HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 20 1999 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 20,1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
April 20,1999 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present were: Mr.
William Finley, Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr.
Rodney Thomas; Mr. Samuel Anderson. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
of Planning & Community Development; Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior
Planner; Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Senior Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner,
Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. William
Nitchmann.
A quorum was established with 5 of 7 members present.
Approval of Minutes — April 6,1999.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the minutes of April 6, 1999; Mr.
Loewenstein did not participate in the vote, as he was absent from the April 6 meeting.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meetings — April 7 h and April 14a'
Mr. Cilimberg presented a review of the meetings, stating that the Board did not take up any items in
their April 7`h meeting that had previously been presented to the Commission. He noted that at that
meeting, the Board discussed the condition of the Advance Mills Bridge, and discussed whether the
bridge should be continued under continuous maintenance or replaced. The Board decided to continue
maintenance at this time to sure up the structure and extend its useful life because it is an important part
of the Advance Mills community; there will be further analysis over the next few years as to what
ultimately may need to be done with the bridge. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board discussed at both
meetings jogging trails at the Jack Jouett School that were reviewed by VDOT as part of the Route 29
Bypass project; the Board expressed concern about the VDOT "4-F" review and what it found and has
made recommendations to VDOT to go back to the original EIS and look at other alternatives that would
have avoided the impacts that occurred with the bypass in its proposed location.
Mr. Cilimberg said at the April 14t' meeting, the Board approved three items that the Planning
Commission had previously considered — the Stony Mountain Fibers home occupation; the Good
Shepherd Church addition; and the Zoning Text Amendment allowing for variation from regulations in
the Planned Development Industrial Park district. The Board also considered the setback variation in the
North Fork park, and agreed with the request to allow the reduction, but expressed concerns (as the
Commission did) about the most recent PRA building and the lights from that building. The Board felt
that the lighting issue needed to be further addressed, and deferred it to their May day meeting, and
asked that UREF meet with county representatives and the Route 606 community to discuss the lighting
and screening that exists.
Mr. Rooker commented that in viewing the lights at the recent lighting tour, the lighting at the site is full
cut-off lighting, but the louvers that provide the cutoff are reflective, and the light bounces around the
louvers, creating a situation where the light shines directly at the viewer from any angle. Mr. Rieley
suggested that the definition of "full cut-off lighting" might need to be reviewed; Mr. Rooker said there
may need to be a practical description — as well as a technical one — that prevents this. Mr. Cilimberg
said that after a year of the ZTA approval in 1998, there would be some review of how the ordinance
was working.
117
Mr. Rooker further commented that when UREF came before the Commission for the waiver, there was
discussion about additional screening on the berm to shield the PRA building from the adjacent
neighborhood. "At the time we were there, which is two months later, the only thing on that berm was
grass." Mr. Cilimberg said this issue was slated for discussion at the next Board of Supervisors meeting.
Mr. Thomas commented that the lighting at St. Anne's Bellefield; Mr. Rooker said that the near full cut-
off lighting at St. Anne's does not create the halo effect that most athletic field lighting does.
Mr. Anderson added that he participated in the lighting tour, and agreed that the foot candles at the
research park are "exactly the lighting you would want within the parking area," but the effect of the
light going out horizontally is not satisfactory, and UREF has been working to address the problem
through the manufacturer to have the lights refitted. He said the landscaping design is also underway.
Unscheduled Items
The Chairman solicited unscheduled items from the public. None were offered, and the meeting
proceeded.
Consent Agenda --(a) Tim Fisher and (bl SDP 98-156 Western Albemarle High School — (a)
Request for off -site and cooperative parking in downtown Crozet and (b) Critical Slopes Waiver
Request.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the Consent Agenda.
