Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 21 1998 PC Minutes4-21-98 APRIL 21, 1998 1 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Finley, Mr. Dennis Rooker; and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Susan Thomas, Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the April 7th meeting were unanimously approved as amended. Mr. Cilimberg summarized actions taken at the April 15th Board of Supervisors meeting. SP 98-03 - 360 Communications(Dudley Mtn - Proposal to construct a telecommunication tower on approximately 100 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas in accord with Section 10.2.2.6. Property, described as Tax Map 89, Parcel 18 is located on the west side of Route 706, Dudley Mountain Road, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of Route 631, Old Lynchburg Rd., in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This facility is proposed to be located near the top of Dudley Mountain. This site is not located in a designated growth area. The applicant was requesting deferral to June 2, 1998_ Public comment was invited. None was offered. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 98-03 be deferred to June 2, 1998. The motion passed unanimously. SP 97-57 Townwood Mobile Home Park - Proposal to add 13 additional units to the existing mobile home park as permitted by Section 17.2.2(17). Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 8 is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Rio Road and Hydraulic Road in the Rio Magisterial District. The property consists of approximately 12.6 acres and is zoned R-10, Residential. The area is located in Neighborhood 1 and is recommended for Urban Density [6.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre]. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. It was staffs opinion that this proposal "provides desirable improvements to an existing substandard mobile home park, particularly in areas of health and safety, despite not being in compliance with all current ordinance requirements. [NOTE: The written staff report described all the provisions of the Ordinance with which the existing park does not comply.] Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Commission questions to staff included the following: 4-21-98 5 Mr. Finley said the photographs give the impression that "it's a trashy place." He asked 114.1 Mr. Hill: "Is it or isn't it?" Mr. Hill responded: "I don't think it's trashy. I think a good day's work and loading that stuff up on a truck, and get rid of some of the trailers." Ms. Washington asked Mr. Hill if he was agreeable to a 30-60 day deferral , or whatever period it takes, to allow time to work with the Housing Office. Mr. Hill responded: "No. We're spending money to put water and sewer in right now. We have been working with staff on this for a year.... (Mr. Kamptner said the item is scheduled for the Board on June 10th.) He said he does not want this to become "a national issue in Albemarle County." Mr. Rieley asked him to clarify his statement: "I want to cooperate and work with everybody to get it done, and if it can't be done, just tell me and I'll go on my merry way." Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Hill if he has any objections to staffs recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Hill said he has no objections. Mr. Rooker asked if he would be agreeable to a 30 day deferral. Mr. Hill responded: "Yes." Public comment was invited. Ms. Alice Keys, Vice President of the Townwood Homeowners' Association, addressed the Commission. (She noted that her neighborhood is not to be confused with the mobile home park.) She asked that the Commission deny the request for the following reasons: --The photographs distributed by Ms. McDonald reflect the condition of the park. In the 10 years she has lived in the adjacent neighborhood, she has never seen it cleaned up. --In addition to trash, many buildings are falling down and appear to be structurally unsound. --The location of the additional units will bring the park much closer to the Townwood neighborhood, where fencing is not currently provided. If approved, she asked that the recommended screening be a fence instead of trees and that the fencing surround the entire mobile home park. --Even if the park is cleaned up, the problems will recur. --The existing park devalues surrounding properties. Ms. Betty Cox, a resident of 37 Spring Court, addressed the Commission. She described problems which she has experienced with teenage trespassers, trash being thrown onto her property, raw sewage flowing onto her property, and vandalism on her neighbor's property. She said the managers of the park (in the last 17 years) have never responded to complaints. She said 13 additional units will just increase neighboring neighborhoods' problems. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Tice asked staff to comment on fencing along Greenbrier Drive. Mr. Fritz said staff recommended "the extension of landscaping along Greenbrier Drive, adjacent to where these additional units are going. Staff had not recommended extension of the fencing because of the terrain difference, but "fencing would not be completely out of the question." He estimated it would take an additional 150 feet of fencing. 83 4-21-98 Noting that the applicant had agreed to a 30-day deferral Mr. Nitchmann said he would support a deferral to allow time for the applicant to meet with staff and the Housing and Zoning offices. He said he thinks it needs a lot more than just additional fencing. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that SP 97-57 for Townwood Mobile Home Park, be deferred to June 2,1998. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Rooker asked: "If someone owns a piece of property and leases that property to someone else and there is an ordinance violation with respect to that property, who is responsible for curing the violation?" Mr. Kamptner responded: "It depends on the violation. Sometimes we go against the owner; sometimes we go against the tenant. It depends on the situation. Usually we will proceed against the tenant. Mr. Nitchmann said the City goes to the property owner and relies on the property owner to deal with the tenant in getting the problem corrected. If the tenant does not correct the problem, the property owner is ultimately responsible. Both Mr. Loewenstein and Mr. Rooker said they believe the owner of the property is ultimately responsible. Mr. Nitchmann said he thinks it should be the tenant who is responsible, but the laws are not strong enough to make tenants responsible for their living area. SP 98-06 Hanson Mountain Communications Tower - Request by US Cellular to add antenna at the 236 foot level of an existing 296 foot tower, and to add a 12 x 24 foot building to house its electronics at the base of the tower. