Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 16 1999 PC MinutesACTION MEMO ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 1999 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, February 16,1999 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were: Mr. William Finley, Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. Dennis Rooker, and Mr. Rodney Thomas. Absent: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. William Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior Planner. A quorum was established with 5 of 7 members present. The minutes of January 26`h and February 2"d were unanimously approved as amended. Mr. Cilimberg presented a review of the Board of Supervisors meetings of February 3`d and February 10`h, 1999. February 3`d Meeting: Mr. Cilimberg told the Commission that the Board has received public comment and has approved Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, "Natural Resources and Cultural Assets" incorporating public concerns and changes recommended by the Commission and implemented by staff. They will officially act on the item in their March day meeting. He said that because of budget limitations, the Board is investigating the possibility of going to public referendum for general obligation bond for several CIP projects, probably for next year. Mr. Cilimberg said that this is a new funding approach for the county, as growth and needs have increased. February 10t' Meeting: Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Board held several public hearings, including the University Montessori School, which the Board approved with conditions as recommended by the Commission; and the Charlottesville Catholic School, which the Board approved with conditions as recommended. Both the Carter's Bridge and Lanark Agricultural/Forestal Districts additions were approved. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the major public hearing item was held on the Springridge development. He stated that since the Commission's last meeting on Springridge, when they recommended approval as presented by the applicant, which included access coming from Hollymead via Powell Creek Drive and opening the road over the dam to connect Hollymead with Forest Lakes. The Commission had considered a connection in lieu of the dam road to Powell Creek Drive and Timberwood Parkway in Forest Lakes. Mr. Cilimberg said that the discussions between the developer and the Forest Lakes Homeowner's Association were not productive in terms of the "Y" connection; however, the association did indicate that they are willing to negotiate the possibility of connecting only from Timberwood Parkway, and not opening the road over the dam. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he recalled that the Association needs a 75% majority for approval of any item; Mr. Rooker commented that this makes it very difficult to get things approved. In response to Mr. Thomas' question, Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that there is still a by -right development possibility, but a special use permit for stream crossing would still be required; if they were to go south to Hollymead, they would also need an amendment for the South Forest Lakes Planned Development. Mr. Cilimberg said, "In either direction, they would have to get a special use permit, at least, for stream crossing." The association is scheduled to vote on this in early March. The Board received that alternative and heard from approximately 10 community members who support that approach, and agreed to defer the development until Ma,. in order to hear the res,11ts of that vote, and to -,:low staff to do furLie; analy:,c--, "*%win coming only fron, Forest Lakes. Mr. Cilimberg stated that a special use permit will accompany that 45 item, which will be necessary for the new approach; that stream -crossing necessitates the SP which will come before Commission, and the Board wants to get the Commission's recommendation regarding the permit, which they will consider along with the deferred item in May. He added that the Board will take a statement on county primary road priorities to comment at the Culpeper 6-year primary road pre -allocation hearing March 15th, which emphasizes those road projects the county feels are very important for funding under the primary system. The lead projects of interest in the county are: the projects under CATS, completing 29 North improvements and Meadowcreek Parkway. Mr. Finley asked for unscheduled items from the public. None were offered, and the meeting proceeded. Consent Agenda: Branchlands Professional Building Loading Space Waiver Request Request of a waiver of Section 4.12.7.2b of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a reduction of the required loading spaces. Property, described as Tax Map 61 Z, Section 03, Parcel 10, is located on the eastern side of Hillsdale Drive, where Branchlands Boulevard and Hillside Drive intersect. The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the Consent Agenda. Request for Deferral: SP 98-65 Snow's Business Park (Sign #91) — The applicant proposes to establish contractor's outdoor storage and display on Tax Map 90, Parcel 35X. The property consists of approximately 5.7 acres zoned LI, Light Industrial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Outdoor storage and display in the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District, requires a special use permit in accord with the provisions of Section 30.6.3.213 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is located on the east side of route 742 (Avon Street) opposite Mill Creek South in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Industrial Service in Neighborhood 4. Deferred from the January 5, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant requests deferral to March 2, 1999. Public comment was invited. None was given. The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved deferral of SP 98-65 to March 2, 1999. Public Hearing SP 98-72 The International Center for Jefferson Studies (Sign #39) Request for a special use permit to allow establishment of a private research library associated with existing residential and research facilities, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for private schools within the RA, Rural Areas District. The property, described as Tax Map 92 Parcel 1, contains 78.5 acres, and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on the Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Route 53) approximately 2 `/2 miles from its intersection with the Scottsville Road (Route 20 South). