HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 04 1999 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
May 4, 1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
May 4,1999 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. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee Washington. Other officials present were:
Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior
Planner; Ms. Margaret Pickart, Design Planner; and Mr. Juandiego Wade, Transportation Planner; Mr.
Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
A quorum was established with 7 of 7 members present.
Approval of Minutes — April 20, 1999
The Commission moved, seconded and approved the minutes of April 20, 1999 as amended.
Review of Board of Supervisor Meeting of April 21St, 1999
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the Board considered three items previously seen by the Commission: the
Woodbrook Crossing Executive Suites (deferred because of letter attached to proffers that didn't
indicate what the proffers actually intended to do — moved to Board's Consent Agenda); the Import Car
Store special use permit (approved with conditions as recommended by the Commission; and St. John's
Baptist Church (approved for first phase addition). The Board also visited the UREF PRA building to
observe the lighting; UREF indicated they were not happy with the lighting results and would work on
changes to the luminaires and also intend to do more landscaping and planting of evergreens on top of
the berm that runs parallel to Route 606.
Unscheduled Items
The Chairman solicited unscheduled items from the public. None were offered, and the meeting
proceeded.
Consent Agenda
SDP 99-03 Peter Jefferson Place IV — Proposal to construct an office building which requires building
on critical slopes [4.2.3.2], curvilinear parking [4.12.6.5c], one way circulation [4.12.6.2], and a
reduction in required loading spaces [4.12.7.2].
SDP 99-026 Gordon Morris Site Plan Waiver
Request for preliminary site plan approval for conversion of existing log cabin into a dwelling on 87.05
acres zoned Rural Area (RA). The property, described as Tax Map 30 Parcel 28 is located in the White
Hall Magisterial District on Rea's Ford Road [Route 660] approximately 1 mile north of the
Charlottesville Reservoir. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area.
Mr. Rooker abstained from the vote, indicating that he has a client with a matter included within the
Consent Agenda.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Ms. Washington seconded approval of the Consent Agenda. The
motion passed unanimously.
190
Deferred Items•
SP 99-06 Northwav/Avis — Truck Rentals (Sinn #69, 70)
1010- Request for special use permit to allow motor vehicle rental in accordance with Section 22.2.2.8 of the
Zoning Ordinance, which allows for motor vehicle rental in the urban area. The property, described as
Tax Map 61W, 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 CI commercial. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Community Service in
Urban Area 2. Deferred from the April 20, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting.
SP 99-08 Northway/Avis — Truck Rentals (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 61W, 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 CI commercial. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Community Service in Urban Area 2. Deferred from
the April 20, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting.
SP 99-050 North Way Route 29 Charlottesville Inc.
Request for approval of a site plan waiver to allow expanded parking of rental vehicles with associated
site improvements on parcels of less than one acre zoned C 1 Commercial and EC Entrance Corridor.
The properties, described as Tax Map 61W, Section 2, Block C, Parcels 1 and 2, contains less than 1
acre, and is located in the Rio Magisterial District at the northeast corner of the intersection of Seminole
Trail [Route 29 North] with Westfield Road [Route 1452]. The Comprehensive Plan these properties for
Community Service in Urban Area 2. Deferred from the April 20, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting.
Ms. Pickart presented the staff report on all three items, indicating that the applications involve two
parcels on Route 29 North, just north of Westfield Road: the existing Avis rental site, and the parcel
adjacent to the south of the site — an existing service station site. She indicated that vehicles are
currently stored and displayed on the Avis site, and the rental/storage are non -conforming because of
their occurrence prior to the regulations requiring a special use permit. Ms. Pickart explained that the
applicant is requesting special use permits to allow the expansion of motor vehicle rental and outdoor
display of rental vehicles from Parcel 1 to Parcel 2; approval of the permits, which apply to both sites,
would bring the use on the north parcel into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and would allow the
use to be expanded to the south parcel. Related to the permit requests is the applicant's request for a site
plan waiver; the plan accompanying the request addresses both sites, expanded display parking and
related proposed renovations on the southern parcel.
She indicated that the expansion of the display parking constitutes shared parking, which requires
Commission approval. The primary consideration for the proposal is its impact on the Entrance
Corridor; the ARB has conducted a preliminary review of the project and does not object to the
expansion of the display parking, subject to conditions as outlined in Attachment "D" to the staff report.
