to accommodate a "second round" of questions/information-seeking. Mr. Fritz said, "the
consultant does have some responsibility to do what we ask in the initial review, and if they're not doing
what we're asking then of course we've got a problem. If you get into a situation where we .... send it to
the consultant, they respond, we agree with them, we bring it to the Planning Commission and you want
another alternative looked at, and we've used the entire fee, we are then in a situation where we
wouldn't have a fee to do that. We'd be in a situation of having to determine how we were going to
recover that fee. It may be something where we'd have to get it out of the General Fund; there are
provisions that could be used where the actual cost of review could be charged to the applicant ... but
that's the case now, too."
Mr. Rieley said, "I think this raises a number of questions about this whole tier structure and another one
that I have is that these attachments to existing structures may be extremely complex and require a lot of
time ... whereas some of the most successful installations that we've seen in the area have been the
treetop installations, and yet that costs twice as much ... so we might find a situation in which you could
put three or four treetop antennas that are invisible and if you put one attachment that's highly visible Won
an existing tower with one of the `pole within a pole' routines.... then we're charging somebody $12,000
to make an application to do what we want them to do and $1,500 to make an application for what we
don't want them to do. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me."
He added, "It seems to me that we have a reverse incentive built into this tier structure that seems to me
at the very least it ought to be flat. I don't think a reverse incentive makes any sense. It just seems
backwards to me. I also have a concern .... I thought the whole point of doing this was to get an impartial
party to do this, and yet if the applicant can do any of the work that the consultant is doing and simply
remove it from the fee and get that money back in the end, we've lost the whole point of doing this."
Mr. Fritz replied, "Any information prepared by the applicant is still forwarded to the consultant for
review of the accuracy of the information that's been prepared by the applicant."
Mr. Rieley commented, "There's an awful lot of subjectivity, and I really do not think if we're in a
position now, finally, that we can have objective photo simulations done by an objective party ... we
shouldn't be having silver towers on a cloudy day with a 28 millimeter lens and foggy focus and all the
13
shouldn't be having silver towers on a cloudy day with a 28 millimeter lens and foggy focus and all the
things we've seen over the years forwarded to an expert to say is it right or not. Well it might be correct,
but it might be slanted very badly in the direction of the [applicant] so we continue to get information
that is not what we're after. So it seems to me the whole point of this is to get an impartial viewing of
this that is not slanted, and that provision is enormously troubling to me. I think we ought to decide
what information we want from the consultant, and have him do it independently for all applications and
treat everybody the same."
Mr. Rieley added, "There are additional incentives for wanting to do it on a few big towers... We see a
lot more [applications for the big towers]. So I think we should be trying to counteract that gravity
that's on the side of a few big ones instead of a really in-depth look at ingenious ways to conceal these
things, which is normally going to be more small ones."
Mr. Fritz said, "A Tier One facility improperly done could have a lot more impact than a Tier Two
facility properly done. The reason that the tier structure is the way it is that with the review being done
for a Tier One facility that should be readily apparent with the work that's being done by the consultant
and that Tier One facility that's inappropriate would not be approved based on the information we would
be receiving from the consultant. They would be providing us with the photo simulations with
comments as to alternative types that exist or alternative mounting techniques, and the concept is that
doing that much work to get us the information that allows us to determine if it's a good or a bad Tier
One type facility — that's why there is that break. It's not really an incentive or a disincentive — it's
really based on the work."
Mr. Rieley said, "I know it's not intended, and I understand the rationale behind the amount of review
time for each one of these, but it seems to me that trying to gear the amount of review time as the main
criteria rather than taking a step back and saying `what is it going to take us to review a lot of these over
the next three or five years,' and it seems to me some of these are going to be very easy... some are
going to be very complex, and I wonder about refunding what's left over. It seems to me if we assessed
a flat fee... for everybody, and it was high enough so that we built up a reserve so when we [need to ask
questions] the consultant can tell us and we won't have to be guessing."