SDP 98-156 Western Albemarle High School Maior Amendment — Request for site plan amendment
and waiver approvals for various site improvements. Deferred from the March 16 Planning
Commission meeting; Request indefinite deferral.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Thomas seconded indefinite deferral of SDP 98-156. The motion
passed unanimously
Pounding Brook Golf Club Preliminary Site Plan - Request for preliminary site plan approval to
construct an 18-hole public golf course, with associated club house and driving range, on a total of 319
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map 73, Parcel 27G is located on the
south side of State Route 637 (Dick Woods Road), across from the Ivy Landfill Handling Center. The
property is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is not located within a designated
growth area. Deferred from the March 23, 1999 Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Rieley reminded Commissioners that Mr. Thomas had expressed an interest in the applicant and
adjoining landowner meeting to work out issues and asked staff for an update; Mr. Fritz noted that since
the March 23rd meeting, there has been no meeting with staff, the applicant and the Helvins.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Fritz to explain the nature of the screening between the golf course and the
Helvin property. Mr. Fritz said the plan shows a variety of screening in different locations, and typically
a mixture of species — using both trees and shrubs — in a double staggered row. Mr. Rooker asked if
staff agreed with the applicant on the nature of that screening. Mr. Fritz replied that staff does agree in
terms of the concept of where shrubs and trees would be used, and the variety of planting materials. Mr.
Fritz added that the site lines given on March 23rd actually show the use of different planting materials;
the berm would be located between the Helvin property and the drop-off/permanent clubhouse will be.
15R
Mr. Fritz confirmed that the distance between the clubhouse and the Helvin property was 344 feet.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the plantings might be more mature than what would be placed under normal
circumstances. Mr. Fritz responded that staff will be looking at the species at the time of planting to
ensure that they are achieving the screening that needs to be done — either by increasing their number or
the size.
Mr. Fritz said the parking lot is below the site line of the house, but some of the other areas would be
visible from the house or from other portions of the property as previously noted.
Mr. Helvin told the Commission that he has not had any discussion with the applicant since the last
meeting, but said "our concerns are basically the same as what we've brought before you before: the
fact that the focal point of the operational aspect of the golf course is centered around our house .... our
hopes would be that some adjustment could have been made to that in view of the number of acres of the
total parcel." He confirmed that his property has always been surrounded by other owners.
Mr. Mark Watson, the applicant's representative, addressed the Commission. "We feel as if we've met
the conditions, and we believe that we've actually gone beyond what the conditions actually required."
He stated that they understand the Helvin's concerns, but their property is unfortunately the "keystone"
of a larger site, and if it were further into the site, the golf course designers could get fairways near their
house. Mr. Watson said that because it is located down close to the corner of the parcel, "it's impossible
for us to safely get fairways and logistically fit fairways around the Helvin's property and get any return
of fairways anywhere else." He added that they have attempted to "move everything back as far as we
can," with the corner of the nearest structure — the clubhouse — 340 feet from the Helvin's 340 feet
away.
Mr. Watson added that the applicant has proposed a temporary clubhouse to be located in the parking lot
for approximately 3 years after the opening of the course to allow for the establishment of the berm and
screening between the Helvin's and the construction site and create a separation. He thanked
Commissioners for the confidence they showed at the last meeting (March 23rd) when this item was
discussed. Mr. Watson said Mr. Helvin "is a very difficult person to please. We might continually
make adjustments to the site plan, and Mr. Helvin may never be satisfied. I can assure you that I will
work with the Helvins during the process of design on this property, and... what you see on the site plan
in terms of a staggered double -row will most probably be a far more densely planted type of screen."
Mr. Rooker asked if staff has looked at the design of the golf course and determined whether they agree
with the applicant that he cannot rearrange the facilities in light of the demands of the golf course, the
location of the Helvin property, etc.
Mr. Fritz responded that is hard for him to evaluate since he is not a golf course architect, but there are
other areas on site, although he is unsure what they do in terms of effecting the golf course layout. "Can
you move things around? There's a lot of acreage. But what does it do to the layout? I don't know, not
being a golf course architect."
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Watson how much time was spent looking at various other layouts of holes that
could be accommodated.
Mr. Watson replied that the architects spent most of last summer attempting to do routing plans for the
course; the initial plans tried to keep as much of the course as possible, but only 15 holes could be
accommodated. "The size of the site is somewhat deceiving. Because of its topography and the water
courses running through it, it's actually a fairly restricted site; the addition of the Helvin property and
li9
the problems that that creates with locating golf holes and trying to create a flow of holes that returns to
the golf clubhouse puts us in a situation where we are unable to do anything else other than what we
have done. The fact that we need to impound water courses as well causes some problems, and VDOT
has restricted our entry point to a location on a straight piece of 637, which basically fronts the Helvins.
In our attempt to be sensitive to the site as well, we want to try to reduce the amount of impervious
surfaces, try to keep those roads as short as possible, and we need to back up sufficient water to act as an
irrigation pond, so the golf course will survive. There just isn't any places that we can locate the three
active... portions of the golf course other than where they are located."