Ms. Pickart continued that the site review committee has conducted a preliminary review of the site plan
and supports the site plan waiver; staff believes the shared parking would improve the access between
parcels, and the site improvements associated with the parking would improve the overall appearance of
the site. Staff recommends approval of the special use permits, the site plan waiver, and the request for
shared parking with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Ms. Pickart noted that the three parking
spaces at the northwest corner of the site previously thought to be non -conforming were not shown on
the previous site plan, and therefore parking would not be allowed within the 10-foot parking setback.
191
cm
She said that the owner of the parcel north of the site expressed concern about trucks being parked in
those spaces, and she explained the setback issue to the landowner and indicated that landscaping would
be appropriate in that location; the ARB also identified that spot as a good place for landscaping. Ms.
Pickart confirmed that the Flaming Wok Restaurant is the property north of the Avis site.
Mr. Finley asked if both entrances on Route 29 would remain open. Ms. Pickart responded that there
are currently three entrances across the two parcels; the one in the middle is proposed to be closed,
which will be handled at the site plan phase.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the ARB would resolve the "tricky balance between planting things that do a
good enough job of screening without making it difficult to get onto the highway from the parking lot."
Ms. Pickart indicated that the plan shows the landscaping strip on 29 within the right -of way, which is
one of the issues still be resolved. Mr. Loewenstein and Mr. Rieley commented that on the plan shown,
the trees will never make it from a site distance perspective.
(A public hearing combining all three items was held).
Carter Wales, a Richmond attorney representing the applicant, said they assumed that they needed to
show landscaping on the plan where the existing plant fill currently is, and now realize that that is not an
appropriate location. He stated that they are willing to move the landscaping back, into a location that
the ARB approves. Mr. Wales added that the staff references an outdoor display of rental vehicles, and
clarified that Avis plans to park the rental vehicles at the rear of the screening, leaving the front spaces
solely for customers entering to transact business.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the customers' cars would be parked for extended periods of time. Mr. Wales
said, "We don't foresee that ... we assume that they're not going to be there for extended periods. We
would not put vehicles there."
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the item was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Thomas asked if the existing building along Westfield Road would remain. Ms. Pickart stated that
the existing service station, a small metal structure containing vending machines, and the long trailer
along Westfield Road would all be demolished.
Mr. Rieley asked if the plants listed would be chosen by the applicant; Ms. Pickart said that the ARB has
modified the plant list.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Thomas seconded SP 99-06 with conditions as presented by
staff. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval SP 99-08 with conditions as
presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rieley seconded SP 99-050 with conditions as presented by
staff. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Ms. Washington seconded approval of the request for shared
parking. The motion passed unanimously.
192
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA 99-01 Pantops Place
Request to rezone 12.3 acres from R-1, R-6 and R-10 Residential to PRD Planned Residential District to
allow up to 130 dwelling units in retirement village. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcels 55
A-1 and 55 A-5 is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Route 250 East, adjacent to
Westminster Canterbury, approximately 1.13 miles from Free Bridge and the Charlottesville City limits.
The density of the development is 10.5 dwelling units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as Urban Density, recommended for 6.01— 34 dwelling units per acre in Urban Neighborhood
3, Pantops. Applicant requests deferral to June 1, 1999.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded approval of deferral of ZMA 99-01 to June 1, 1999.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP 99-07 Riverbend Limited Partnership (Sign #73, 89, 90)
Request for special use permit to allow the expansion of an existing special use permit in accordance
with Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for commercial kennel, veterinary, animal
hospital. The applicant proposes to expand the existing business in the Pantops Shopping Center (PSC)
into the adjacent space. The property, described as Tax Map 78 17D, contains 12.072 acres, and is
located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Richmond Road [Route 250] located in the PSC. The
property is zoned PD-SC, Planned Development — Shopping Center. The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Community Service in Urban Neighborhood Three (Pantops).
Mr. Wade presented the staff report, stating that the new veterinary center, if approved, would be
approximately 3,200 square feet located across from Roses. He explained that the applicant received
approval from the Board of Supervisors for the existing center in 1990; there are no residential units or
homes in the immediate area. Staff recommends approval of the permit with conditions; Mr. Wade
clarified that the expansion would actually put a concrete block wall — not brick — between the vet center
and the nearest business.