Mr. Fritz responded, "That was our original proposal to the Board, which was the $5,000 fee to cover
the cost, and you could certainly do that as a $4,000 fee. But the original idea was to do the same
amount of work for every application regardless of what it was, and one of the concerns there is... how
are we going to know what to do, and that was part of the tiering — to put into a document what work
would be done in each case .... you can't turn it into a money -making venture; it has to cover your actual
costs. That's an important note as to why the fee structure is in addition to the $780 that we currently
collect, because all the work we're talking about doing is all new, it's not anything we're doing now.
That's why we're still collecting the $780, because we the staff will still be doing what we're doing plus
there would be all this other work that's being done outside. That's why the fee structure is the way it
is."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the consultant was paid on an hourly basis. Mr. Fritz replied that their costs are
going to be based hourly, but certain things would be assessed on a per item or per project basis, such as
photo simulations and preparation of sitelines. Mr. Nitchmann asked if this consultant could make
recommendations on location. Mr. Fritz said that in Tier Two and Three cases, the consultant would
identify alternative types of existing facilities that could eliminate the need for a new structure.
Ms. Washington asked if there was any way to determine whether the applicant really needs additional
height to achieve their coverage objectives. Mr. Fritz replied that what the Commission needs to
determine is not whether height is adequate, but whether the facility does or does not comply with
14
Section 31.2.4.1 of the ordinance: is it a substantial detriment to adjacent property; does it change the
character of the district; is it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance. "What we're asking the consultant to do is help us determine if that particular site
creates the adverse impacts that would warrant denial based on the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Nitchmann commented, "That's pretty subjective. Why do you need to pay somebody to do that?
That's what you guys are here for, and what we're kind of deciding here." Regarding the monopole
structures recently denied by the Commission, Mr. Nitchmann stated he's seen three in the Richmond
area that are not objectionable to him. "The only reason we happen to notice these things is because
we're dealing with them .... 90% of the people out there if you ask them where the high power lines were
in this city, they couldn't tell you because they are not sensitive to the issue." He added that he thought
the purpose of the consultant was to provide alternative sites, not to just comment positively or
negatively on the sites proposed by the applicant. "I'm a little baffled here by what we're going to pay
this guy to do."
Mr. Kamptner read from the staff report that went to the Board of Supervisors regarding the role of this
particular consultant. "Applicants for wireless telecommunications special use permits typically submit
technical and siting information pertaining to among other things the area to be served by the proposed
facility, the existing level of service, the estimated level of service after the facility is operating,
alternative sites and structural heights and designs. Because this information is often beyond the
expertise of county staff, a consultant hired under RFP 97-24 will review this information or conduct an
independent evaluation of the application and make recommendations to county staff." He added that
once the other consultant's work is completed, they will be applying the policies that are eventually
adopted to the individual applications.
Mr. Fritz said that concerns about where to locate sites falls under Tier Two and Three when an
applicant is proposing to construct a new facility, when the consultant would be providing information
on alternative sites.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the consultant disagreed with the applicant's location of the site, would he be
responsible for finding an alternative viable location. Mr. Fritz said the consultant would be responsible
for providing staff with an objective analysis of alternative sites. Mr. Nitchmann said the Tier system
seems to start the process off with an existing bias.
Mr. Fritz said, "If your recommendation is that you would like to have a flat tier and a flat fee, we can
certainly do that and we will forward that on to the Board of Supervisors. If what you're looking at is a
flat fee, what I would recommend is that you have a flat fee, and that the work to be performed would be
that work under the Tier Three, which is the most extensive tier."