Mr. Rieley asked if Mr. Watson had shared any of the different attempts to design the course and protect
the Helvins (as stipulated in the conditions) with staff. Mr. Watson replied that he had not.
Mr. Finley commented that the question he had asked at the March 23`d meeting was still unanswered:
whether there are other places that the clubhouse, etc. could go. "There were some statements made last
time that there's no other place to put it, but I still don't know if that's correct, and still feel that a citizen
that I respect very highly is closed in with golf carts, parking, the club —I realize the problem of both
ways, but I think I'll forever think of him sitting there surrounded by all of that."
Mr. Watson said, "We have no desire to have a disgruntled homeowner in the middle of the golf course.
We will do everything that we possibly can to ensure the Helvins' comfort, within the context of the
facility. We've offered to plant historically accurate plant materials to actually enhance not only the
look, but the environment of the Helvin property. We'll do as much as we can to ensure that the golf
course doesn't impact him in what he feels is going to be a negative way." Mr. Watson added that there
are negatives to having fairways run beside a property, also, such as safety concerns with golf balls, and
early morning mowing. "These are issues that he won't have to deal with the present design.
Mr. Thomas asked if they were planning to have electric carts or gasoline. Mr. Watson answered
electric. Mr. Thomas commented that electric carts are quiet.
Mr. Thomas stated, "This is a very good use of that piece of property, and I really fell like the applicant
has done as much as they possibly can do to meet the demands. They've changed a lot of the layout of
where the clubhouse was; they've lowered the driving range, they've lowered the parking lot, they've
added berms, and I feel like the site is workable just like it is as long as they can secure an agreement
with Mr. Helvin that it would be an ongoing process of pleasing him so he'll have livability there. I
really feel like it's a good use of the site, personally and for the County of Albemarle."
Mr. Rooker agreed, "I think a golf facility open to the public is needed in the community, and this is a
good place for that facility. I think the applicant has spent a lot of time trying to be sensitive to the
environmental considerations of the property in addition to the Helvin's situation. I'm not totally
convinced that there might not be a layout of the golf course that might be a little more protective, but
on the other hand, I'm not in a position to redesign the course, and staff has not indicated that they are in
a position to do so either. I do want to make certain that staff in the conditions... has given full
consideration to the Helvin's situation in terms screening both from a visual and a noise standpoint to
make certain those conditions — given the present design of the course — are as good as we can do."
Mr. Fritz referenced condition 3(a), noting that it is different from what might normally be included, as
includes language that says "screening trees/shrubs shall be of a species that will establish a substantial
visual barrier at the time of planting and maintain the visual barrier at the time of maturity. You don't
,. normally see that condition..." He added that the barrier will provide somewhat of a sound barrier just
by virtue of the vegetation.
16n
Mr. Rooker mentioned that in Farmington, there are a number of homes very near the active areas — the
tennis courts, the clubhouse — and the property values there don't seem to have been diminished by their
location near those facilities. "We do have to recognize that [Mr. Helvin] does not own the surrounding
property, and the surrounding property owner does have a reasonable right to use his property, and I
think he's brought forward a good plan for the community, and he's added some facets to this plan —
such as making the course an Audubon signature... course, providing for nature trails, use by schools of
the facilities, and there are a number of schools out in that area I think that can take advantage of this. I
think that balancing all these things, this is a good plan, and I hope that going forward, every
consideration will be given to the Helvins, in terms of trying to as best as possible, maintain their
serenity."
Mr. Rieley commented that he agrees with Mr. Rooker and Mr. Thomas on most points, but said, "I
think we may be missing the point somewhat in trying to second guess whether or not there's another
better arrangement for this. I don't think that's the issue as it was put before us. The Supervisors set the
conditions for the site plan, and they wanted - they said very clearly — a site plan that respected the
privacy, the historic setting, and the livability of the Helvins, and whether or not this applicant can come
up with a routing plan that satisfies that requirement I think is the bottom line. And I continue to think
that they have not — I agree with staff, and I think staff s position has remained the same."