The applicant, Steve Hopkins of Great Eastern Management Company (which manages Pantops
Shopping Center), addressed the Commission. He indicated that many of the stores within Pantops have
expanded in size, and the request for the veterinary clinic is concurrent with the other expansions in the
shopping center. Mr. Hopkins stated that the mason block wall construction will help to reduce the
noise level within the clinic, and added that the Animal Medical Center hopes to add what they currently
have in existing space to increase the reception area, retail area, and waiting areas; additionally, a new
staff lounge, doctor's office, larger isolation room, and larger boarding area for animals needing
hospitalization. Mr. Hopkins concluded that the medical center has earned a good reputation in the
community, and is a great service for the east side of the county. He confirmed for Mr. Finley that only
small animals (pets) are cared for at the center.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of SP 99-07 with conditions as set forth by
staff. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 99-17 Free Bridge Office Building (Sign #36, 37, 42, 43)
Request for special use permit to improve an existing access to serve a proposed office building, in
accordance with Section 30.3.05.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for landfill within the
193
floodway fringe. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 2A, 2B, 2C, is located in the Rivanna
Magisterial District on the NE corner of Route 250 (Richmond Road) and route 1421 (Free Bridge
Lane). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Regional Service in Urban Neighborhood 3.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, representing maps displayed showing the location of the
proposed building. She clarified for Commissioners where the "cute little building" is located, and
noted a house not readily noticeable would be moved to attach to the brick building, prompting the
reason for the grading within the floodplain. Ms. Thomas indicated that the proposal would improve the
site by allowing for office use.
Mr. Thomas asked what the difference between a "flood plain" and "flood zone" is. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that there are flood zones designated for "floodplains," but this is in the "floodway fringe."
Mr. Loewenstein asked about the history of the small brick building. Mr. Thomas said it was an Amoco
filling station in 1955.
The applicant, Katorah Rowell, addressed the Commission, and informed Commissioners that the site
was also the old Greyhound Bus Station long ago. Mr. Rowell said he intends to preserve the building,
and wants to move another old building closer to the brick building, improve it, and adjoin the two. Mr.
Rowell stated that a VDOT entrance is already constructed, and he is planning to improve it beyond the
currently paved entrance VDOT built. He confirmed that he has presented a rendering of the entrance to
the ARB and showed them around the site. Mr. Rowell said the ARB was very pleased with his plans
for the site, and he feels the project will create a nice, quality office space.
Mr. Rieley agreed that the structure is a "cute little building."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of SP 99-17 with conditions as
set forth by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-09 Arrowhead CV12 (Sign #33)
Request for special use permit to allow for a personal wireless service facility in accordance with
Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio -wave transmission and relay towers.
The property, described as Tax Map 88 Parcel 26, contains 71.34 acres, and is located in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District on the east side of Route 29 South (Monacan Drive), south of Route 745
(Arrowhead Valley Road). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 4.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, referencing a map showing the two connected sites (Arrowhead
and Red Hill), and noted the map illustrating the 2000-foot radius from the tower site. She said that two
changes have been made since the application was initially made in 1998, including a letter from the
property owner stating that trees will not be cut on the property and while its in operation. Ms. Thomas
noted that the language in the letter was "a little confusing," which she addressed in her condition
regarding removal of trees, and suggested using the county's aerial photos — prepared in 1996 — to give a
reference point for changes in timbering.
Mr. Rooker asked if it was reasonable to prohibit timbering given the large size of the parcel. Ms.
Thomas responded that it would be "hard to draw the line," so she crafted the condition in a broad sense.
Mr. Loewenstein suggested striking a balance between the vagueness in the letter and the inclusion of
the entire parcel in the restriction. Mr. Rooker agreed.
194
Ms. Thomas said that the second change is in the antenna design, referencing a line -drawing provided by
the applicant which shows two rectangular antenna mounted flush to the instead of two seven -foot whip
antennas mounted on top. She stated that because of the new arrangement, the pole needs to be higher —
six feet above the top of the tallest tree within the immediate area, requiring a surveyor's statement as to
the height of that tree. Ms. Thomas indicated that previously, matching the elevation of the tree within
25 feet down slope of the tower had been discussed; but, she concurred with the applicant's request for
six feet above the prevailing tree height because it was an operational necessity.
Mr. Finley asked about the 200-feet radius regarding removal of trees. Ms. Thomas responded that that
is a standard piece of language used to keep the immediate area as minimally impacted as possible, and
she went beyond that in Condition #8 prohibiting timbering.