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 51 C, is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is located adjacent to the Ashcroft Subdivision approximately 0.6 miles ease of Lego Drive in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated development area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval, subject to conditions. He read additional conditions which had been developed after the completion of the staff report. At Mr. Kamptner's request, Mr. Fritz summarized other conditions which are not recommended for this special permit because this is an existing tower. He explained in each instance why the condition is not necessary in this case. Mr. Fritz said the proposal is "generally consistent with efforts to try to maximize the use of any existing tower facilities to try to minimize the amount of new construction." Mr. Loewenstein asked staff to comment on the status of the report from the Communications Tower Committee and the hiring of a consultant. Mr. Fritz said two RFP's (Request for Personnel) have been released. Interviews have been conducted for one of two consultant positions (for assistance in the development of a policy and design standards). The other position, for an assistant to help review individual tower applications, has not yet been funded. Mr. Rieley asked if there is a limitation on the number of 7" x 20' whip antenna. Mr. Fritz responded: "No --just whatever the capacity of the tower is to accommodate those. Likewise, for the 2' x 5' panel antennas. Mr. Rieley asked if any alternate locations have ��� 4-21-98 7 been considered. Mr. Fritz responded: "Not that I am aware of." Mr. Cilimberg said staff usually requires information about alternative locations only for new towers, because "utilization of an existing tower has been seen, even in the work with the Tower Committee, as being preferable to new locations." Mr. Rieley said: "Generally, I think that's true, although if there is no limitation on something as big as 7 inches by 20 feet long, and 2 feet by 5 feet, in an area that is as visually sensitive as this is, in the Monticello viewshed, I think it is an issue to look at alternative sites." Mr. Cilimberg suggested the number of antenna allowed could be addressed in the conditions. Mr. Fritz said: If you are inclined, you could limit the addition of antennae to that tower to what the applicant, US Cellular, currently wants." [NOTE: It was later decided condition 5(a) would limit the additional antennae to three, 51 inch x 10 inch panel antennae.] The applicant was represented by Mark Keller. He passed among the Commission photographs of the site and the existing tower and buildings. He described the antennae which are currently on the tower. He said the proposed antenna will be exactly as the panel antennae shown in the photos. Mr. Rieley asked about the difference in elevation of the proposed antenna compared to the existing antennae. Mr. Fritz responded: "These two antennae are proposed 236 feet up on the tower and the type of antennae proposed are three, 51 inch x 10 inch panel antennae." Mr. Keller added: "So roughly 60 to 70 feet below the top." Mr. Rieley said: "it looks like that may be taller than the ones that are on there now. They look like they're about 2/3 of the way to the top." Mr. Keller responded: "It could be." Mr. Keller said, structurally, this antenna will be the last that can be attached to this tower without either removing existing antennae or making modifications to the structure of the tower. He said this request will "maximize the use of a tower that has been there for decades." The other two current competitors of US Cellular are already located on this tower. He said the proposed building is very similar to the existing darker colored building on the site. Mr. Rooker asked if the proposed building has excess capacity. He wondered if there might be co -location opportunities for the equipment in the existing buildings. Mr. Keller said co -location within an existing building is not possible. Mr. Keller said the size of the building is the minimum space needed. Mr. Keller said the applicant agrees to the conditions of approval as read by Mr. Fritz. Referring to the condition which says the color of the antenna shall match the tower, Mr. Rieley questioned staffs intent, given the fact that the tower is red and white. Mr. Rieley wanted to make sure the antenna was not painted red so he suggested that the condition related to color be removed. Public comment was invited. Mr. David Van Roijen addressed the Commission. He said he recently learned, during the interviews for the consultant, that the equipment buildings can be placed below ground. He suggested there be such a requirement attached to this permit. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. iR 4-21-98 The possibility of placing the building below ground was discussed at some length. Mr. Keller said he has had no experience with this type of facility being below ground, though it is new technology which is probably being done in other areas. He thought there would have to be some "unique" adjustments made in order to place it underground. He identified potential problems such as ventilation, waterproofing of equipment, and access. Given the expense of the building, he said "there is a reluctance to do creative things like (you are suggesting) unless they are absolutely necessary, and we don't feel this is one of those (necessary) situations." He pointed out there are already existing equipment buildings on the site and they will partially screen this proposed building. Also, there is adequate existing foliage such that this building will blend in with the environment. Mr. Keller was unable to estimate how much additional cost might be involved in putting the building underground, but said the applicant is not willing to accept that as a condition. Mr. Loewenstein asked if the Tower Committee has discussed the possibility of below ground equipment buildings. Mr. Fritz did not answer this question directly but said that it "can be done." Two to three feet of the building will still be above ground to allow for ventilation, access, etc. Cost is not a factor in staffs review of proposals. Staff did not ask staff to consider putting the building below ground "because of the nature of the existing facility." Staff did not feel the impact from an above ground facility would be adverse. No advantage was seen to a below ground facility, and there is potential disadvantage because of the amount of excavation that would be required. More area may have to be disturbed and blasting might also be required. Mr. Loewenstein said he agrees this site may offer difficulties for constructing an underground building and staff has not had time to consider this possibility in detail. On the argument that there are other existing buildings Mr. Loewenstein said; "Just because there are existing buildings on this or any other site, doesn't necessarily mean that the proliferation of additional buildings is not just as bad as if there hadn't been anything there before." He said