Mr. Rieley continued, "this is a rural area, and while it's quite true the Helvins don't own the property
around the outside of them, I think there are reasonable expectations that one can expect in a rural
area... and I thought that we had built that reasonable expectation into our motion when we passed the
special use permit. I doubt there are many of us that live in a rural area who would regard a 150-foot
parking lot adjacent to our property appropriate adjacent land use... I don't think that when the
Supervisors said they wanted the privacy, the historic setting and the livability of the Helvins that they
envisioned — and certainly I didn't, when I voted in favor of the Special Use Permit — a clubhouse on
one side, a parking lot on one side, a driving range on one side, and the toe of a dam on the other side,
completely surrounding this property. It's precisely what I thought what we are saying `if you can work
this out and protect this important historic site as well as the privacy of these people, then you've met
the conditions of the special use permit; otherwise, you have not,' and it seems to me they have not. I
think... one aspect of this that hasn't been talked about enough is the importance of this house. Berming
around the perimeter of a historic house is completely... unsympathetic and inconsistent with the setting
of a historic farmhouse."
Mr. Rieley concluded that while he likes the idea of a golf course on this property and appreciates what
the applicant's environmental consideration, the site still doesn't meet the conditions of the special use
permit. "We didn't set them... the Board of Supervisors set them, and I don't believe the Board of
Supervisors believe that they have been met." Mr. Rieley added that the Supervisor from the Samuel
Miller district, where the property lies, does not believe the conditions have been met.
Mr. Loewenstein agreed. "I think a lot of what my colleagues who previously spoke have said makes a
lot of sense... but I am not satisfied that there is no other way to do this. I don't think that has been
talked about or documented well enough for us. I agree that this is... far from ideal from the perspective
of the Helvin's peace and quiet and enjoyment of their property as well as for the historic setting of the
property." Mr. Loewenstein added that berming around a historic site "contradicts everything about the
importance of preserving those sites that we know by changing the landscape completely." He
concluded, "I don't think the conditions have been met either, and I think more needs to be done."
Mr. Rooker asked which end of the driving range is located in the "activity area." Mr. Fritz responded
that golfers are teeing off from the right hand side, and hitting towards the left.
1Ft
Mr. Finley commented that the press had inaccurately reported that he was in favor of the site plan.
"One of the things we requested... is that there would be more communication with the Helvins, but
there wasn't... I haven't changed from last time."
Mr. Watson then asked that the item be deferred indefinitely.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the item does not have to be advertised for hearing, but could just be set for its
continuation date when the applicant is ready; letters will be sent to adjacent owners at that time,
notifying them that the item is up for consideration again.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded deferral of the item. The motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Rooker asked who suggested the berms. Mr. Kamptner read Condition # 11 of the Special Use
Permit, which states "Planning Commission approval in conjunction with site plan review of minimum
setbacks, landscaped and earthen buffers and similar improvements designed to address visual and noise
impacts of the golf course on, and to respect the livability and historical significance of buildings on Tax
Map 73, Parcel 27."
Mr. Fritz stated that that condition was one not originally recommended by staff, but had initially been
suggested by a Commissioner; he added that he believes the berms were on the original plans submitted.
Mr. Rooker commented that he would like to give the applicant some guidance for screening between
the Helvin property if the berms are not appropriate. He asked if staff would confer with the applicant
on that issue, and discuss it with the Helvins.
Mr. Watson indicated that the berms were not on the applicant's initial site plan submittal, adding that
he did not feel the berms were appropriate historically or ecologically, but they were asked to put them
on to increase the amount of buffering from the Helvin's property. `Berms are virtually always a
mistake, especially from a hydrologic standpoint. They would cause all kinds of problems regarding
microclimate; they would stop wind from moving; they would create shade problems, and they would
also cut down on the views to the golf course by the Helvins."
Mr. Bill Atwood, pedestrian citizen, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern that at the last
meeting, which was a public hearing where the public came out and spoke in favor of the site plan, the
Commission had supported the plan. "I'm puzzled tonight about how this has taken a right turn... as I
remember... we were actually talking about criteria for approval, and we were going to discuss those
criteria tonight. We've kind of gone all the way back now, and we're discussing conceptual issues that
quite frankly, people sat here for hours last time and felt like we'd gotten there. We can't get past first
base here; we seem to be going back..."
Mr. Finley said, "It was not a consensus last time definitely."
Mr. Atwood responded, "There was more people in favor of this last time than against it." He said there
were a lot of people who would have come to this meeting if they'd known the item was going to be
"reintroduced in this format."