Mr. Kamptner asked if the Commission was aware that when the item went back to the Board that the
Resolution of Intent was an ordinance that would have a multi -tiered approach.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if under a flat fee structure, money could still be refunded to the applicant in the
event of a very simple application. Mr. Fritz said, "the difficulty is, if we have a flat fee and we get this
type of application or we get a treetop facility and we do the full level of work and we use up the entire
fee, but ... we didn't necessarily need to do it all, we're concerned about that." He added that one option
discussed would actually involve a lengthening of the review process which would require staff to come
to the Planning Commission before going to the consultant to determine what information the
104W Commission wanted in a particular case and then forward the request to the consultant.
15
Mr. Finley remarked, "If an application comes forward to the Planning Commission once the
consultant's review is in place, who are we to start passing judgement on the consultant's opinion. If we
don't like the proposal, what can we say?"
Mr. Fritz responded that the consultant may come back with alternatives that the Commission deems
worse than the one originally proposed, and may vote in favor of the original one. Mr. Finley asked if
the applicant has to pay the fee over again if a different site is pursued. Mr. Fritz responded that if the
consultant recommends alternative sites on a different parcel, the applicant would have to refile
applications pursuant to that parcel and pay the fees for each. Mr. Fritz said that a significant portion of
the fee may be refunded because the work had been done previously under the earlier review.
Mr. Fritz said their original recommendation to the Board immediately after the Fourth Circuit Court
opinion was that the RFP 97-24 consultant not be pursued because based on court actions what the
Commission should be determining on the tower is not the height to meet the service objective, but to
fall back to the standard for a special use permit anywhere: does it change the character of the area, is it
a substantial detriment, etc. etc. "These types of things are designed to give you the information to
allow you to determine whether or not it meets the current language of our Zoning Ordinance... we're
not designing a system for the applicant... we're trying to determine if the application that is filed that is
before the Planning Commission and before the Board of Supervisors should or should not be approved
on the merits of that application and what that site does."
Mr. Kamptner added that with each application the Board does get the propagation analyses and all the
reports from engineers, and they want to be able understand that to assist them in their decision -making.
Mr. Finley asks what the Commission does if the applicant does not agree with the feasibility of the
consultant's alternative site recommendations.
Mr. Rieley said, "I think at that point it's up to us to decide if our faith in our consultant is adequate to
warrant a denial if we think there's a better alternative."
Mr. Kamptner clarified, "Ultimately you're considering all the evidence, and it's going to be the staff
report, which will include the engineer's [consultant's] recommendations, the information presented by
the applicants, and the public comment, and you're applying all of that to the standards that are required
for a special use permit."
Mr. Finley asked, "Are there any legal ramifications of saying we're not going to design the towers for
anybody — that's the applicant's responsibility, but we are going to review it for the criteria a special use
permit requires."
Mr. Kamptner replied that the information will address the findings required for a special use permit,
and issues that come up under the Telecommunications Act, one which is whether or not denial of a
permit prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. "That's
where this information may be important because they may be saying without this tower you're
prohibiting us from providing service." He added that "the courts have said prohibition applies only to
general bans or blanket prohibitions or things like that, but we're in federal court right now fighting that
very issue on the denial of a single permit." .
In
Mr. Finley asked if the consultant should just be b;ought-ki the event of denials. Mr. Kamptner
%; responded, "No, because one of the other things we have to do under the Act is have a decision that's
based on substantial evidence, and that's the evidence that's presented by county staff, by the applicant,
by citizen comment..."
16
Mr. Rieley said, "I am much in favor of this. My concern is that it seems to me it may be overly
prescriptive with all of the tiers and the very specific items within those tiers." He mentioned that in
previous technical discussions, Commissioners have felt the need for the consultant. "I would like to see
this simpler and more flexible, so that we have a shorter list that gives the consultant more latitude to
address the kinds of things present. If there's one thing I think we've all seen over the last few years in
dealing with these is that every one of them is different, and I think even the thousand -foot setback may
be pertinent for some projects and not pertinent for others."
Mr. Finley asked if the consultant's photo simulation would preclude the applicant from submitting one.