he hopes the Committee's discussions and the ultimate design standards will include these types of options. In response to Mr. Tice's question about the total square footage of all the buildings (the two existing and the proposed building), Mr. Fritz estimated it to be approximately 900 square feet. There was a brief discussion about whether or not the Commission could require that the existing white building be painted an earthtone color. It was determined the Commission could make such a requirement and Mr. Keller said painting the building would be an "easy, inexpensive mitigating measure." Mr. Rieley supported the idea of a below ground building. He thought it would be relatively easy to achieve, given the mountainous terrain, and would not be a great deal more expensive. He said: "I think we ought to be getting these things underground and this is a reasonable time to start doing it." Staff confirmed that the Commission can impose such a condition, if it is determined to be "reasonable in order to mitigate the impact of the facility." He stressed that some portion of the building will have to be above ground for ventilation purposes. 1-� f6 4-21-98 9 Mr. Tom Whittaker, representing CFW, one of the co -locators on the tower, was allowed to address the Commission. Mr. Whittaker cautioned that excavation at the base of the tower could impact the stability of the tower's foundation, particularly if blasting is needed. He said underground equipment buildings are not uncommon in urban environments. Mr. Rieley acknowledged Mr. Whittaker's concern was legitimate and suggested there could be a "provision for an escape clause in the event it can be demonstrated there will be detriment to the foundation of the tower, or that there is no feasible way to do it." Mr. Rieley began a motion to recommend approval of the request but was interrupted at the beginning of the motion as the Commission continued to discuss the idea of requiring the building to be underground. Mr. Finley said he had a problem with imposing such a condition on a site where there are already existing above -ground buildings. He was concerned about the potential for blasting. Mr. Nitchmann said he thinks it is dangerous to mess with something that has been inexistence this long. He wondered how it is possible to make a determination about potential damage to the tower or guy lines. Mr. Keller said at least three different experts would have to be involved in making this determination. Mr. Rieley disagreed with Mr. Keller's description of how difficult it would be to put the building below ground. He said only 6 feet of excavation would be required for a 12' x 24' building. Mr. Keller responded: "Well if you can get the Building Inspections Department to waive off on that, that's fine. You can write us a permit slip that says we're not going to have the inspector call us on that. That would be great. But we're still going have our US Cellular in-house people make sure that $300,000 worth of electrical equipment isn't going to be at stake." Mr. Tice asked Mr. Keller how much difference in grading will be required for an underground building. Mr. Keller said no grading will be required for an above -ground building, except for "stripping off a little top soil (8-12 inches) in a 12 x 24 area." Mr. Rieley said: "From my perspective the issue is not site disturbance. It is not the difficulty of doing it. Putting a 12' x 24' building underground, or buried down to the 2-foot level of the roof line, is trivial in this. It is a question of whether it is the right thing to do or not. I think it is a mixed issue only because there are other buildings on the site which are above ground. It seems to me, on balance, it is an easy thing to do. It is not an expensive thing to do. It is not a hard thing to do, and I think it is time to start doing it. While this might not be the clearest case we are going to have for doing this, this is a highly visible site and we should start working towards a standard that is going to be something we can live with long term, rather than accepting a sub -standard because it is a few dollars cheaper." Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Rieley if he feels the visual impact of the buildings could be shielded as much by vegetation as by burying the building. He said: "Perhaps we should give the applicant an opportunity to provide screening around these buildings as opposed to burying the building. We don't really have an engineering report at this time on the site and how the burying of the building might effect the tower and what kind of excavation may be necessary. That bothers me a little that we don't have much information to go on a87 4-21-98 10 here ... we're kind of guessing." He said this is one question that the consultant will be able to answer, "whether a submerged building would be appropriate given the physical circumstances that are being dealt with." Mr. Tice pointed out that given the fact that technology is changing very rapidly, there may come a time when we will want these buildings to be removed, which leads to the question "will it be easier to remove something that is on top of the ground as opposed to something that is underground and whether we should take that into consideration?" Given the lack of engineering data on an underground structure, Mr. Cilimberg suggested the Commission might want to at least allow for the option of screening. Mr. Rieley thought the points raised by other commissioners were good ones and he continued the motion for approval he had begun earlier: MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 98-06, Hansom Mountain Communications Tower, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. No additional clearing of trees for the access road, utilities or the utility shed. 2. Additional construction is limited to a single 12' x 24' foot building. The new building shall be placed underground and the eave may extend not more than 2 feet above ground. The building may be located above ground if evergreen screening trees placed 10 feet on center are planted around all of the existing buildings at the tower. Any portion of the building located above ground shall be painted dark brown. The existing white building shall be painted dark brown. 3. Tower shall not be increased in height. 4. There shall be no change in the lighting status of the tower unless required by the FCC. 5. Additional antennae may be attached to the tower only as follows: (a) Three (3) 51 inch x 10 inch panel antennae. 6. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. The motion passed unanimously. 