Mr. Cilimberg explained that there is an approval of the golf course by the Board of Supervisors with
conditions. The 11t" condition given to the project by the Board specified that the Commission had to
approve a site plan that met certain criteria. "Your vote is on approval of a site plan for a use that's
already been approved that meets those conditions. No public hearing requirement... you had a public
l 61)
hearing in your first meeting. I think you know how people feel about the golf course. It's really about
the design and meeting the criteria of the Special Use Permit." He added that approval of the site plan
that meets the conditions of the site plan is what the Commissioners need to vote on.
Public Hearing Items
SP 99-06 Northway/Avis — Truck Rentals (Sign #69, 70) — Request for special use permit to allow
motor vehicle rental in the urban area. The property, described as Tax map 61 W, Section 2, Block C,
Parcel 2, contains less than 1 acre, and is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Seminole Trail
[Route 29N], at the NE corner of Westfield Road. The property is zoned C 1 Commercial. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Community Service in Urban Area 2. Applicant
requests deferral to May 4, 1999.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rieley seconded deferral of SP 99-06 to May 0'. The motion
passed unanimously.
SP 99-08 Outdoor Display (Sign #71, 72) — Request for special use permit to allow outdoor display of
rental automobiles in the EC in accordance with Section 30.6.3.2.b of the Zoning Ordinance, which
allows for outdoor storage, display and/or sales of automobiles when visible from the EC. The property,
described as Tax Map 61 W, Section 2, Block C, Parcel 2, contains less than 1 acre, and is located in the
Rio Magisterial District on Seminole Trail [Route 29N], at the northeast corner of Westfield Road. The
property is zoned C I Commercial and the Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Community
Service in Urban Area 2. Applicant requests deferral to May 4, 1999.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of the deferral of SP 99-08 to May 4`h.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP 99-09 CFW CV203 (Lickinghole Repeater Sign #59) — CFW Communications requests to
construct an eighty [80] foot telephone pole type tower with two panel antennas that will not exceed the
surrounding tree tops (Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance). The site is located on a 6-acre parcel
zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor. Property, described as Tax Map 57, Parcel 411, is
located on the southern side of Route 250 West, approximately one mile west of the Mechums River
crossing. The site is located in the White Hall Magisterial District and is located within a designated
growth area. Applicant requests deferral to April 27, 1999.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of the deferral of SP 99-09 to April 27th.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-63 Trinity Presbyterian Church (Sign #34, 35) — Petition for a special use permit to allow an
additional building and parking on the parcel in accordance with Section 13.2.2.10 of the Zoning
Ordinance which allows churches by special use permit. The property, described as Tax Map 76 parcels
17C and 17C 1 is located at 3101 Fontaine Avenue where Fontaine Avenue dead -ends near the northwest
interchange of Interstate 64 and the Route 250 Bypass. The property is zoned R1 Residential for single-
family residences and uses supportive of residential uses. The Comprehensive Plan designates the
161
property as neighborhood density residential in Neighborhood 6 of the Comprehensive Plan. Applicant
requests deferral to June 1, 1999.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of the deferral of SP 98-63 to
June 1, 1999.
SP 99-03 La Yapa (Sign #81) — Request to allow a tile production and the painting business in
accordance with Section 10.2.2 (31) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for home occupation class b.
The property, described as Tax Map 28, Parcel 30A, contains approximately 21 acres, and is located in
the White Hall Magisterial District on the east side of Ballards Mill Road [Route #671] approximately 1/2
mile south of the intersection of Ballards Mill Road and Wesley Chapel Road [Route #609]. The
property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area.
Applicant requests indefinite deferral.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded indefinite approval of deferral of SP 99-03.
The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Fritz asked Commissioners to hold onto the staff reports on the
item for the date it is considered.
SP 99-14 CFW CV137 (Lickinghole Sign #54) — CFW Communications requests to remove an
existing television reception antenna and attach communication antennas on it (Section 10.2.2.6 of the
Zoning Ordinance). The site is located on a 3.4 acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas, and EC Entrance
Corridor. Property, described as Tax Map 56, Parcel 104, is located on the southern side of Route 250
West, and is the site of an existing motel. This site is located in the White Hall Magisterial District and
is not located within a designated growth area.