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, explaining that the reason for the special use permit application is that ownership of the property transferred from the University to the University Real Estate Foundation '" "' (UT EF), w17ich is pries to and 'Jots not hmc tlic s°,me !opal or t cx status, as the University. A special u_e permit is required for the operation of the International Center and the library. Noting the concept map 46 presented, Ms. Thomas pointed out that VDOT has requested a turn -in "taper" lane on the portion of the property owned by Kenwood along Route 53. The proposed new library is 15,000 square feet, two levels, with only one level visible from the existing courtyard above the main Kenwood house. There would be a new back entrance to the lower level of the library, and a new parking lot to break up the parking and the visual impact of the improvements. As her staff report indicated, Ms. Thomas stated that staff recommends approval of the SP, with four conditions as presented. She commented that earlier that day, she had received a call an area resident requesting additional information on architectural design and traffic flow patterns. Ms. Thomas said that as Route 53 is an Entrance Corridor, the project would undergo review by the Architectural Review Board as part of the site plan review and approval process. She said VDOT has received information on the project, and has responded with a request for the aforementioned turn lane, but had no other requested improvements. In response to Mr. Loewenstein's question, Ms. Thomas added that the site plan would be approved administratively unless there were waivers required. The applicant, Dan Jordan, President of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, addressed the Commission. He commended planning staff, especially Ms. Thomas, for their work on the project. Mr. Jordan presented a handout to the Commission outlining his statements (Attachment A). He explained that the foundation's mission is preservation and education, mentioning that Monticello is the only residence in America on the World Heritage list, sharing status with the Great Wall of China and The Great Pyramids of Egypt. Mr. Jordan said that the other part of their mission, sharing education, require serious ongoing research thus facilitating a need for a library. He explained that the current library is located at the gatehouse at the Monticello grounds entrance, and is very small and inadequate. Mr. Jordan said that the Kenwood land available as a site for the new library, while owned by U.Va., is leased by the foundation. Mr. Jordan said that the library would be of invaluable benefit to scholars and residents in the International Center for Jefferson Studies, and students of Jefferson everywhere. Mr. Loewenstein asked how long the 15,000 square feet would serve the needs of the facility. Mr. Jordan said that the foundation brought in a library consultant to address that issue, and concluded that the facility will offer 40 or 50 years of "solid use." Mr. Michael Merriam of the foundation's Department of Facilities Planning and Construction introduced himself, and told Commissioners he was available to answer questions. In response to Mr. Finley's question regarding septic services at the facility, Mr. Merriam said that there is septic on the site now, and an engineering firm tested the site for amount of septic required by the Health Department. Mr. Merriam said the site proved to have adequate field space for the septic, as well as 100% back-up field space. Mr. Nitchmann commented, "I think this an excellent addition to Monticello. I think it's really needed ... I'm surprised to hear it's going to last 50 years." Public comment was invited. None was offered. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded SP 98-72 with conditions as set forth by staff. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Loewenstein commented that despite what the staff report states, he feels the library will serve the interests of the public by promoting Jefferson scholarship for all of us. Work Session 47 Bill Fritz and the county's consultant, Ted Kreines, presented a draft of the Wireless Telecommunications Policy. Mr. Fritz reported that two public hearings have been held with the consultant on the policy, one with the wireless industry and one with the general public. Mr. Fritz indicated that they have taken information gathered at those meetings and compiled it into a single document, as presented to the Commission. He further stated that they have held a meeting with the Board of Supervisors to advise them that they are modifying the approach to the development of the policy, now steering away from the "minimum levels of service" objective in the original approach. The Board agreed with the new direction. Mr. Fritz reported that the Board of Supervisors, at their meeting when they last considered the item, passed a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fritz noted that the goal for the policy is "To protect the resources of Albemarle County and provide for the development of personal wireless services." He said in order to meet that goal, staff and the consultant have developed three types of standards: a location standard, a siting standard, and design standard. Location Standard: Noting the map provided, Mr. Fritz explained that the location standards include avoidance areas, opportunity areas, and new facility areas. He said that the avoidance areas include critical slopes, open space easements, agricultural/forestal districts, mountain resource areas, historical properties, and entrance corridor districts. He said that opportunity areas are existing facilities such as power lines, tall buildings, towers, water tanks, etc. The new facility areas are all other areas not designated, and may contain unmapped avoidance and opportunity areas. Mr. Fritz emphasized that there is no such thing as a "prohibited area" in the county, stating that the avoidance areas have a higher