01 4-21-98 11 Prior to staff reports for the last three agenda items, all CFW Wireless Tower applications, Mr. Fritz, using the maps on display, pointed out the location of all existing (and pending) towers in the area. He answered Commission questions about possible future proposals and co -location possibilities. After hearing staffs comments about potential proposals and the number of providers which may be making requests in the near future, Mr. Nitchmann said he believes the County should put a moratorium on hearing any additional requests until all the companies have come together and developed a unified plan or until the county's consultant has been hired. He said: "This has to come to a halt sometime and, in my opinion, this is as good a place as any to put a halt to it. You can't convince me we need a tower every 300 yards up our roads. I use cellular service a lot and (the current level of service) satisfies all my needs right now." Mr. Loewenstein was sympathetic to Mr. Nitchmann's concerns and agreed that the County has been dealing with these applications in a piecemeal fashion. He said, however, the Commission must take action on these requests ("up or down) within 90 days from the date the request was submitted. [Note: The three requests to follow were submitted on February 20, 1998.] Mr. Kamptner said the Board then has 1 year to act on the request, and it is hoped the consultant's work on a tower policy will be complete by that time. Mr. Finley said he is also worried about the same issues Mr. Nitchmann has raised, but, legally, there is nothing the Commission can do because the applicants are entitled to a hearing. [It was pointed out that a moratorium is not possible.] Mr. Rooker asked if a valid basis for denial is the finding that an applicant has not explored co -location opportunities between existing and "soon -to -be -existing" towers." Mr. Kamptner replied: Indirectly, yes. You can deny it because they have not satisfied the requirements for a special use permit. You can recommend denial because there is an existing reasonable use of the property and, related to that --which flips over into the Telecommunications Act --is you can't either prohibit or take an action that has the effect of prohibiting the provision of service. So if they haven't explored all co -location opportunities, the denial, in and of itself, does not have the effect of prohibiting because there are still options out there that can be explored." The following three items were all submitted by the same applicant, CFW. Staff presented updated information on the three requests and the applicant then commented on all three items at the same time. The public hearing was opened for each item individually. Mr. Fritz and Ms. Thomas presented amendments to the suggested conditions of approval, which were applicable to all three applications. Those changes are reflected in the motion on each item. SP 98-07 Cook Mt - Request by CFW Wireless in accord with the provisions of Section 140W,,, 10.2.2(6) to allow the construction of a telecommunication facility on Tax Map 98, Parcel 22. This property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is located on the east side of route 29, ,�,fi 4-21-98 12 Monacan Drive, approximately 1.7 miles south of Route 692, Plank Road, in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated development area. The applicant is also requesting a site plan waiver. Mr. Fritz offered the following new information, and amendments to the staff report: --The map in the Commission packet was incorrect. The tower is at an elevation of 790 feet (not 850 feet). --The closest dwelling to the proposed tower (on the same parcel) is approximately 300 feet distant (not 500 feet). The closest dwelling on an adjacent parcel is 500 feet distant (not 700 feet distant). Referring to a change made to condition #4(a), which reduced the number of antennae allowable to 2 (previously 6), Mr. Rooker asked why this change was made given the fact that co -location is to be encouraged. Mr. Fritz responded: The Board of Supervisors did that, and, yes, it does discourage co -location." Mr. Cilimberg said the change had been based on an applicants request, but they did it for all three last week." Mr. Fritz added: "And they are the same design as what we have tonight." Mr. Rooker asked if this particular tower could support 6 antennae. Mr. Fritz responded affirmatively. Mr. Tice said there is nothing to prevent an applicant who wants to co -locate on a tower from seeking permission to do so. Mr. Finley asked how the power supply lines are handled --are they underground? Mr. Fritz said they are typically in the right-of-way of the access road and though they are usually underground the Commission can add a condition requiring them to be underground if it so desires. Noting that no equipment building is proposed, Mr. Rooker asked where ground equipment will be located. Mr. Fritz said the equipment is located in a "box." He explained this is PCS technology which does not require the same type of equipment building as cellular technology. SP 98-08 Crossroads - Request by CFW Wireless in accord with the provisions of Section 10.2.2(6) to allow the construction of a telecommunications facility on Tax Map 87, Parcel 7A. This property is zoned VR, Village Residential and is located 260 feet from the west side of State Route 29 South, approximately 1 mile south of State Route 710. This site is located within the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is not located within a designated growth area. The applicant is also requesting a site plan waiver and a setback waiver. Mr. Morrisette offered to answer questions about the request. Condition #3(a) was amended to add the date of the plan (2/2/98). In answer to Mr. Rieley's question about fencing, Mr. Fritz said fencing is addressed, in all three applications, in condition #8. (Though Mr. Morrisette recommended the addition of a condition to the site plan waiver-- ,, ARB issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness --Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the site, tough visible from the EC, is not actually in an Entrance Corridor. Mr. Morrisette A �10 4-21-98 13 confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Cilimberg's statement and said the condition would not be needed after all.) SP 98-09 Arrowhead - Request by CFW Wireless in accord with the provisions of Section 10.2.2(6) to allow the construction of a telecommunication facility on Tax Map 88, Parcel 16. This property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is located on the east side of Route 29 (Monacan Drive), on the west side of Route 745 (Arrowhead Valley Road), in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated development area. A site plan waiver is also requested. Ms. Thomas noted the following changes or corrections to the staff report. --Bottom of page 2, related to VDOT's comments: She said staff does not support VDOT's recommendation for a commercial entrance, thus the recommendation is not included in the conditions. --Bottom of page 3, re: detriment to adjacent property: She said the fact that the hillside is wooded is an advantage for this tower, but this is the rural area and agricultural and forestal uses are by -right, so it is possible this property could be timbered at some