Mr. Fritz responded that the applicant can submit whatever information they want to make their case,
and explained that the staff took their guidance on the photo simulation issue from comments made by
the Planning Commission and Board that they were not interest in photo simulations from the service
providers, but preferred to have them from an independent source.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if part of the RFP was a fixed fee versus an hourly charge for the consultant's
services. Mr. Fritz said that it can be assessed either way: a fixed fee or an hourly basis with a cap on
the hourly basis, and said that with the Board's wishes in mind, they worked with the consultant to
establish the Tier structures. He explained that the $780 fee is the standard special use permit for all
other non-specific uses.
Mr. Rieley expressed surprise that there is not more technically specific information in the requirements.
Mr. Fritz responded that staff is trying to determine the impact of the specific facility and whether that
facility should be improved based on the merits.
Mr. Nitchmann commented, "It seems to me to be pretty subjective. What's good for you may not be
good for me."
Mr. Fritz said, "The other issue was to try to address the types of facilities we generally had that
attachments onto existing structures can be with appropriate design more desirable than new
construction of any type of facility: you don't have a new road to cut in, you don't have anew power
line to cut in, etc .... It's not written as being technical, but it is technical in terms of what you have to
actually do to answer the questions we're asking..."
Mr. Thomas commented that he was slightly overwhelmed at the consultant's presentation at the
auditorium meeting on the number of facilities that could be used in the area. "I personally would like
to have some help deciding which ones would be the best for Albemarle County."
Mr. Fritz noted that the consultant that would be doing the work under RFP 97-24 was not the same one
at that meeting.
Mr. Thomas asked if the consultant would be under contract for a certain length of time. Mr. Fritz said
the contract was a one-year contract renewable for two years.
Mr. Finley asked if a certified professional could provide the site lines with the application. Mr. Fritz
responded that the Commission could decide to make that part of the submittal standards in the
ordinance.
Mr. Rieley expressed concern that the points from which sections are taken are very important and need
an independent view. He also commented that landscape architects are not certified to do field
measurement, and only engineers or surveyors should be used.
17
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question about the roles of each consultant, Mr. Fritz explained that he
first consultant is assisting the county in the preparation of a telecommunications policy; the second
consultant would be incorporating the stipulations of the policy, once it's adopted, in their
considerations. Mr. Fritz said staff has a worksession with the Board on the policy on January 20'h, and
hope to have the policy available for the Commission and the Board by late spring.
Mr. Fritz explained that the policy will include some development standards and design guidelines for
placement of certain types of facilities with certain types of antennae and tower structures, relationships
to different resources in the county, instead of focusing on minimum signal strength needed, etc.
"Instead [we're] trying to identify those resources within the county which should be preserved and
coming up with development standards and design guidelines that will allow for facilities to be located
throughout the county in order to be able to provide service and not have adverse impact on the county."
He said that will enable the applicant to review the guidelines prior to filing their application.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "I guess I had a different conceptual view of what the consultant you just described
was going to do for us. I had the idea that this consultant was going to look at Albemarle County and
look at the technology as it is today and maybe somewhat into the future and say that this is the best
places for towers to be placed within the community, whether their objectionable or not, to give good
coverage for the total county ... where are the strategic points within the county...."
Mr. Fritz replied, "We thought that was originally going to be what we needed to do also, but we're
finding that with the advances of technology we don't have to do that. We can come up with design
guidelines that will allow the county to be served without impacting it, and that's what we're trying to
come up with, instead of saying we're going to sacrifice `Red Hill' or wherever in order to provide
service, we can come up with design standards and development guidelines that allow for that area to be
served without adversely impacting various areas." He added that there are going to be areas that are
inappropriate, such as the mountain resource areas, for placements of new facilities, and based on the
information received, staff can continue to offer alternatives to the service providers that allow them to
build out their systems, provide service, but not create an adverse impact on the community.
Mr. Fritz reported that staff is hoping to be done with the first consultant's recommendations in April,
and would have information on the types of things that can be done, then preparing the actual policy that
goes on to the Board.