Mr. Loewenstein asked what the approximate grade would be where the tower is located. Ms. Thomas
said she was unsure, but the site was a hillside. Mr. Loewenstein commented that this information
would be helpful in determining how far back from the tower location trees would need to be preserved,
and the steepness of the slope would make a considerable difference.
Mr. Rooker asked that the condition previously discussed regarding collocation be included.
Mr. Kamptner noted that Condition #7, as currently worded, addresses only the permittee, not the owner
of the property. He asked what "commercial timbering" meant in Condition #8. Commissioners
concurred that the word commercial might be too vague. Mr. Rooker asked why #8 even exists, when
Condition #7 could include extension of the radius beyond 200 feet.
Ms. Thomas indicated that the tower site is located approximately 300 feet from the state route, and
approximately 1000 feet from Route 29.
Mr. Rooker said, "You may not want to allow any cutting between the site and 29 — which is downhill.
If you extended that radius and made it 1000 feet in either direction, it would still leave a lot of property
on which he could timber that would probably not impact the visibility of the tower site at all."
Ms. Thomas stated that there is an existing farm road leading to the site, which could be utilized for
timbering operations above the site.
Mr. Loewenstein commented that the tower site is just under 100 feet from the adjoining property line,
which needs to be considered. Mr. Cilimberg said that obviously the 200-feet radius could not be
applied to the adjacent property. Mr. Rooker said that the condition would only apply as long as you
were on the property. Ms. Thomas raised the issue of enforceability.
The applicant, Tom Whitaker of CFW, addressed the Commission. Mr. Whitaker reviewed the
company's past attempts to construct wireless facilities, indicating that the company withdrew its
proposal to construct a facility in the area in 1998 due to concerns regarding the character of the area
and the impact the application would have on the area. Mr. Whitaker said that although the company is
"not insensitive to the county's desire for low impact tower sites," this site is ideal and attempts to find
alternate effective locations have been unsuccessful. He emphasized CFW's commitment to low impact
sites by mentioning their wooden pole mini -cell sites throughout the county. Mr. Whitaker presented
photographs of the site and the proposed location.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Whitaker to elaborate on alternate sites attempted.
195
on
Mr. Whitaker said that the alternate sites considered — across the street to the west on Route 29; no sites
there performed well and would not connect to the proposed Red Hill site or to the existing Brent's
Mountain site because of the ground contours of the region. He stated that no sites to the north would
qualify to meet CFW's coverage objectives because of moving downhill fairly significantly as you
proceed northward; moving to the south enters the Arrowhead land conservancy area. "Our options
through there, frankly, were very limited, and I know that this was an issue when you had the original
hearing..."
Mr. Finley asked if the 10'x10' site for the tower would be leased from the landowner. Mr. Whitaker
responded that initially their sites were all 20'x20', but now they can work within a smaller area and did
plan to lease this space. He stated that the panel antenna are 11" x 71", which can be mounted almost
flush to the top of the pole.
Mr. Rieley asked if the lower end of the pole could be thinned somewhat. Mr. Whitaker indicated that
the poles are classed/specified based on the strengths of its base, and if trimmed, would be compromised
in stability.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. David Van Roijen, speaking on behalf of residents near the proposed site, addressed the
Commission. He asked the Commission to question why, if the towers are "so good-looking and
unimposing that they are being placed in our neighborhoods, rather than along the side of the road." He
suggested, "if they're so small and easily disguised, put them along the roads for those that want to use
them. Our neighborhood doesn't need this kind of dressing up." Mr. Van Roijen said he has suggested
alternate sites, but planning staff did not indicate that these had been considered; he suggested using one
of the Gleco Mills silos. Mr. Van Roijen noted that the parcel that would be hosting the tower adjoins
an agricultural district and a historic conservation easement parcel, which is why the proposal was
denied by the Commission before. "The neighbors don't want this in this rural area."
Mr. Van Roijen said that the issue of cutting trees and the setbacks is very important, noting that the
tower is a structure and should be considered a structure. "Because of the historic property and the
agricultural district, I think in keeping with the neighborhood ... you should recommend... that a 21-acre
parcel be incorporated with any approval... and as such, no further development, and only best
management practices used to conserve and/or farm the area be allowed on this 21-acre parcel." He
urged the Commission to deny the proposal and ask the applicant to "go back and work a little harder."
Mr. Bert Woods addressed the Commission, stating that the tower is just 97 feet from his property line.