time. Condition #7 addresses the cutting of trees and says "except for tree removal expressly authorized by the Director of Planning, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within 200 feet of the tower, the equipment building or the vehicular or utility access." She said the site could look very different if the property were timbered, but the 200 feet radius around the tower might address that concern. Mr. Rieley pointed out that the 200 feet radius is equal to about 3 acres, and, in some cases, might actually be off the property on which the tower is located. In response to Mr. Tice's question, she said this parcel is not under a conservation easement, but the property to the south is. She confirmed this parcel is not in an Ag-Forestal District. She said the conservation easement on the adjoining property to the south is an issue the Commission might wish to consider. Mr. Loewenstein agreed, saying: "I think we need to be careful to uphold the initiatives that private owners have taken to conserve their resources in that way. County policy should do everything it can to underscore that." Mr. Loewenstein also called attention to the historic resources on the property to the south. --She amended the wording of condition #1. (The new wording is as stated in the motion and is the same for all three requests.) The applicant for all three requests was represented by Mr. Tom Whittaker. He described CFW`s strategy, over the past year, for providing PCS coverage down Rt. 29, to the Nelson County line. Because of the county's and public concerns about the visual aspects of taller cellular towers, PCS technology was pursued, which uses much lower towers (much like telephone poles, and no higher than surrounding trees). However, PCS towers offer no opportunities for co -location because of the limited structural capacity of a wooden pole. Also, the coverage from the sites is limited, thus seven sites will be needed to cover the same area that three "full blown tower sites would have covered." He said: "We don't have a less onerous strategy than this one. We have no other options, except to wait on whatever other opinions and considerations the county is going to take into account. Addressing Mr. Nitchmann's earlier statements about the various providers working together to develop a unified plan, he said: "No matter how good a communications consultant is, they will never be able to get those people to come to the 4-21-98 14 table to discuss with us synergizing our network deployment strategy. Every one of us have a different air interface protocol, and they are all different and operate differently, at different power levels, and have different coverage characteristics." He concluded: "We have come to grips with a more numerous, but less onerous and less visually impacting, strategy that has, at this point, after a year, failed, and we don't have any other options." He said his company cannot co -locate with any existing sites, or upcoming sites, away from Rt. 29. Referring to Mr. Fritz's earlier confirmation that the poles could support 6 antennae, Mr. Rooker said: So it is not the limitation of the pole that prevents you from having co - location, it is the different coverage area provided by your spectrum and the different requirements." Mr. Whittaker replied: "The different types of technology that each licensee has chosen makes it difficult to presume that all the different deployment strategies could be synergized in any way. What limits the co -location on these poles is that they are only 80 feet tall ... and we require, or certainly prefer, some type of horizontal separation between our equipment on a tower. If the pole is only 80 feet tall, it might be able to hold six antennae at one level, or even two at one level --but you can't get a pole that is taller than 115 feet. There is a separation issue and a structural issue." In answer to Mr. Tice's question as to why more than 2 antennae cannot be located at the same level, Mr. Whittaker did not say it was impossible, but said most licensees prefer not to do that because problems can occur which would knock everything out." Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Whittaker how many more poles CFW will need in Albemarle County. Mr. Whittaker could not give a definite answer. He said growth is based on a growing number of subscribers and where people want coverage. There is presently a demand for better coverage in the Rt. 29 South area. Public comment was invited for SP 98-07 - CFW Wireless / Cook Mountain. None was offered and the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann said he cannot support the request. He again expressed his concern about the number of users which are going to be requesting towers and arguing that they cannot co -locate on existing towers. He recalled requests for taller towers having been denied, but he said he thinks the entire issue should be re -visited. He said he would rather have three tall towers than have numerous towers every quarter mile, which are still probably going to be visible during the winter months. He said: "We need to wait until the consultant has been hired. My vote on all these is going to be for denial." Mr. Tice said he shares Mr. Nitchmann's frustration. He agreed that the impact from a tower approved in the Keswick are rececently is greater than he envisioned it would be. He, too, regretted having supported that request. (Mr. Tice clarified the tower in Keswick to which he was referring is a cellular tower, not one of these PCS poles.) He was extremely frustrated by the length of time (over a year) the county is taking to hire a consultant. He said he has always been critical of the towers, but "CFW has been the one company, it appears, that has really tried to meet the Commission's past concerns. It is the only company to use the tree -height concept. He again said he is very sympathetic to Mr. Nitchmann's concerns, but he was having trouble justifying penalizing CFW when ,;) 9,A 4-21-98 15 they have made a good faith effort in dealing with the concerns the Commission has raised in the past. (Mr. Nitchmann suggested passing CFWs requests but no others.) Referring to a previously approved CFW tower in the Bellair neighborhood, Mr. Rooker said none of the residents of the neighborhood had objected because they felt a tree - height tower would blend with the environment. He said: "Part of what we need to look at is what strategy do we want these people to follow and we have given the signal, at our level and at the Board level, that the short tower blends in with the environment, and though it may require more sites, is a preferable approach. Other than just to say, 'we're not going to entertain tower requests from now on,' I don't know what other guidance we can give to the applicant." Mr. Loewenstein said he sees two main issues: (1) The question of potential visual degradation and other related issues; and (2) Regardless of the merits, or lack