standard for the review. Opportunity areas are not approval areas, they are simply areas where opportunities do exist. He explained that with both avoidance and opportunity situations, individual requests need to be investigated. Siting Standard: He explained that staff and the consultant have developed siting standards, recommending that wireless sites be in a wooded area with mature trees, and not extend more than 10 feet above the average tree line. Trees within the surrounding area would need to be preserved. Four different types of sites have been identified on existing structures, to comprise the second part of siting standards. The third siting standard is the elevation above mean sea level, for which staff has provided a variety of options: in a treeless area, the site be placed at the lowest possible elevation of the proposed property, in an effort to discourage mountaintop and ridgetop sites on large parcels of land; use language contained in the Mountain Overlay District, which prohibits construction on ridge areas - construction below the ridgeline needs to be considered because it may result in a skyline view of the height of the structure is not limited as recommended in siting standard #1; adoption of absolute height limits as provided by staff; siting within right-of-ways — staff has been tracking legislation in the General Assembly that would have ensured localities review of facilities within right -of way, but died in committee. Mr. Fritz noted that there may be structures within the right-of-ways, particularly telephone and utility poles, that are opportunity areas and should be investigated. Design Standards: Mr. Fritz said the facility design standard attempts to achieve a simple objective: the less visible a personal wireless service facility is, the more acceptable it is to the community. In order to do that, two criteria of visual enhancement and visual impact, need to be met. Unacceptable designs, poorly sited improperly located personal wireless service facilities may be mitigated to the point of acceptability by one of three techniques: concealment, camouflage, or disguise. Under these standards, creation of new man-made elements such as a building or monopole disguised as a tree are not acceptable. Mr. Fritz noted the photographs of sites in Commissioners' packets, which show some of the specific designs available, and the types of towers and antennae that exist. Mr. Fritz said that two A—W F tl cr d:�sign sta►idards ic!late to t.,cedth !uid ::afe I stagdar(ls, noting tlt tt the radius �f tI y fell zoiie F;hc id be equal to 100% the height of the particular facility, but does not have to be all on one parcel. He 48 explained that while locating new structures in the zone would not be acceptable, parking areas, dumpsters, detention ponds, etc. may be appropriate, thus allowing facilities to be located in more congested areas via easement on the adjoining property. Mr. Fritz stated that staff and the consultant are planning to take pictures of acceptable facilities and creating a design manual, similar to what the ARB currently uses, for generally approvable design standards. They would also include statements as to characteristics of the area that would make it an unacceptable facility. Mr. Rooker asked why areas such as wetlands would automatically be considered avoidance areas, providing there were no negative impacts to the wetland area. Mr. Fritz replied that while they are identified as avoidance areas, they are not prohibited areas. He stated that wetland areas may have difficulties in terms of access, actual construction, utilities, etc., and staff must make an additional layer of review to examine that site. "It may be able to be overcome, and it may not be an issue." Mr. Rooker commented that the policy is contradictory in that forest areas are listed as avoidance areas, but siting standards recommend location in wooded areas. He also said, "I don't know that public property should necessarily be an avoidance area, depending on what the public property is being used for. It would be obviously up to the county as to whether it wanted part of its property to be used as a tower, but I don't know if it should necessarily be an avoidance area." Mr. Fritz said, "We were dumping all public property together — state, federal and local property — parks, schools .... so obviously the county may determine that use of a school site off in the corner may be totally acceptable, but you may want to include public properties such as Shenandoah National Park as an avoidance area, something that would be taken into consideration...." Mr. Rooker said, "I would not necessarily agree that [public property] should be listed as an avoidance area." Regarding existing structures, Mr. Rooker asked why non -primary education sites would be the only education sites not acceptable for use. Mr. Kreines responded that parents across the country have expressed more concern with locating the facilities near younger children in elementary schools, nursery schools, day care centers, etc. Mr. Rooker asked why a 35-foot height limit is provided in the standards. Mr. Kreines replied that there may be a 35-foot height limit in most county residential areas, which may be why it's in the draft policy. Mr. Fritz further explained that locating it above 35 feet gets it "off the ground so it's away from people." He added that that locating it higher reduces the likelihood that longer attachments would be needed and requested. Mr. Rooker commented, "We're not talking about the height of the tower here, we're talking about the height of the building. I just don't see that putting a preference for a structure over 35 feet is necessarily advisable." He asked how the recommended elevations fit in with existing structures. Mr. Fritz said that the policy elevation language is envisioning a new facility constructed free of anything else. In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Fritz said that the standards could be "combined." Mr. Nitchmann asked, "How can we adopt maximum height limits when technology is there that we don't know anything about, technically. Wouldn't putting absolute height limits be a pretty severe restriction, and how would we determine what that absolute height should be?" Mr. Fritz responded, "You could either