Mr. Fritz referenced a map that shows all activity within 2,000 feet of the proposed site, including
zoning and structures. He indicated that staff will now provide these for applications that are too large
to include in Commission packets.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, noting minor corrections within the report. He explained that
the applicant is petitioning to allow for an attachment of a personal wireless service which requires an
existing television reception tower. The proposal is to remove the television reception antenna and
locate two panel antennas on top of the existing tower, therefore maintaining the existing 65-feet in
height. Mr. Morrisette said the panel antenna are different than those previously considered by the
Commission; the size of the antennas proposed are narrower — approximately 6'xl'.
He said the tower site is located at the rear of the Greenwood Motel, which was constructed prior to the
adoption of the 1980 Zoning Ordinance. The motel constructed the 65-foot television reception tower,
which is a lattice structure, to accommodate motel guests. Since then, the motel has subscribed to
satellite service, and no longer uses the structure.
Mr. Morrisette explained that the location is designated Rural Areas, and the Comprehensive Plan
currently contains limited review criteria for the siting of telecommunication towers in rural areas. The
only resource identified in the plan that will potentially be affected by the application is the entrance
corridor, which the ARB currently addresses. Staff notes that in order to construct the proposed facility,
no clearing for access or provision for electric service will be required. The ARB has reviewed the
application, and has found no conflicts with the proposal; he noted the attachment to the report
containing their comments. As a condition of ARB approval, staff has included the same conditions
which basically state that the antennas and the supporting element shall be painted to match the existing
164
tower. Planning staff also finds that the visibility of the structure may actually decrease with the
removal of the large reception antenna; staff therefore recommends approval with conditions as outlined
in the staff report.
Mr. Morrisette noted that the applicant is not requesting any additional height above the existing tower,
and staff opinion is that the additional two panel antennas will result in a limited change in the
appearance of the tower. He commented that the proposed antennas are "flush mount" and are closer in
to the vertical structure.
He added that Commission action on the proposal also includes a site -plan waiver, which is typical of
these types of applications. Staff recommends approval of the waiver subject to conditions under the
recommended actions.
Mr. Morrisette stated that the applicant's engineers have determined that they will have to replace the
top 1/3 of the structure to support the weight of the antennas. The structure is corroded at the top, and
there is a condition in the staff report stating that the new part of the tower would have to match the
existing structure in design and appearance.
Mr. Morrisette concluded by reviewing the positive aspects of the application as outlined in his staff
report, stating that staff has been unable to identify any factors unfavorable to this request. He added
that the item deferred earlier in the meeting — the Lickinghole Repeater site — is part of a network which
would carry the signal from the proposed SP 99-14 site further down Route 250.
Mr. Morrisette suggested additional conditional language which address the height and width of the
proposed antennas — 6'xl'.
Mr. Rieley asked if staff would have the same opinion on the proposal if the entire structure had been
corroded instead of just the top third. Mr. Morrisette replied that if the entire tower were corroded, it
would probably sit idly until the applicant decided to remove it for insurance purposes.
Mr. Fritz added that the tower would come close to the concept of the treetop facilities, as it stands
between the motel itself and the treeline behind it.
Mr. Rieley commented that it seems to be a reasonable use of the existing tower, but worries that every
tower in Albemarle County, no matter how decrepit, will always be a tower, because they are targeted
for antenna. He asked if the entire tower could be rebuilt under the special use permit.
Mr. Fritz responded that the permit allows for a 65-foot tower, but its current use is for "receive only."
Mr. Cilimberg added, "As a non -conforming use, it can always be replaced." Mr. Fritz emphasized that
"receive only" is treated differently than "receive and transmit."
Mr. Rooker suggested a condition be added to require removal of the tower, not just the antenna when
the telecommunications equipment stops being used. He said, "I don't know that we would necessarily
want an ugly, deteriorating tower to be sitting there indefinitely, awaiting some potential future use
where we would be faced with the same issues again. Every other tower that we allow to be built, we put
that kind of language in — if it's a new tower being built."
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the facility with a special use permit approval will become a special -use
permitted facility, so any condition attached will "run with the land." He emphasized that if the use was
discontinued and the tower removed, a 65-foot "receive only" antenna could be placed there, although
modern technology would probably preclude that happening.