thereof, of any individual application, we are making these decisions on a piecemeal basis. He said he is becoming increasingly frustrated as much by the latter as anything else. He agreed CFW has made a good faith effort to work with the county, "but that does not change the fact that we are looking at several applications tonight, and we are going to be looking at several in the near future and I don't like to have to continue to do business this way, especially when we have heard for a long time that we were going to go through a process where we would get a more integrated, planned approach to the whole issue of wireless communications in the county." %ftw: Mr. Tice agreed. He suggested the following approach by the Commission, given the fact that the Commission has only 30 more days to act on these requests. He said the Board has more time to act (1 year) and "it may serve us just as well, having made our frustrations known to the Board, and if the Board should consider that frustration and say 'we want to wait until we have the consultant on board,' then they can do that, but, in my mind, we have to deal with the merits of these requests, and based on the history we have had, I am having trouble seeing how we should penalize them because of the situation that we are in." on Mr. Rooker agreed an integrated approach would be preferable, if there was some guidance to give to applicants. There being no guidance, and "other than to delay at this point, I don't know how we can treat this applicant fairly who has basically devised his strategy around the guidance that he was given by us and the Board previously. We have a time period we are dealing with and we are not going to have any further light shed on this by a consultant in the time we have to act. It seems to me, in fairness to this applicant, we have to deal with this application, (based) on its merits." Mr. Loewenstein noted that the staff report states this tower will not restrict any current uses, or other by -right uses available on the site." The report also states that alternative sites in this area have not been discussed. (Mr. Fritz interjected that alternative tower sites were not discussed, but potential co -location sites were discussed, and none were identified.) ,-,;293 4-21-98 16 Mr. Finley said the one item of consensus among Commissioners is the feeling of frustration, but that is not a firm basis for denial. Mr. Rieley "seconded" the urgency issue of getting additional guidance for dealing with these requests. He said he thinks one think which will come from the consultant's study is "the fact that a pragmatic and piecemeal approach may, in fact, be the best strategy and that, in fact, we may find we are looking for stealth sites and places to hide these antennae in the trees, and we may, in fact, find this very approach is exactly what we want to do on a county -wide basis, and (we may find) 50 telephone poles scattered through the woods is going to be a lot better than one silver tower shining by the Interstate, which we all agree was a mistake." He said he feels less hesitant in supporting the request that some other Commissioners may feel. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that SP 98-07, CFW Wireless, Cook Mountain, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The elevation at the top of the tower shall not exceed the elevation at the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet down slope of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height and elevation of the tallest tree within 25 feet. Antennae may extend seven (7) feet above the height of the tower. Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) inches in diameter. 2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be of treated wood. b. Guy wires shall not be permitted. c. The tower shall have no lighting. d. The tower shall not be painted. 3. The tower shall be located on the site as follows: a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tower Site for CFW Wireless CV-144" and initialled "WDF 4/6/98." 4. Antennae may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Antennae shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) fiberglass antennae not to exceed seven (7) feet in height or three (3) inches in diameter. These antennae shall be painted brown or a color to match the pole. b. Satellite and microwave dish antennae are prohibited. 5. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the co -location of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: a. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennae on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: 1. Prior to the approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting location on the tower or the site. a 7�/ 4-21-98 17 2. The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to located on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. 6. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a "luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. 7. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, 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, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access. 8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be required. 9. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. 10. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider. 11. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40 feet. 12. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. 13. The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter. 14. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section. 15. All other equipment shall be painted dark brown. 16. All lighting shall be shielded from Rt. 29. 17. Electric power lines shall be buried. 4-21-98 18 The motion passed by a vote of 4:3, with Commissioners Loewenstein, Nitchmann, and Washington casting the dissenting votes. MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that a request for the waiver of a site plan be approved for SP 98-07, CFW Wireless, Cook Mountain, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Provision of one parking space. The motion passed by a vote of 6:1 with Commissioner Washington casting the dissenting vote. Public comment was invited for SP 98-08 - CFW Wireless / Crossroads. Mr. Richard Oliver, an adjoining property owner (parcel 7C), addressed the Commission. He expressed opposition because he believes the tower is out of character with the VR designation of the property and will devalue adjoining property. He questioned the need for additional service of this kind in the county. He believed there is "no public interest need." Mr. David Van Roijen addressed the Commission. He said the Commission seems to be "feeling sorry for CFW based on the opinion that they have given you the best they can give you. He disagreed, because he believes there is alternative technology, using smaller equipment, which could be offered. Mr. Rieley asked if Mr. Van Roijen