adopt it as an absolute height limit as an ordinance restriction, or `awl voii can 4dopt it as a -tanda-1, whicl ,.,,v would be.looldr.,g at as individual > asFs calif it should b:. highcr 49 than the standard height that you find in that district.... they [the applicant] would need to give you some information and justify why, in this particular case, a deviation from the standard, is appropriate." Mr. Loewenstein asked, "How can we fix a standard without having a lot of technical input to do it. The standard has to be based on some sort of realistic [criteria]." Mr. Fritz replied, "You can fix a standard. What you can't determine would be the number of facilities which they may need to provide service in a given area based on that height restriction — that's what you couldn't determine." Mr. Rooker commented that he would prefer leaving #3 out. Mr. Fritz said that the "minimum levels of service" standard was originally considered, but as staff learned more about recent court decisions and the direction of technology, determining what the minimum level of service would be impossible to do, as the same companies use different service levels in different locations. "There's no way of determining what the minimum level of service is going to be, if you can't determine that, you have no hope of determining how many sites you would need and of what size, and using what technology." Mr. Finley said that if there are going to be a lot of small sites located in or near residential areas, "Why not have a good-looking design for that service alone, because it will eventually be as common as a light pole." Mr. Fritz said light poles, such as those found in shopping centers, are tall enough to accommodate wireless service; service providers may offer to rebuild the merchant's pole higher, but might reinstall the lights at the original level. Mr. Loewenstein commented that defining "adverse visual impact" is going to be difficult, and asked Mr. Fritz if that could be addressed. Mr. Fritz responded, "We currently have language in our zoning ordinance that talks about whether or not when you issue a special use permit, does it cause a change in the character of the district. That's the guidance that is given to you. Yes, we want to give you more. What is an adverse impact — is it an increase of 10% of the height, 5% of the height, 20% of the height? At what point is it an adverse change in the character?" Mr. Fritz said that staff is looking for guidance from the Commission as to what the factors are that make a certain design undesirable — height, bulk, etc. Mr. Rooker said, "I don't think you can say that no modifications should occur as a flat statement which would result in adverse visual impact. It seems to me you'd want something that maybe says `any modifications should be done in a way which minimizes adverse visual impact.' This is like an absolute statement meaning that a slight change in visual impact is something that technically you shouldn't approve." Mr. Fritz suggested, "How about `minimize impact or be consistent with the character of the original structure."' Mr. Nitchmann said he preferred the way Mr. Rooker had worded it. Mr. Rooker clarified, "Modification should be done in a way which minimizes any adverse visual impact. That way I don't think we're then trying to find ... a point at which it occurs." 1v4r. Finley asked. "llo�v long a -,-. light t of ds going to b;r ;�ound...erL going to have to conll- "at -A and start building new poles?" 50 Mr. Fritz said, "We do street lighting now. In the process of doing those street lighting projects, could those also be used for personal wireless service facilities. It's a whole lot easier to do it up front than to come back in and try to retrofit it." Mr. Nitchmann said, "I'd think you'd almost have to because you're requiring everybody in subdivisions to put their utilities underground. You can't say except for your provider that's going to give you a cellular pole. It almost has to be up on a light pole that's there, that's going to be there for a reason of safety... otherwise you're talking out of both sides of your mouth." Mr. Fritz agreed, "That is a situation where use of a light pole could help to provide service. But also one of the things that we have in here is a structure in a wooded area. The Bell Air site, in my opinion, is a successful site in terms of concealing it in the existing foliage, even now with the leaves off the trees, it doesn't have an adverse impact, and that's in a residential area." Mr. Rooker commented, "There's a substantial difference in electrical service where you have to have a series of poles, one right after the other where the wires are strung, whereas in a cellular situation, most neighborhoods a single tower would at least service that neighborhood — even a small tower." Mr. Fritz said, "Or in a larger neighborhood, efficient use of either their street lighting system, or a combination of their street lighting system and open space facilities, or in some cases [such as] Forest Lakes or Redfields — use of their recreation centers, which are pretty substantial structures." Mr. Nitchmann stated, "I think a lot of this gets back though, to that minimum levels of service. If you go back to why are we sitting here, it all boils to the applicants coming before us and say, `we're trying to satisfy our customers' need for minimum levels of service.' And then Company A gets up, and then Company B gets up next week and says with a different technology. Who determines minimum level of service? You've got the providers, that there's possibly seven of them using digital and analog technology.... could all physically want to be in a neighborhood on a pole that we want to be very small. Can they coexist, or does that mean if all the services want to be within Forest Lakes, there has to be seven different poles. How far apart do they have to be. Can they be close enough so that technology doesn't interfere with the other — digital doesn't interfere with the analog signals ... then you've got the user that would like to use it wherever it goes, probably the majority of them. Then you've got us in the county that's trying to protect our beautiful county here from all of these poles going up." Mr. Fritz said, "Our goal is that the service providers would define