Mr. Woods said, "We're not objectioning to the tower itself — the configuration of the tower — those
things are acceptable. Our point has been, that it should be closer to the road, not to a rural and
agricultural use area." Mr. Woods said the neighbors were led to believe that CFW had examined other
options for sites, but found out that they had not looked at the other sites suggested.
Mr. Woodson addressed the Commission, stating that T.E. Wood has purchased the land to make
money, especially from timbering. Mr. Woodson asked for clarification of the lease arrangement, and
noted the ambiguity in Mr. Wood's letter, and asked how the "no timbering" would be enforced. Mr.
Woodson reported that a local timber -cutter told him he was cutting timber from T.E. Wood's property.
Mr. Woodson stated that the fact that neighbors have put their property in conservation easement should
have a bearing on the Commission's decision.
196
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the application is for the entire property, and emphasized that the special use
permit runs with the land, not with the company, and doesn't run with just the leased area unless that is
the area specified in the application — it was not platted out as such in this application.
Mr. Thomas commented, "We're not privy to the terms of the lease. That's why I played it safe... and
was very broad."
Mr. Rooker asked if the size of the parcel that's leased is irrelevant to the restriction. Ms. Thomas
confirmed this.
Ms. Ann Woods-Guzzati said that they have put a conservation easement on the Arrowhead Ridge, and
feels strongly that commercial structures should not be put on the mountains unless there is a compelling
reason to do so. She stated that the property is just 10 minutes from town, and thus cellular phone
service for emergencies is not warranted, and asked if there is cellular coverage in the area. CFW
indicated they have no service there, other carriers do.
Mr. Van Roijen presented a petition signed by 40 neighbors (Attachment "A" ).
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann stated that Mr. T.E. Wood's letter gives the impression that he still feels he has the right
to cut timber on the remainder of the parcel not used for the tower site. Mr. Nitchmann asked why the
tower couldn't just be located on Route 29.
Ms. Thomas responded that the ARB might react unfavorably as this is an Entrance Corridor location.
**aw Mr. Cilimberg stated, "There in fact have been some VDOT tower requests in parts of the state, and
even some proposals in Albemarle County ... the Board of Supervisors wrote a letter expressing concern
about locating towers in VDOT right-of-way and not having the opportunity to review those towers
through the same review we have with a special use permit for private property ... If it were to go through
VDOT, there is potential — because VDOT is not subject to our special use permit provisions — that it
would just go in a location they determined they liked, and would not necessarily end up being located
as we might like it to be."
Mr. Kamptner added that the County Attorney's office has taken the position — along with some other
localities — that when private enterprise comes into the VDOT right-of-way seeking to make uses that
are not public transportation related that the Zoning Ordinance does apply, even within the VDOT right-
of-way. He added that it would be subject to special use permit review, and the question of whether
these types of facilities are subject to evaluation for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is
currently in the Virginia Supreme Court.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there was an effort in the last General Assembly session to clarify local power
for towers in VDOT right-of-way, which did not make it out of committee.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the silos would work for antenna location.
Mr. Whitaker said that the silos would not work for CFW or probably any other carrier because they are
too low to "connect" with Route 29. Mr. Whitaker stated that getting involved with VDOT would "put
us in a very precarious relationship with the county." He added that VDOT aggressively pursued every
wireless carrier in the county and every other county in the state for by -right collocation opportunities in
197
the right of way. Mr. Whitaker said that after discussions with staff, "if we went down that road it
would probably lead to a long and precarious relationship with the county."
Mr. Rooker suggested that Condition #8 does not really offer a restriction at all, given the vagueness of
**AW the word "commercial," and suggested increasing the 200 feet in Condition #7 to 1000 feet that would
prevent any cutting between Route 29 and the tower site, and still leave a substantial amount of property
for timbering. Mr. Nitchmann agreed.
Mr. Rooker asked if the special use permit could be terminated if the conditions were violated. Mr.
Kamptner said that the Board would have to initiate a revocation procedure, and said it would also be a
Zoning violation.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the northwestern part of the property may reach the 29 right-of-way, but there
is very little land that is within the application parcel between the tower and 29 that would be subject to
the 1000-foot condition. He suggested that if the Commission's primary concern is for no clearing
between the tower and 29, and no clearing from the tower going up the mountain to the point where the
backdrop effect is in place, staff would need to work on a distance between this meeting and the board
meeting to establish it more precisely.