16S
Mr. Loewenstein expressed concern that at some point the lower 2/3 of the tower is going to be unusable
because of its conditions. "If we put a new structure, or portion of structure, on top of this, I think the
lower portion is likely to be somewhat weakened much more quickly than would have been the case
previously because presumably these things lose some weight as they corrode." He commented, "I
don't have anything that tells me what's going to happen if it falls down two years after we approve the
top third going up... the bottom portion is clearly going to be corroding... "
Mr. Morrisette suggested that the applicant could speak to this issue, and possibly an engineering report
could be developed prior to the item reaching the Board.
Mr. Finley asked, "In considering a special use permit, how far do we go in inspecting the tower, and
getting reports and all of that?"
Mr. Loewenstein said while he is not expecting a full-blown engineering report, "I don't see any
information in the staff report at all... addressing the condition of the tower to any real degree .... do we
have any idea how long it might continue to function if we add this to it... T'
Mr. Thomas noted, "It's a very unsafe tower right now and the person that's putting the antennas on it is
going to make it a safer tower by reconstructing the top of it."
The applicant, Mr. Tom Whitaker of CFW Wireless, addressed the Commission. He provided an outline
of CFW, explaining that CFW is a partner with Virginia PCS alliance of 10 independent telephone
companies and American Electric Power; the coalition owns PCS licenses covering most of Western
Virginia and the entire Shenandoah Valley. Services, including local long distance, wireless
communications, cable TV, paging, etc., are offered under the tradename CFW Intellos through two
store locations in Charlottesville.
Mr. Whitaker said that PCS is a low -power, high capacity digital wireless network, operating at a much
higher frequency than analog cellular systems currently in service in the region. Digital PCS does not
have the same wide -area coverage as traditional cellular systems, thus requiring more sites to provide
coverage. He reviewed CFW's applications in the county, beginning in September 1997; the current
customer base in Charlottesville/Albemarle makes approximately 150,000 call attempts each week on
the Intellos system. Since developing the system in the county, CFW has brought 20 new digital PCS
sites into service; there are 5 new sites in the county or city currently under development — only 3 are
new full size tower sites, approved in the county in 1998. All three towers have attracted co -locations
since construction.
Mr. Whitaker emphasized that CFW has gone to great lengths to use imbedded vertical infrastructure —
"friendly sites" — including one in the steeple of St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Ivy. He added that this
application is in keeping with the company's effort to use an existing structure, as the county
encourages. Mr. Whitaker said that CFW introduced the concept of the "wooden pole mini cell site" in
1998, and have deployed 6 new such sites with "much success" — including Bell Air, Covesville and
Lake Monticello. He added that the wooden pole sites were commended highly by the county's RF
consultant.
He said that the purpose of the current proposal is to improve CFW's coverage on Route 250, south of
Crozet, and will extend digital coverage west towards Crozet and east towards Meechums Creek, which
currently has an "unacceptable grade of service." Their plan is to replace a portion of existing tower that
is 65 feet high; the panel antenna are approximately 6'xl'. Mr. Whitaker said that a licensed engineer
I
who inspected the tower determined that the majority of the tower would need to be replaced. He said
that they are prepared to replace the entire tower, but with this application intend to replace the top third.
Mr. Whitaker presented photos of the existing tower, propagation analysis which shows CFW's
prospective coverage from the location. He noted that the ARB has granted a certificate of
appropriateness for this site. Mr. Whitaker noted that their previously approved mini -sites contain whip
antennas painted brown to match surroundings; the panel antenna provide a different type of coverage —
coverage on Route 250. He commented that there are narrow panel antennas now available which could
replace the whip antennas at the mini -pole sites.
Mr. Loewenstein asked for more detail regarding the condition of the existing tower.
Mr. Whitaker responded that a Richmond -based engineering firm inspected the tower and reported that
the top section was "in a deteriorating state" and it would serve CFW best to replace it and
scrape/galvanize the remainder of the tower and inspect all of the welds and mechanical joints on the
remaining sections of the tower. "If we're going to use [the tower], I think we should put every effort
into bringing it up to a standard that we can use it for a good long time, and that's certainly our
intention. This site serves us well."
Mr. Whitaker said that their technology combined with the mini cell -sites has given CFW an effective
network in the county, although it may not work for their competitors. "We know, as a new player in
the industry, it's going to cost us more per covered person to put our energy on the ground with the
technology that we've chosen, but if we want to compete, we've got to get the sites approved, and we
know that sites like this, we do our job, we have a better chance of getting approved than a site on
Dudley Mountain."