for themselves what their level of service is — what they want to do. The way we approach this, and the way the industry was very clear when we had the meeting with them. They want to provide service to the community." Mr. Nitchmann commented, "They want to provide service to maximize the return on their investment. That's what they want to do, and that means the more subscribers you get that can call for one minute, that's up to them. They want to beat out their competition. And the effect is not one, it's the cumulative effect of five to seven different providers that I think is really causing us the problem here. It's causing me a problem. I like the idea of the poles, too, but I still go back to my statement of how many poles make the picket fence .... I don't think we in a capitalistic society have the right to determine the minimum levels of a service ... I'm trying to figure out here still with what we're doing here if we're going in the right direction, if you can't have tall towers." Referencing a photo of a cellular structure, Mr. Fritz said, "This is a good example of the picket fence concept and of th= multiple providei coA ccpt. Clcarly, this particu?ar Arl,10.w-e can only a�:;Rvoin.nodate one user because of the height of it .... but would it be acceptable to replace that tower with the same as 51 that, and this tower with the same as that... is that an acceptable standard? You can do that type of activity and what's the impact — the impact is minimal adverse impact. Or if you have multiple street lights, and you have the cobra lights that are up. If we come up with design standards that specify a type of antenna or an attachment to that, that has minimal adverse impact, if every one of the ones every hundred yards has a facility on it — who cares? And that basically is where we're heading. We're saying we want the service providers — we heard loud and clear from the industry and loud and clear from the public when we held our public hearing — they want service; they want reliable service, and they want to be able to take it anywhere ... what we're trying to do is come up with a means that will allow that to occur." Mr. Rooker said that the city of Boca Raton Florida has tremendous cellular/pcs coverage, and yet does not have towers over the place. "They've got low profile antennas." Mr. Fritz said, "We think that tall towers like we have at Joshua Run out there by Forest Lakes, and the Keswick tower — that's not the solution. Utilizing a tall tower like the Joshua Run which has three service providers on it, we can come up with three sites or more in that area that will provide service in the area that will be something like this [photo] or light poles, or some other kind of design that will still provide service in the area without creating the either cumulative or individual impact that something like Joshua Run does." Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Kreines if technology allows for collocation opportunities that were not possible before because of potential signal interference. Mr. Rooker referenced recent items that have come before the Commission whereby the applicant has indicated collocation is not possible because of signal interference. Mr. Kreines responded, "That is correct. That is their common complaint or `opening line' throughout the country .... they often have to do it for various reasons. In California the reason is `if you want it, you put them next to eacl}36/ther — find a way to do it.' That really is the answer to Commissioner Nitchmann's point and to some of the other points. Their technology will do anything they want it to do. You have to lead them to the point where they'll want to do it. It's totally flexible to whatever environment you create for them." �> Mr. Thomas commented, "So we could set our standards and policies and let them abide by *." Mr. Kreines responded, "Yes, and they will resist it. I resisted myself to bring the cashflow projections of the typical cell site....a cell site, depending on its size and the degree of disguise, concealment, camouflage can cost anywhere — hard costs only — from $100,000 to $1,000,000. Its revenue or its gross return to the carrier is $50,000 to $250,000 a month .... while they will claim that technologically they can't do this, they can't do that, they can't do anything that everybody has brought up, we have examples in photographs where they're online and working where they have done it. So the real question is, do you want to get into the RF technology business? Or do you realize that that's their business, and you want to get into the land use, environmental impact and infrastructure business, which is the business you're in. If that is the case, then I would advise you strongly, just as Bill [Fritz] has come to the conclusion independently, that what your standards should be on are land use, environmental impact, and infrastructure." Mr. Rooker added, "And let them figure out a way to provide their service." Mr. Kreines said, "And I assure you they will. But they will resist, they will deny, and they will tell you �y r"`:�ei'}'1hiJ�,? �lJey Can tC� �ii i11t A r3"�rtF� t" 1`.f `V�1t ire Yroh�?�'tlt':� CNc :iCI�VtC�.''' 52 Mr. Nitchmann asked if there are any communities throughout the country that are taxing the significant revenue providers earn. Mr. Kreines said that one Florida county is going to levy a tax, and is going to inventory sites to begin the process. He said, "There is no doubt in anybody's mind that I've talked to that they are taxable. There's a revenue stream that's taxable — that's very difficult to get a hold of. I've already told you the gross limits - $50 — $250k per month, but you're never going to get that data. So then you could go to its [hard cost] value; that's really a very small fraction of what they're really worth. And then for an even smaller fraction that you can put their hands on is the lease rate that they're paying you the private property owner..." He added that many localities are leasing public lands such as parks for cellular siting facilities. Mr. Finley commented that taxing eventually comes back to the private user's bill. Mr. Kreines responded, "Any time you impose a cost... it gets passed on to the ultimate consumer... they're going to resist for obvious reasons, because in the