could describe "specific technology, pertinent to the applicant's industry," which would be less obtrusive than what is proposed. Mr. Van Roijen said in other parts of the country, very small boxes are being placed on light poles, and the antenna is part of the box. (Mr. Fritz confirmed that such technology exists, but it is predominantly used in urban locations.) Mr. Van Roijen believed the applicant is not willing to pursue different technology because it will cost more money. Mr. Whittaker was allowed to respond to Mr. Van Roijen's comments. He explained CFW chose the present PCS technology based on the belief that it was best technology to suit "our initial and future needs for our network." He said the driving factor in how much a cell site can cover is not as much the technology as it is physics, and "physics has nothing to do with money." He said he has discussed the possibility of locating on public utility poles with staff but the State Corporation Commission in Virginia will not allow that. He stressed that his company has "handled itself in the best possible fashion, has not been misleading, and has not provided incorrect information." Noting that the proposed tower site is close to Mr. Oliver's property line, Mr. Tice asked Nkw-Mr. Whittaker if it might moved more to the center of the property, at the same elevation. Mr. Whittaker said the location was chosen by the landowner, but it may be possible to move it "within a reasonable distance," under the existing lease arrangements. 4;2- 5� 4-21-98 19 Mr. Oliver asked the Commission to ask Mr. Whittaker to state the height of the trees in the area where the tower is proposed. Mr. Morrisette responded: "The applicant has indicated 80 feet on the application." Mr. Tice pointed out that a condition of approval requires that the applicant provided a certified statement on the height of the trees. Mr. Rooker added out that the tower cannot exceed the height of the highest tree, within 25 feet, so if the trees are shorter, the tower will have to be lower. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Tice said he agrees that the issues raised by Mr. Van Rojen are some of the ones the County should be considering, but given the time constraint which the Commission is under, those are issues which the Board will have wrestle with because they have the luxury of being able to defer action for a longer period of time. Those are the kind of issues a consultant could help us answer. He said he can support this request, for the same reasons as the Cook Mountain application. Mr. Tice asked for further comment on the possibility of moving the tower location further away from the adjoining property owner's boundary. Mr. Rieley pointed out that VDOT is concerned that the setback be far enough so that the pole, if it were to fall, would not fall on VDOT right-of-way. He said he feels the setback from adjacent property lines should be at least the height of the pole. Mr. Tice agreed. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant is seeking a waiver of the setback requirements related to falling distance and if the Commission does not grant that waiver, then the applicant will have to keep it away from the property lines a distance that is at least equal to the height of the pole. There was some question as to whether or not the pole could be located on the site without the waiver. Later in the discussion, after having reviewed the original "50 scale", Mr. Morrisette said he believes there will be room to put the tower in the center of the site. Addressing frustrations about the length of time it is taking to hire a consultant, Mr. Finley who serves on the committee dealing with this topic, explained how the process has proceeded. He said the interviews have taken place and a meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 22, to discuss negotiations with one of those interviewed. He said: "it is all going to take time, and even then we will have a lot of sites, as we are having now. However, there will be some standards and there will be policy and well-defined review process. But that is in the future. At this point, frustrated as we all are, I am going to support the application." MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 98-08, CFW Wireless, Crossroads, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. The elevation at the top of the tower shall not exceed the elevation at the top of the tallest tree within 25 feet down slope of the tower. The applicant shall provide a certified statement on the height and elevation of the tallest tree within 25 feet. Antennae may extend seven (7) feet above the height of the tower. Equipment extending above the tower shall not exceed three (3) inches in diameter. ,2197 4-21-98 20 2. The tower shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: a. The tower shall be of treated wood. b. Guy wires shall not be permitted. c. The tower shall have no lighting. d. The tower shall not be painted. 3. The tower shall be located on the site as follows: a. The tower shall be located as shown on the attached plan entitled "Tower Site for CFW Wireless CV-144" dated February 2, 1998." 4. Antennae may be attached to the tower only as follows: a. Antennae shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) fiberglass antennae not to exceed seven (7) feet in height or three (3) inches in diameter. These antennae shall be painted brown or a color to match the pole. b. Satellite and microwave dish antennae are prohibited. 5. The tower shall be used, or have the potential to be used, for the co -location of other wireless telecommunications providers, as follows: a. The permittee shall allow other wireless telecommunications providers to locate antennae on the tower and equipment on the site, subject to these conditions: 1. Prior to the approval of a final site plan for the site or the waiver of the site plan requirement, the permittee shall execute a letter of intent stating that it will make a good faith effort to allow such location and will negotiate in good faith with such other provider requesting location on the tower or the site. 2. The permittee shall provide to the County, upon request, verifiable evidence that it has made a good faith effort to allow such location. Verifiable evidence of a good faith effort includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the permittee has offered to allow other providers to located on the tower and site in exchange for reciprocal rights on a tower and site owned or controlled by another provider within Albemarle County. 6. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running through the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For purposes of this condition, a " luminaire" is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. 