Mr. Finley asked who maintains the CFW towers.
Mr. Whitaker responded that CFW maintains everything 6 foot and below on the tower, and use
Shenandoah Tower Services of Staunton to do the remainder of the work. He explained that an
independent company usually inspects the construction of the tower immediately after its built; annually,
towers are inspected for damage.
Mr. Rieley asked if a wooden pole would be an option in the Greenwood Motel location if the existing
tower were not there at all. Mr. Whitaker said it would be, but it might be less noticeable to keep the
lattice structure or replace it with another lattice structure. He confirmed that these types of panel
antenna could be mounted on a wooden pole, and mentioned a Nelson County site which was recently
constructed with that arrangement.
Mr. Fritz commented that the types of antenna proposed for the motel site are also located on the old
Virginia Power concrete tower on 5'h Street — with three antenna on top operated by Triton, and further
down the pole, two CFW antenna flush mounted to the pole.
Mr. Heinz Adam, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He asked if the approval of
the special use permit would preclude the possibility of collocation on the tower. Mr. Morrisette said
that the Commission could add a condition that no other antennas could be located on the tower without
an additional special use permit. Mr. Adam commented that without specifications, any kind and
quantity of panels could be attached. Mr. Morrisette and Commissioners noted that Condition #3 limits
the permit to two antenna, and by law, the permit provides for the two antenna only.
IF&A
Mr. Adam asked what the applicant would be permitted to rebuild if the tower deteriorates in terms of
dimensions and characteristics. Mr. Morrisette noted that Condition #4 addresses the design and
appearance of any improvements to the tower. Mr. Kamptner suggested that Condition #4 could be
expanded to include language to limit the height of the tower. Mr. Rooker suggested adding the word
"size" also. Mr. Fritz suggested incorporating the wooden pole option in the language as well.
Mr. Adam asked if approval of this permit would be setting a precedent for additional towers along
Route 250. Commissioners answered that each tower request is considered on its own merit. Mr. Adam
asked if the power source would affect neighboring electronics. Mr. Fritz said that the only evidence of
interference ever found was with some types of hearing aides; the FCC ordered that the system be
redesigned to eliminate the interference, and that problem has been resolved.
Mr. Thomas stated that this proposal is the concept that the county has been looking for.
Mr. Rooker agreed, and said that since the old tower already exists it is a "wise idea" to take advantage
of it, rather than look for a different tower site; he added that it is "reasonably well -screened, given its
location in the entrance corridor."
Mr. Loewenstein said that the revisions to the conditions have made some impact to his perspective of
the application, and he could support the proposal.
Mr. Rieley agreed, although he expressed reservations about "tacking on to old towers because I think it
has the effect of perpetuating what's quite often a blight on the landscape. I'd like to see us be moving
toward true mini -cell technology in general and getting rid of as many towers as we can." He expressed
concern about the ARB's recommendation to paint the structure silver, given the forested backdrop.
Mr. Morrisette noted that he ARB has recommended that as a condition of the certificate of
appropriateness, the antennas need to be painted to match the existing tower.
Mr. Cilimberg clarified the conditions with changes: (3) the attachment shall be limited to a total of two
panel antenna, the dimensions of each which shall be approximately 6'xl', whose height shall not
exceed a maximum of 65 feet; (4) structural improvements to or replacement of the tower shall be
similar in design, size and appearance as the existing tower unless the existing tower is replaced by
wooden pole not exceeding 65 feet above the ground; (7) the tower and antenna on the tower shall be
disassembled and removed from the site within ninety days of the date its use for wireless
telecommunications purposes is discontinued.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were supposed to be plantings around the base of the Bell Air tower as a
condition of approval. Mr. Fritz recollected that he did not believe that was included as a condition, but
said they would examine the action, and added that another attractive wireless site is located on Route
53 near Nick's, about 100 yards from the road.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of SP 99-14 with the recommended
modified conditions. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of a site plan waiver for SP 99-14. The
motion passed unanimously.
Old Business
1 CIR
The Chairman announced that next week's meeting, which includes the Brass, Inc. CPA item, will be
held in the auditorium. Members of the public will be allowed to speak; those who spoke at the March
30"' public hearing will not.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Secretary
M
169