Mr. Finley asked if the applicant works to stay within the design guidelines if that will effect the tiers.
Mr. Fritz replied that in previous discussions with the Board, it was determined that certain types of
facilities may be able to be located by -right.
Mr. Nitchmann said he did not find a great deal of value if the consultant simply offers comments about
whether a site is objectionable or not, as that is a subjective statement. He mentioned the recent court
considerations.
Mr. Kamptner said, "From somewhere there has to be evidence that supports ultimately the Board's
decision. So if the applicant is saying that this is the only site, and staff says this site doesn't have
substantial detriment to adjacent property, doesn't change the character — if the Board decides to deny
that application on that ground, there has to be some evidence somewhere in the record to support that.
It just can't happen out of thin air."
Mr, Nitchmann commented, "If you say it's O.K. and the consultant says it's O.K. and we say it's not
O.K....." Mr. Fritz said, "You would articulate the reasons why you thought it was not an appropriate
18
site, and then you would vote that way, just as you would on rezoning and special use permit
applications now — there's not difference."
Mr. Finley said once guidelines are in place, that would be one reason for accepting or rejecting an
''"r" applicant's proposal. "The problem comes if you [staff] say it meets the guidelines, we recommend
approval, and we [the Commission] say we don't like the color or we don't like the style, then we
would have the legal problem."
Mr. Fritz stated, "Rezoning applications are reviewed and they're determined to meet the criteria of the
Comprehensive Plan and a host of other things and yet they're denied and that denial is upheld because
there's some other factor that can be considered that the guidelines don't necessarily cover."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the first consultant would provide a "Communications Overlay District." Mr.
Fritz said that it would really overlay the whole county, and would include design standards for
telecommunications facilities, but would tell [applicants] generally where not to look for sites, such as
protected areas.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "I don't know what our action is on this tonight, but I need to think about this a
little bit more. My gut tells me we're just paying somebody to give us another subjective opinion."
Mr. Finley said, "I think it should wait until the first consultant is finished his work to see what they
come up with ... this seems very, very complicated to me."
Mr. Nitchmann agreed, "I'm pretty uncomfortable about doing anything until I see what the first
consultant comes up with."
.. Mr. Fritz requested, "I would ask, just for the sake of clarity, in the event this goes forward ... to the
Board of Supervisors for some discussion or comment as to the Minimum Submittal Standards. It
doesn't require a Zoning Text Amendment — we have the ability to adopt reasonable administrative
procedures for applications, and what we're saying under the Minimum Submittal Standards is these are
the types of things we need, realizing that if the Zoning Text Amendment is not approved, everything
that is in here that refers to Tier One, Two, and Three would need to be modified or eliminated." He
added, "There are certain things in there that would greatly enhance — even now — the review, simply
because we'd have more information to provide to you."
En
Mr. Nitchmann stated, "It appears to me if my memory is correct that a lot of these things, the applicant
is going to do as a matter of course anyway."
Mr. Fritz agreed, and said that as written, there are really two items (#13 and #14) that would not be
entirely applicable if the Zoning Text Amendment is not adopted, and they can be deleted or amended in
some way to remove references to tiers.
Mr. Finley suggested that, if the Commission agrees, they wait on the tier structure but proceed with the
Minimum Submittal Standards and asked Mr. Kamptner for an appropriate action.
Mr. Kamptner said the Commission would need to make a recommendation for the Board at this
meeting, which could request that the Board defer acting on the ZTA until the first consultant's report is
completed, and reminded them that the matter has already been set for public hearing.
Mr. Rieley supported the idea. "I think on the issue of the ZTA, again I'm generally in favor of it, and I
think it would be great to be able to get on with this. Let me just, for clarity sum up what my main
19
concerns are: I would advocate a flat, unrefundable fee that is low enough so that we aren't turning a
profit on it, and high enough so that we can get the answers we need from the consultant on a case -by -
case basis regardless of the type of structure it is; the second is I do think a one -tier system that is more
simple and flexible and is able to be more site -specific in the list of review categories..."