Mr. Loewenstein said, "We're still looking essentially at the same application we've seen before for this
site, and we can't get around the fact whether we move it up or down the slope a little that this is pretty
close to a conservation easement ... I think the county has encouraged landowners in rural areas to put
their land into this kind of use with some thought that we would try to protect the action that they've
taken by not doing something like this less than 100 feet away from the property line. So, I still have the
same general problems with it that I've had before." He added that just adding service listener
convenience is not necessarily something the county is forced to do, and stated that there has not been
much detail shared on alternative sites. "I don't have any evidence that we know which sites were
looked at, that we know what the site location would have done to affect coverage. We don't know
where other willing lessors might be located in that area, if any. I just don't feel that I have enough
information to show me that a thorough enough study was done on the applicants part for alternative
locations, and I still have trouble with this site because of the proximity of the conservation easements."
He concluded, "I think it sends the wrong kind of message to people who are doing this with their rural
land."
Mr. Rooker noted that while he voted against the permit before primarily for the reasons Mr.
Loewenstein gave, the Commission did not have as much experience with cellular towers as they now
have. "We're very much encouraging applicants to seek out this kind of tower strategy, and when I look
at the towers like this that have been put in place, including one... in the Bell Air neighborhood, which is
pretty much at the back part of the neighborhood, certainly close -in to a number of residences ... there
isn't a single resident out there who has expressed any concern about it, who has objected to its
presence." Mr. Rooker added, "When I look at the site where this is planned to be placed, I think it is
going to be virtually invisible, and we have a pending lawsuit against the county by an applicant who
was turned down on a very, very visible site who claimed that his right to provide cellular service —
which is provided by federal law — was being prohibited illegally." He concluded that he is concerned
that the applicant has made a reasonable effort to show there is no other place in this area where he can
locate a tower to provide service for that corridor, and is using a strategy that the Commission has urged
him to pursue for minimally visible towers. "This is a situation where we have an applicant pursuing the
strategy we have suggested."
Mr. Kamptner stated, "Under the Telecommunications Act, the 4th Circuit — the Federal Appeals Court
that has jurisdiction over an area that includes Virginia — denial of a single application is not considered
198
the prohibition of service. The case law dealing with the obligation to explore alternatives is really not
clear enough to give you any kind of opinion," adding that the four appellate court decisions haven't
really discussed it, and the trial courts have been inconsistent in their findings on the obligation to locate
alternative sites.
Mr. Rooker commented that he would support this application because the applicant has made an effort
to investigate reasonable alternatives and hasn't found any. "I think he's pursuing a strategy of
minimally visible towers that we've urged him to pursue ... I think that we have to recognize that he does
have a right to provide service in virtually very area of the county where he decides to provide service.
We're not required to approve every tower, but we have to proceed, I think, in a fashion that permits him
in every area where there may be a demand for service to provide it. I don't think we're in a position to
be able to say this particular area of the county doesn't need cellular service..."
Mr. Loewenstein re-emphasized Mr. Kamptner's statement that the denial of a single application does
not constitute prohibition of wireless service. He noted that the Bell -Air site is in a more suburban
location, and is not adjacent to a conservation easement. Agreeing that the applicant has worked hard to
find a site with minimal impact, Mr. Loewenstein said, "It's unfortunate that it happens to be located
where it is, and I'm just not sure that there isn't something else in the area that couldn't provide roughly
the same coverage."
Mr. Finley said, "If this tower doesn't go there — and I agree with [Mr. Rooker] it's going to hardly be
visible, these trees are sure going down in the future sometime, because Mr. Wood apparently is there to
make money... and he's not going to let that timber stand there idle. Sooner or later, he's going to clear
that place out, but the tower does give some constraint."
Mr. Loewenstein responded, "Timbering is a legitimate agricultural activity, and it's adjacent to an
Now ag/forestral district, so I guess I would have less trouble with the timbering than I would with the tower
at this point."
en
Mr. Rooker said, "The question here, I think, is how visible would this thing be and what kind of a
contradiction would it be to the conservation easement property; and I think with the strategy that's
being pursued, the visibility impact is going to be very minimal."
Mr. Nitchmann asked, "If it was closer to 29 or on 29, would you have to install more towers because
it's not high enough?"
Ms. Thomas responded that the elevation at 29 is 730 feet, and the site proposed elevation is at least 760
feet.
Mr. Nitchmann said, "Are we adamant here that we don't want it close to 29; if that's the case, then it
almost seems we have to go with this site." He then asked the applicant, "Can you get the same
performance if we said put the tower 25 feet from Route 29 right-of-way?"