7. Prior to beginning construction or installation of the tower or the equipment building, or installation of access for vehicles or utilities, 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, the permittee shall not remove existing trees within two hundred (200) feet of the tower, the equipment building, or the vehicular or utility access. IM M 4-21-98 21 8. The permittee shall comply with section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. Fencing of the lease area shall not be required. 9. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued. 10. The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider. 11. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature of the access road shall be 40 feet. 12. No slopes associated with construction of the tower and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the County Engineer are employed. 13. The access road shall be built with side slopes on cut and fill slopes at 2:1 or flatter. 14. The access road shall disturb no more than 75' in cross section. 15. All other equipment shall be painted dark brown. 16. All lighting shall be shielded from Rt. 29. 17. Electric power lines shall be buried. The motion passed (4:3) with Commissioners Washington, Nitchmann and Loewenstein casting the dissenting votes. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that the request for a waiver of setback requirements for SP 98-08 CFW Wireless/ Crossroads be denied. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that the request for a site plan waiver for SP 98-08 CFW Wireless/Crossroads, be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of an erosion and sediment control plan prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Provision of one parking space. The motion passed (6:1) with Commissioner Washington casting the dissenting vote. r 4-21-98 22 Public comment was invited for SP 98-09 CFW Wireless/Arrowhead. Mr. David Van Roijen addressed the Commission. He presented a position of opposition (to tower applications on Dudley Mt. and on Arrowhead), which he described as being signed by residents of the area. (He did not say how many signatures were on the petition.) He acknowledged that Federal regulations provide for the establishment of cellular communications, but it is up to localities "to define the level." He said no one has promised the cellular companies perfect communication in mountainous regions and no one has told them they can have all the capacity they want. This is what needs to be defined by the County, or there will just be more and more applications. The county needs to bring a consultant on board so a policy can be developed which will set forth what is acceptable in this county. He said: "We have been waiting for the county to hire a consultant for some time. Our community asks you not to let us be a casualty of this wait.... Don't approve this tower. It is big; it's ugly; and it's not necessary in this location." He said he believes it is possible to co -locate with public utilities, provided permission is granted by the utility. He again repeated his belief that options are not being proposed by CFW because of cost. He suggested the request could be denied based on its proximity to an agricultural forestal district and its proximity to a conservation easement property and on the basis that is on an entrance corridor. Mr. Byrd Woods, a resident of Arrowhead, addressed the Commission. He said the residents along Rt. 29 South are opposed to any tower on an untouched mountain range on an entrance corridor. He said the proposed tower is only 97 feet from the Woods property, which is under a conservation easement. The tower will allow commercial access into this residential area. He noted that the boundaries of the conservation easement on the Woods property are never shown on the maps which are displayed before the Commission, even though the family has requested several times that they be shown. He said the Woods family properties surround this site, to the south, north and east. The proposed tower will be within view of building sites of other family members. Mr. Woods later noted that there is no condition limiting the height of the tower. (Mr. Loewenstein advised Mr. Woods that any change in height would require another hearing and another approval.) Ms. Ann Woods Bisarti (?), addressed the Commission. She expressed opposition to the tower. She said it is very unfair to have these towers placed on property which has been put under conservation to preserve it . She objected to a commercial enterprise being allowed to "spoil our mountains." She said this area has not changed in the 75 years she has known it and she felt it should be preserved, for everyone's benefit, always. Mr. P.K. Woods, a resident of Arrowhead, addressed the Commission. Referring to the recommended condition related to the restriction against tree removal within a 200 foot radius of the tower, he pointed out that the Woods property is 97 feet from the tower, and, though it is under a conservation easement, the easement allows the property to be timbered. 4-21-98 23 Mr. Donald Robertson, a resident of Arrowhead Valley Road, addressed the Commission. He said his family is opposed to any changes to the mountain. He said: "It is a shame technology has to take preference over the community." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Tice said he has the same basic opinion he had on the previous 2 requests, except for one additional concern. He said he is not convinced the search has been exhausted in this area for an alternative site. He acknowledged the need for a tower in this area -- "hopefully one less obtrusive than this one"-- but he said he is not sure the proposed site best maintains the character of the area given the resources that are involved", (i.e. the historic property, and the proximity to the ag-forestal district and the conservation easement.). He said he will oppose this request because there is a reasonable use of this property and he is not convinced this is the best location for a tower. In response to Mr. Rooker's question about the site's relation to the conservation easement property, Ms. Thomas, assisted by Mr. Byrd Woods, pointed out the boundaries of the conservation easement and the ag/forestal district on the map. Ms. Thomas said she did seek written comment from the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (which holds the conservation easement), but the VOF has a policy of not commenting on these applications. Mr. Fritz reported the applicant just approached staff with a request for a deferral to allow time to consider the issues just raised by Mr. Tice. MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 98-09 CFW Wireless/Arrowhead, be deferred indefinitely. The motion passed by a vote of 4-3, with Commissioners Loewenstein, Nitchmann and Washington casting the dissenting votes. Mr. Loewenstein once again expressed his "extreme concern about the way this whole initiative is proceeding in the county and it is symptomatic of some other problems as well." There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. V. Waine im erg, Stcretary A Im �v