HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 09 1998 PC MinutesJUNE 9, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 9,
1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -
Washington, Vice Chairman; and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron
Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. Mark Trank, Assistant County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioners Tice, Rooker and Finley.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was confirmed. Action on
minutes for the May 12th and May 19th meetings was deferred.
Mr. Keeler summarized actions taken at the June 3rd Board of Supervisors meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan - Esmont Park PropertX - As per
15.2-2232 of the Code of Virginia, the Albemarle County Department of Parks and
Recreation has requested that the Planning Commission review for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan a proposal to create a community park on approximately ten acres
located on Route 627, across the street from the Esmont Elementary School. Property,
described as Tax Map 128, Parcels 85, 86A and 86B is located in the Scottsville
Magisterial District. The facility will be operated by the County Department of Parks &
Recreation and would likely include multi -purpose soccer/football field, baseball diamond,
basketball and tennis courts, playground and picnic shelter.
Mr. Nitchmann said there has been a great need for recreational Iddiiiies in this area of
the County for a long time.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Debra Feggins, representing the Southern Albemarle Organization, addressed the
Commission. She said her organization has been working with the Department of Parks
and Recreation on this project for a long time. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question
about the source of funding for the park, Ms. Feggins was unsure about all of the funding,
but said many donations have been received.
Regarding funding, Mr. Trank added that there were sufficient funds in the CIP for the land
acquisition costs, which are anticipated to be in the $25,000 to $30,000 range. Other
funding sources are now being identified for the improvements.
Mr. Rieley expressed his support for the project.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
71�_
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Consent Agenda be
approved and that the Esmont Park Property be found in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-18 South Fork Soccer Field - Proposal to locate five soccer fields, an
approximately 2,000 square foot storage building, and 216 parking spaces on
approximately 72 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. (This activity requires a special use
permit in accord with Section 10.2.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance.) The property, described
as Tax Map 46, Parcels 22 and 22C, is located on the south side of Route 643, Polo
Grounds Rd., approximately 1.1 miles east of Route 29 in the Rivanna Magisterial District
This site is not located within a designated growth area.
and
SP 98-22 South Fork Soccer Field - Proposal to locate five soccer fields, an
approximately 2,000 square foot storage building, and 216 parking spaces on
approximately 72 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. (This activity requires a special use
permit in accord with Section 30.3.5.2.2(3) of the Zoning Ordinance due to activity in the
floodplain of the Rivanna River.)
and
SDP 98-055 South Fork Soccer Field Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate five soccer
fields, an approximately 2,000 square foot storage building, and 216 parking spaces on
approximately 72 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Two special use permits, SP 98-18 and
98-22, have been submitted to permit the activity in a rural area.
The applicant was requesting deferral of all three items to July 7, 1998.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SP 98-18 be deferred to
July 7, 1998. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 98-22 be deferred
to July 7, 1998. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SDP 98-055 be deferred to
July 7, 1998. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-08 Crossroads CV 143 - Request by CFW Wireless in accord with the provisions of
Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance for a waiver of the 25-foot side setback to
construct a telecommunications facility on Tax Map 87, Parcel 7A. This property is zoned
VR, Village Residential and is located on the west side of 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.
%-6
3
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval. The report explained:
The Planning Commission heard the applicant's petition to construct a Personal
Communications Tower (PCS), site plan waiver, and reduction of side setback
at its April 21, 1998 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of SP 98-08 to allow for the construction of a tree top high tower and
granted approval of the applicant's site plan waiver request. The property
owner to the north, Mr. Oliver, expressed opposition to the close proximity of
the proposed tower. The Planning Commission did not grant approval of the
side setback waiver request because it was believed that adequate setback
distance could be obtained.
Mr. Keeler said the applicant had investigated the possibility of being able to obtain
adequate setback and had discovered that if the tower were relocated so as to meet
the setback, it would be in an open area and would be clearly visible from Rt. 29
South. When the applicant made that information available to the Board of
Supervisors, the Board sent the request for the setback wavier back to the
Commission for action.
The applicant was represented by Dick Sheeran. He offered to answer Commission
questions. He explained: "if we were not granted that setback variance, the pole
would be out into the backyard of the property owner's residence."
Mr. Rieley asked if the applicant had explored possible locations on properties to the
north. Mr. Sheeran said he could not say that his site acquisition people had
contacted every property owner because once a willing property owner is found, with a
site that meets CFW's criteria, that is the site that is pursued.
Mr. Sheeran presented simulated photographs which compared the visibility of the
tower with the variance setback, and without the variance.
Public comment was invited. None was offered and the matter was placed before the
Commission.
It as determined Mr. Oliva, the adjoining property owner who had objected to the
location of the tower, was not present at the meeting.
Mr. Rieley said if the choice is being closer to a neighbor's property who objected, in a
location where, were it to fall, it would fall on the neighbor's property, or a highly
visible location with no trees around --it is not a good choice and the reason it is not a
good choice is because of the constriction of the property lines --it's a narrow lot. He
said: "I would like to see more exploration of other locations, higher on that ridge,
where it's level and there are lots of trees...."
Mr. Nitchmann recalled that he voted against this tower because of the feeling that no
` more towers should be approved until after the county's consultant is on board.
However, because it has already been approved, he said he believes granting the
setback is better than having the tower visible from the road. He said he would feel
7�
4
differently if the adjoining property owner (Mr. Oliva) was present at the meeting to
express his opposition.
Mr. Keeler said staff had received no comment from any member of the public.
Mr. Rieley said Mr. Oliva's comments had been very clear for the first hearing. He
said he would not want to base a decision on the fact that someone is not present at
the meeting, because there could be many reasons why Mr. Oliva could not attend the
meeting.
Ms. Washington said she would abstain from voting on the request because she had
not been present during the first hearing, and because she, too, is concerned about all
the towers that are being approved.
Mr. Loewenstein said he agrees with Mr. Nitchmann that guidance is needed from a
consultant before more towers are approved. But without that guidance, he said he
would prefer the tower be in the trees and not in the open.
Mr. Nitchmann said he would like to hear from the adjoining property owner before
voting on the variance request. He suggested the item be deferred until staff could
contact Mr. Oliver. He said he would support the variance if it is found Mr. Oliver has
changed his mind and no longer objects.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP 98-08 for CFW Wireless, Crossroads,
Setback Waiver Request be deferred to June 23, 1998, to allow time for staff to
contact Mr. Oliver. Mr. Rieley seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Rieley said: "In looking at these two, I believed we were looking at the two
together, and I would not have voted in favor of this application without proper
setbacks from the property line. I am saying that for the applicant's benefit. I think we
have to find suitable sites that meet the setback requirements. I hope the applicant
will explore some other alternatives in this intervening time."
Mr. Nitchmann said: "I think I agree with you because I don't think we have the right
to permit something that will infringe upon the neighbor's property rights. That's what
we would be saying to Mr. Oliva --'we don't care what you think about your property,
we're going to allow this tower to go there and if it falls on your property, so what,' and
I don't think that's what we want to do. If Mr. Oliva doesn't care, then it's a whole
different story."
The motion to defer to June 23rd passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
P:
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
�S✓