Mr. Whitaker responded, "No, unless you made the tower higher, you would not get the same
performance." He continued that CFW has a site built and operating at Brent's Mountain, and another
proposed at Red Hill. "Our objective is to get from Arrowhead to Red Hill with one site, and this is the
one location of very few options — no other options that would meet that objective." Mr. Whitaker
added that if this application were denied, CFW would possibly come back with a 2-site proposal.
199
While expressing concern about the nearby conservation easement, Mr. Thomas stressed that the
applicant has done everything the Commission has asked of him, and said "the tower and antenna
application fits the bill of what we want."
Mr. Rieley agreed, while expressing reservations about the proximity to the easement. "I think this is an
extremely site -specific exercise. I think the Bell Air site for example works because it is close to the
road, and the trees come all the way to the edge of the road, and that pole — unless you're really looking
for it, is just another vertical element among all of the trunks." He noted the CFW application is a little
different, because it is located on the crest of a very broad knoll, offering views where this tower will be
skyline. "I don't think it's an ideal site. I'm not convinced there's not a site here that will work a little
bit farther to the north on one of the succeeding ridges on the same property to deal with the same
property owner. Nevertheless, on balance, I think this achieves most of what we are after, and with
some trepidation, I'll support it."
Mr. Finley asked why having a conservation easement offered a landowner "more sway" over a
neighbor's property than any other citizen.
Mr. Rooker replied that the county is trying to encourage people to put their property in conservation
easements, and when they do so they have "agreed to exercise a measure of control on that property that
isn't otherwise on there. They've limited the development rights on their own property... and I think it's
appropriate to give more deference to the aesthetic considerations of the property that has been placed in
a conservation easement."
Mr. Loewenstein agreed.
Mr. Finley said, "If I'm a neighbor, I don't particularly feel that they should be able to say, `hey, you
can't do that."'
Mr. Loewenstein said, "I think that's up to us to say."
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Washington seconded approval of SP 98-09 with conditions
modified as follows: Condition #5 to reflect language change regarding collocation as discussed with
Mr. Fritz in the April 271h Commission meeting; Condition #7 reworded to state: "Prior to beginning
construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles
or utilities, the owner or the permittee shall obtain authorization from the Director of Planning to
remove existing trees on the site. The Director of Planning shall identify which trees may be removed
for such construction or installation. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of
Planning, neither the permittee nor the owner shall remove existing trees within one -thousand (1000)
feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access"; and elimination of
Condition #8.
Mr. Rooker suggested that staff examine the one -thousand foot recommendation and determine if a
different radius is appropriate prior to the Board meeting. Mr. Nitchmann suggested that staff write a
letter to the landowner describing what is going on within the special use permit, including the
restrictions and conditions involved.
Mr. Rieley asked what the enforceability of the "no -timbering zone" is around the site. "I think we're
all in agreement that this works because it's a wooded site."
En
200
Mr. Kamptner responded, "It's enforceable if it's a reasonable condition designed to address impact
resulting from the use. During the discussion tonight, you've articulated the need to preserve the trees is
to address the visual impacts of this pole."
Mr. Rieley asked if, from a practical perspective, there could be action if timbering occurred.
Mr. Kamptner replied that an injunction could be sought to stop the timbering until the entire issue was
examined.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that if the timbering were to occur before the permit was exercised, there is
no way the condition could be met, and Zoning would not issue a zoning clearance for the SP to be used.
Mr. Kamptner indicated that if the condition regarding tree removal are violated, there could be an
injunction to stop the timbering; Mr. Cilimberg added that if the timbering would occur before the SP is
exercised and the condition could not be met, Zoning would therefore not issue clearance for the permit
to be used.
Mr. Finley asked, "If the pole comes down, does this condition still apply?"
Mr. Cilimberg stated that if a special use permit is exercised and then terminated, the zoning of the
property becomes re -active.
The motion passed in a 6-1 vote, with Mr. Loewenstein dissenting.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded approval of the site plan waiver relating
to CV152. The motion passed in a 6-1 vote, with Mr. Loewenstein dissenting.
wrr
SP 99-15 CV113 Red Hill (Sign #50 & 53)
Request for special use permit to allow for a personal wireless service facility in accordance with
Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio -wave transmission and relay towers.
The property, described as Tax Map 87B Parcel 4, contains 1.357 acres, and is located in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District at the intersection of Route 29 South (Monacan Drive) and State Route 710
(Taylor's Gap Road). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas, and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
District.