Mr. Rieley commended Mr. Fritz for his extensive work on this difficult issue.
Mr. Thomas said, "I think it's well -needed. I've only been with the Commission since August, but it
seems like we've had more cell -tower discussions — they've eaten a lot of our time up that we probably
could be putting more time into better use around the County in planning for the growth that's coming
our way ... I would like to see something put in place as fast as possible for the consultants to give us the
help we need, and give us the knowledge that we need to make our decisions. I don't really have any
complaints about the tier — the only thing that I think we really need as Commissioners is a consultant to
tell us what's available and not to tell us how to make our decision, but to tell us what is available along
the lines of how we can make our own decision."
Mr. Finely commented, "The reason for tiers as I understand it is to get a fee breakdown. If we give a
flat fee, would there even be any tiers."
Mr. Fritz said, "The original thing we took to the Board was a flat fee and they said, `go back and tier
it. "'
Mr. Nitchmann asked why.
Mr. Fritz replied that the Board felt the fee was high, and there may be instances where that full fee
wasn't necessary.
Ms. Washington commented that she liked the tier levels because an applicant should get a lower fee if
their application requires less work, and said she would like to see the consultant on Board as fast as
possible.
Public comment was invited.
Steve Blaine addressed the Commission and shared his observations. "Whatever consultant involved in
the application process I hope wouldn't supplant the staff's work with the industry in locating sites. I
don't think we can underestimate how beneficial they are to the process... these sites take a lot of lead
time. First the companies are locating through their design an area to target a site, then they have to
arrange an agreement with the landowner. That's something that's not a given, and we can talk all day
about alternative locations and a substitute of multiple sites for one site, but ultimately the company has
to bring those sites in with an agreement with the landowner. If anything good comes out of the process,
certainty in any business adds to the value; so if we can come up with a system that has more certainty
in it, then I think industry could support it."
He added, "We may feel in industry that we have some certainty now, because we have Supervisors and
now Planning Commissioners that we've been before, and we can within some framework sort of
predict what your attitudes are. And the staff provides that service to a great extent — to new applicants
who come in from outside the community, they look to staff [as to] what the Planning Commission go
for, what type of site. Ultimately you're the judge and jury. You can never supplant the zoning
,%W determination ... whether the special use permit is appropriate... you can't go wrong with a citizen
Planning Commission. That's why we have Planning Commissions made up of citizens, because they're
supposed to reflect the views of the community. And we have a variant view — some that have stronger
20
feelings about them than others, but that's reflective of the community .... I don't know if that argues for
abandoning a consultant, but perhaps it's worth a try."
Mr. George Cumming of Triton/PCS addressed the Commission. "Often it's good to be a consultant,
because you can name very quick solutions and not have to follow through with the repercussions of it.
When we came to this area about a year ago, we had one full time employee — it took him 12 months to
identify 13 sites that would work from an engineering standpoint, and that we had a willing landowner.
And that's the problem with the consulting system — they can recommend three or four sites, and I know
from experience you have to call and call and call in order to get someone who is truly interested in
working with you."
He noted, "There are several issues that everyone seems to agree on — things you need. And a simpler
solution to this process is to add on to the fee whatever information you need. I think everyone here
feels that the photo sims that you've gotten in the past were not adequate, and we contract with a
consultant to take our photo sims, and I would think that could be a standard thing the county could do
and add that to the original fee .... the prices are all over the place, and the quality is all over the place.
We've had to look very carefully to find consultants that we can trust to do them."
Mr. Cumming concluded, "I would like to see us be able to move forward quickly and have you all have
the information you need to make the decisions that are best for all of us."
Mr. Nitchmann asked for his opinion on the tier versus flat fee structure.