beginning, just like any land development project, their costs are all going out the door. But they turn the corner on an individual cell site in three years. If it's more than five, they don't want to touch it." Mr. Nitchmann said, "If you just taxed 1/10`h of a cent per call, you'd been doing pretty darn good." Mr. Kreines replied, "Now if you go for a call tax, that would be a utility tax, I think you've got a problem." Referencing a situation in a wealthy Houston suburb, he added, "There's no way that the carrier will share the data with you on a per cell site basis. They consider that to be of the utmost proprietary data, even though they have these data. So the only way you're really going to get any sense of what passes through there is to make projections on a per cell call basis. I think we're kind of stuck with a property tax as opposed to a utility tax..." Mr. Nitchmann said, "It appears to me that the FCC has caused a lot of our problems in their requirement to shield one provider's space from another provider's space ... The tower we were looking at two weeks ago up by Orange, so he [the applicant] didn't infringe upon the tower that was put up by another provider in Orange County because he didn't have a license for Orange County. The other thing that really interests me is going from here to Richmond — if you get right by Fluvanna, certain signals drop out, yet there's a big tower there ... and now they're building another tower on the north side of 64 not to far from that area there. Why did the FCC get into this — trying to protect one provider's turf from another at the expense of us having to permit more towers to be put up ... is there a technological reason why it has to occur, and if not, is there any emphasis going on at the federal level to try and get the FCC to change their minds about that." Mr. Kreines explained that the FCC did not cause that problem, and explained the federal "sectioning" of the U.S. to divide the country into trade areas. "They didn't want to sell the whole country off to one carrier, so the carriers bid for each of these [sections], and of course in a bidding our auction situation, you can drive that price up. It just so happens that the basic trading area has a boundary there between Albemarle and Orange. We could move the boundary so it would make more sense, I guess, but they needed it along jurisdictional lines. This does not mean that [Goodlow Mountain] has to have a facility. They chose that facility knowing full well that that line was there, and then they presented it to you as a problem that was imposed upon them by FCC, just like they're going to say that your regulation is a problem that is imposed upon them...." Mr. Nitcht-r-am, sa;d, "I, wa presented to us dia,, tb .ty DeLJed to si.y.c'u this whc-1..c ' )t ,wge County !iiie 53 Mr. Rooker said, "All they have to do is move the tower." Mr. Loewenstein commented, "If they were someplace else they wouldn't have that problem." Mr. Nitchmann said, "I was under the impression that the reason they had to do that is that they were not permitted by federal law for their signal to `bleed onto' another man's territory." Mr. Kreines confirmed, "That is correct. They sell each of these [sections] at a frequency range. So if you're an A Block or B Block with PCS.... you are at different frequencies from one another." He explained that digital interfering with analog is called "intermodulation interference," which is much rarer than co -channel interference, which occurs on the same wavelength/frequency. Mr. Nitchmann said, "Why didn't they just put their stuff on the [tower] a half mile away?" He added, "I got the impression from them [US Cellular] that they were not permitted to even co -locate on that tower." Mr. Fritz interjected, "That's purely one company not allowing another company to use their [facility]." He added that companies do not always agree to allow eachother to co -locate. Mr. Finley asked him how coverage would be achieved in the avoidance areas. Mr. Fritz replied, "There are very few people on the mountain in the first place, and they may never get service anyway because it's not economical for the service provider to do it. But if the service provider does choose to provide service to those individuals or location, they can do it one of two ways: they can locate outside the avoidance area, consistent with the siting and design standard, or they can try to identify a site that's within the avoidance area that's properly sited and designed so as to minimize the impact." Mr. Rooker commented, "We discourage development in most of those areas anyway. We don't run water and sewer to those areas." Mr. Nitchmann said, "I don't think the majority of the general public really expects to have complete seamless service throughout Albemarle County because of its mountainous nature anyway. I mean, you'd be silly to think that. The only people it's really important for is our police officers." Mr. Fritz stated, "This policy envisions the ability of each of the service providers to provide seamless coverage throughout the county .... this doesn't contemplate that there are going to be certain portions of the county which are just `too tough' to provide service to .... if you go with the right design in the right place ... Maybe you can find an opportunity area inside an avoidance area. Maybe you can mitigate the characteristics that made it an avoidance area in the first place: you don't build a new road, you use the driveway that already serves the house, so that there you avoided part of the impact; you design a site that's in the trees so it can't be observed, there you've minimized the impact... you've overcome it, you get the approval, and now you've got service in the area." Mr. Loewenstein said, "It's not our responsibility — we don't have to figure out how seamless coverage is going to be made available. We create the standards and it's up to the industry to find ways within those standards to do that." He asked Mr. Fritz about the studies and tests referenced in the policy to be conducted and reviewed by certified professional engineers in Albemarle County, and asked if this was something that was to be done by staff in the engineering department or a paid consultant. 