Prior to the item's consideration, Mr. Rieley announced the application involves land directly in his
neighborhood on the property of a good friend, and asked to abstain from the discussion and vote.
Fellow Commissioners agreed.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, and shared photos that Ms. Pickart had presented to the ARB.
Ms. Thomas noted the photo illustrating the exact spot where the tower would go, stating that she did
not feel the site offered opportunities for camouflage that are usually incorporated in these types of sites.
She said that she felt it would be "very conspicuous from a couple of different locations on 29 South
southbound," although it is well -covered from the northbound lane.
Ms. Thomas said while the neighbors to the property south [the Mentoris] do not object to the proposed
tower site, Malcolm and Addie Sprouse, who live very close to the property, do object to this site
[Attachment "B"].
The applicant, Mr. Tom Whitaker, addressed the Commission. He reviewed CFW's past attempts to
provide digital coverage in the area before, stating that previously significant opposition to their 1990
201
plan prompted them to withdraw their application. Mr. Whitaker said that using a wooden pole mini -site
at Red Hill would minimize the impact on the existing rural landscape; as with other applications
recently approved, the pole would be only slightly taller than the surrounding tree cover, with antenna
extending above the tree tops. He continued that coverage provided by the proposed site and Arrowhead
to the north would "fill in the coverage" to the nearest site to the south — Crossroads. Mr. Whitaker
noted that the Route 29 landscape to the north and the south goes downhill; the site location proposed is
on a relatively high point, and is a commercial site already impacted by a gas station and a market. He
said it is a wooded site, with most land on 29 north and south mostly in pasture, noting that this site is
one of the few options for wooded sites in the search area. Mr. Whitaker said the wooded nature of the
site will add to the screening of the pole, making it visible only on a small stretch of Route 29 and Route
710. "This property presents the best opportunity for CFW in the Red Hill area."
Ms. Thomas indicated that the ARB has approved the proposal.
Mr. Rooker noted that the ARB does not approve the site, just imposes conditions of appearance based
on the assumption that the tower will be there.
Mr. Whitaker said if this site were not approved, CFW would sectorize and panelize the antennas of the
Crossroads site to "throw the signal another half -mile." He added, "This site provides the optimal
coverage because it is high ground in both directions."
Mr. Rooker asked about alternative sites that might be less visible and in more wooded areas.
Mr. Whitaker said that there are very few, because there is not much wooded property along that stretch
of road — from Hardware Creek to the Crossroads site. He added that some other landowners were not
interested in entering into a lease agreement.
Mr. Loewenstein asked about the wooded area just to the south of the proposed site. Mr. Whitaker said
that CFW has focused on the proposed site because it involved no tree removal, and the southern
wooded area — while shielding the tower with more undergrowth — would not conceal it as well along
Route 29.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that if the Commission were interested in alternate sites, they could defer until
staff had adequate time to investigate other options, and get proper conditions in order.
Commissioners agreed, given the close proximity to the neighboring property.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded approval of deferral of SP 99-15 until
May 25th, 1999.
Mr. Kamptner reminded the Commission that a public hearing had been advertised. Mr. Finley asked
for public comment.
Mr. Malcolm Sprouse, owner of the property adjacent to the proposed tower site, addressed the
Commission. He emphasized that the pole shown is less than 5 feet from their driveway, and indicated
that no one has shown him other site locations. "I think it's going to be an eyesore as far as me going up
my driveway every day to pass this thing," and expressed concern that the tower may even be in his 25-
foot right of way. Mr. Sprouse said he would strongly object to the pole being put up in plain view of
the entrance to his home.
202
Ms. Thomas suggested that Mr. Sprouse meet her on site with the applicant to see exactly where the
alternate location would be.
Mr. David Van Roijen addressed the Commission, stating the importance of evidence showing that all
`4W sites have been examined, and that this is "the best site." He said, "They really, really need to show you
and present to you all the evidence of all the sites."
No further public comment was offered, and the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Loewenstein said, "I think that tonight also points a need... to do everything we can to try to get
before us wherever possible an integrated plan for these tower approvals.. A think in more cases than we
have seen it may be [possible], and it would be helpful to us and to the public to be able to understand
these applications in a collective sense, and well as in an individual sense."
The motion previously stated passed unanimously.
Old Business
There was no old business presented.
New Business
There was no new business presented.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
V. Wayne
cm
701