Mr. Cumming replied regarding the tier system, "It's a difficult system, and I think you've brought up
all the problems with it. You don't want to persecute people who are maybe applying for a shorter
tower. I just can't see it being a fair system; I think it's probably a very difficult system to administer."
He said the refund process within the tier structure is complicated. "I would think that identifying what
you need to make a decision for each meeting ... and then have a fee based on the actual cost of
providing that service." Mr. Cumming said that location is a difficult issue, and the industry would hate
to see the county pay someone to go out and pick locations.
Mr. Nitchmann asked for his opinion on the Commission waiting for the first consultant's opinion prior
to acting on the ZTA. Mr. Cumming commented that he felt getting the information from the first
consultant would help the Commission reach their decision, and added "We would like in the industry
nothing better than to have certain sites be by -right [as other localities do] ... in this business time is
money, and the faster we can get something approved, the more willing we probably would be to supply
sites that are by -right." He added, "I would love to see you wait for the consultant to bring back his
information."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "I'm trying to get this out of our hands into the administrative house because I
don't think we really need to be dealing with this here at the Planning Commission level because it's
very subjective and we need to get in place some parameters."
Mr. Fritz commented that every company has come to him and expressed favor for by -right sites, but in
lieu of that, having some standards would provide them a level of certainty in their application process.
Mr. Nitchmann stated that companies such as U.S. Cellular have probably looked at the county and
made determinations as to where they need towers; however, the Commission sees them only one at a
14aw time and isn't provided the big picture. He stated that the consultant is trying to put those pieces
together.
21
Mr. Cumming agreed, and said in the last meeting Triton presented an overlay of where they plan to
build, but added, "zoning is holding us up with design because we have something coming before you
next month that if it's not approved at that height, we need to go back to the drawing board. And that
means moving several sites."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "That's why we need to get to a by -right type — set up parameters as Steve [Blaine]
mentioned that this is what you can count on —just like we do with everything else."
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann stated, "I think we really need to sit back and give a little more thought as to what the
specific goals and objectives are of how we charge and how much we charge."
Mr. Fritz said, "As we're going through the policy adoption process, we can certainly incorporate
worksessions with you that would incorporate a fee structure that we could perhaps roll into the policy
and then bring the actual zoning text language after the policy is adopted."
Ms. Washington had left the meeting, and was not present for the votes related to ZTA 98-08.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded a recommendation for deferral of ZTA 98-08
until a "Wireless Telecommunications Policy" is adopted by the Board of Supervisors. In a 3-1 vote,
with Mr. Finley, Mr. Rieley, Mr. Nitchmann in favor and Mr. Thomas dissenting, the motion passed.
Commissioners expressed concern that the proposed fee structure was too complicated and provided a
negative incentive for applicants. Mr. Fritz recommended worksessions with County staff and the
Commission to address the fee structures and devise new language for fees based on that policy.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded a recommendation (re: staff report Attachment
"A") that the Board endorse as a policy the submittal standards with changes to "Minimum Submittal
Standards for Personal Wireless Service Facilities" as follows: Delete references to Tiers under title;
Change (13) to state "Provide a certified statement from a licensed engineer/surveyor indicating the
height of the tallest tree within 20 feet of the proposed facility."; Change (14) to state "The following
information shall be provided...." The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Finley and fellow Commissioners commended Mr. Fritz for his extensive work on the issue.
Old Business
The Commission unanimously approved adoption of the modified Planning Commission Rules &
Procedures as presented by Mr. Kamptner (Attachment "A"). The rules will take effect for all future
meetings.
New Business
There was no new business presented.
Mr. Fritz encouraged Commissioners to view the treetop wireless facilities on Route 29 South. Mr.
Finely mentioned that Mr. Cilimberg may be giving a report on the "Y2K" problem as it relates to the
county.
,�ftw There will be no meeting on January 19, 1999.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
22
V. Wayne Ciliml
Sectetary
on
23