54 Mr. Fritz replied that it would need to be done privately, to be paid for by the general fund or a fee paid by the service provider. Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Kreines, "How conservative an approach is this by the county. It seems to me that you have shown us in earlier information sessions that there is technology available that is much more stealth -like than anything we've seen in this report ... so presumably we could go forward with this, and maybe some distance farther." Mr. Kreines replied, "In one sense, I would say you're further advanced if you go this direction than almost any jurisdiction in the country....on the other hand, we're presenting something that's much more flexible than any other jurisdiction in the country." He reported that Scottsdale, Arizona has established a policy that providers can build anything they want up to the height of an existing pole in the area, but the structure's footmap cannot exceed a 4-foot radius, leading them to a "dual -polarization" option. Mr. Kreines said while the structures are "pretty grotesque," but are better than what other people are doing. He said that attorneys representing providers at the hearings in Scottsdale threatened legal action on the basis of "prohibiting service," but that lawsuit never came, and now carriers are providing that service. Mr. Kreines added, "The really critical question is .... how are we going to determine what is a visual _ enhancement and what is a visual impact, and what that degree of impact is." He provided the Commission with three "rules": (1) Don't prohibit anything anywhere - anything is possible in the county; (2) Always give them [the providers] options — always give them a door to get out of; (3) When you make your judgement about visual impact or visual enhancement, always have alternatives before you — rather than coming up with cut and dried lines, you have a comparative basis. Mr. Loewenstein mentioned that providers who have come before the Commission have indicated that it is not economically feasible to provide alternatives that provide less visual impact. Mr. Kreines responded that the industry wants to be reviewed on a case -by -case basis, and cited examples from the Medina, California locality where two lawsuits ended in a win for the locality in the first case and the plaintiff withdrawing from the second case. "I would never advise you to go that route, but they [Medina] now feel like they have the clout to do that...." Mr. Kreines then presented different cellular facility options, which highlighted smaller, more concealed sites as reasonable options to achieve coverage objectives. Citing the Goodlow Mountain application which the Commission had failed to approve two weeks prior, Mr. Finley said it didn't seem that the models Mr. Kreines was presenting would be appropriate [large enough] for the Goodlow Mountain site. Mr. Kreines agreed, "That is exactly why I recommend that you have standards before turn it down. If you have standards, you're going to have two things: (1) here are the reasons that we're denying and (2) with these standards, these other possibilities [exist] which you have not come forward with but staff has." He added, "That is really what I think Bill [Fritz] wants to design in the end, and I intend to help him to the greatest extent I can — a design manual..." Mr. Finley asked, "Well, between you and Bill [Fritz] are you going to come up with kind of a cookbook like that that we can look at?" Mr. Fritz said, "The goal that we have is to be able to take a facility like that and try to find situations Ey,yrc ;t �x��uld�e al.�r1.,riat, > .s,d we werelsc�xs ing �ht c+r,e >f °ric odd th:�bs that we're praba.'oly going to do is use photo simulations to describe a good and a poor siting ... we think this is a proper use 55 of them, because here you're not trying to depict what a site is going to look like, you're using it just to give an appearance. In some of the cases we've had where we've had photo simulations, the problem wasn't necessarily with the photo simulation, it's that the construction didn't match the photo simulation." Mr. Loewenstein asked, "When an applicant comes in with their [idea] ... the county can then come back and show them this design standards manual and say `well you've got to consider this and you've got to consider that,' I'm a little concerned that typically what happens is when an applicant comes in he's got a specific site in mind and a specific coverage in mind, and the thinking all gets channeled through that particular filter — it's very site specific.... isn't it possible to [provide them with other multiple -site options] that would have collectively lower impact than the single site that they've original come to you about." Mr. Fritz replied, "That's one thing that we try to do now currently. One thing that we would do isn't that they would file the application and then we would turn to the design guideline, they would have the design guideline before they even looked for those sites to negotiate leases. They would know generally the types of things they have as limitations before they even go to find those things." Mr. Loewenstein said, "There's no reason why they couldn't have been coming in here all along and saying, `well you know we could put that thing up on Goodlow Mountain or we could put five of them down here someplace and nail them on the trees at eight feet up' but they don't usually." Mr. Fritz said, "One provider did exactly that ...they said we can do just one pole or we can do 24 treetop facilities... and they came back [to the Commission] with something else." Mr. Nitchmann commented, "Once you get the standards in place and there's alternatives out there — and **r I agree very wholeheartedly with the idea of giving everybody of a way to do something... the first couple people that come before us once this new standard is in place are going to go through a learning process. And it's just like the developers over the years have gone through a learning process.... because they know that when they walk in here their chances of getting that passed are probably about 95% instead of 35%. And I think the standards, once they're in place will let that process proceed. And there will have to be changes in these standards as we go along, because certainly the technology has changed." Mr. Fritz said, "That was one thing that the industry was very clear about... more than to specify what the standards would be, they wanted to know what the rules were going to be .... they were very clear that one of their primary focuses is they want these standards. If they know what it is and they can increase the likelihood that.... they're going to know there's a high probability of this site getting approved, so they'll invest the time and effort in doing it...." Mr. Rooker commented that they can look at the criteria of avoidance areas, existing structures, etc. and determine whether or not their project is a very easy or very difficult task. Mr. Thomas said, "We have been reacting to them and they haven't been reacting to us at all. We haven't had any guidelines to give them at all .... we've been shooting in the dark the whole time." Mr. Nitchmann asked if the Commission could have another worksession on the policy. Mr. Fritz responded that he and Mr. Kreines plan to work through March to develop some type of final (Jocoinent, wh rh would xe. ready foi piAlic. 4.icar_ng in Apiii. Mr. Fritz exrtiol that t1A ,,- policy co old 56 go directly to the Board of Supervisors, or could be brought back to the Planning Commission either as a worksession or as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, or could proceed with a joint worksession. In response to Mr. Finley's question, Mr. Fritz reiterated that the Commission needs to review applications by: location standards, siting standards, and design standards — "the things we review special use permits for." Mr. Rooker said, "It provides a much more objective framework than we've had to this point." Mr. Loewenstein added, "And using the Comprehensive Plan as a backdrop, which I think is important." Mr. Fritz said, "What we are envisioning is that this would be a component of the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Rooker said, "I would be in favor of going forward as expeditiously as possible for draft language for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment ... I think the quicker we have this in place the better off we're going to be, and we can react to that language." All fellow Commissioners agreed. Commissioners also stated that they would like to consider the item again in a worksession format while simultaneously scheduling the public hearing as Mr. Cilimberg suggested. Commissioners asked if the design manual would be an actual part of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fritz said that it would. Mr. Kreines interjected, "Wouldn't the design manual, if we're going to call it that, be a free-standing document. And wouldn't there be a bridge between your free-standing document and the Comprehensive Plan which might be called a Comprehensive Plan Amendment... but would it be fair to say that the design manual per se itself is going to be an element of the Comprehensive Plan?" Mr. Fritz indicated that it would all be part of the Plan. Mr. Nitchmann cautioned, "As technology is changing, we don't want to go through Comp Plan reviews to change an element of the [manual]." Mr. Cilimberg said, "Let me suggest that we work with that because I have not had that discussion with Ted [Kreines] or Bill [Fritz], and I need to have that discussion as to what's going to work." Mr. Loewenstein said, "I think whatever we do in this manual should be flexible enough so that it will adapt itself without significant change to that new technology.... I'm sure there are things that no one can conceive of, but hopefully in the foreseeable future, whatever new technology emerges, we'll be able to utilize at least the bulk of this intact." Mr. Cilimberg said, "They are ways we can deal with that manual as a design guideline such as the ARB has a book that is their design guideline. You don't have to legislate that — you refer to it." He added, "I think that amendment is where you're going to have your standards and your policy statements." Commissioners commended staff and Mr. Kreines on their work on the policy. Mr. Cilimberg clarified, "We're going to bring this back to you in amendment form probably with a ;lra#' design tnat,>*al that yeti ,;aan .eview in woiksessio j, ,.id what we'll do is go ahead and tiei, ,ui 57 advertised public heating date as well - it will probably be a couple weeks after that worksession, so as quick a turnaround as possible after that." Mr. Rooker said, "I wouldn't hold up the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the design manual .... don't ,,. know that we want to take a design manual to public hearing..." Old Business Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the list of committee memberships held by Commissioners, who stated their preferences for membership. A new list will be distributed with changes: Bypass Design Committee (no change); CIP Technical Committee (no change); PACTEC (Rodney Thomas and Pete Anderson); Communication Tower Task Force (no change); DISC (no change); Fiscal Impact Committee (Dennis Rooker); Historic Preservation Committee (no change); Meadowcreek Parkway Design Committee change); PDR Committee (Bill Finley); RATS (Rodney Thomas); Design Standard Handbook Committee (Will Rieley). Mr. Nitchmann asked about the new chairs. He asked when the Luck Stone entrance and light issue would come before the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said the item would be considered on either the or 16th of March. Mr. Rooker asked about the additional information requested from the last worksession. Mr. stated that staff has exhausted their research in terms of providing information on the impact of this of development on other communities, and referenced a report provided to the to address the impact issue. He said that the reports compiled by staff would be hand -delivered to Commission on February 18th• Mr. Cilimberg stated that comparing sales tax figures in the year a store such as Wal-Mart opened for the county versus the city for stores within that same category of stores would be the extent of the information staff could provide. New Business Mr. Finley reported that he received an e-mail commending Bill Fritz and Mary Joy Scala for assisting two people looking for a home in Ridgecrest. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. V. Wayne Cilimberg,