HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 10 1998 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 10, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
November 10, 1998 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present
were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr.
Dennis Rooker; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. William Finley; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. William
Nitchmann; Mr. Pete Anderson. Other officials present were: Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. David
Benish, Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Planner, Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
The meeting convened at 6:05 p.m. A quorum was established with all members present.
Charlottesville City Planning Commission members attended the first part of the meeting
Pete Anderson, the County Planning Commission's University representative, presented a report
and slide presentation on the University of Virginia Master Plan. Mr. Anderson said the master
planning process is not complete, but he hopes by May or June to have something printed that
will represent the plan in its most current form.
Mr. Anderson reported that every day there are approximately 30,000 people in the 1,000 acres
which comprise the University area, including about 18,500 students with the remainder being
visitors, faculty and staff. He emphasized that as the specifics of what the University needs will
vary in a short time span, they have tried to focus on the "principles" of what U. Va. should be.
Mr. Anderson said that the plan for the University in Jefferson's time was shaped by the
underlying structure of the land, and what is done in the future should equally be shaped by the
land.
Mr. Anderson highlighted the core principles providing the framework for their planning:
"extending the legacy" by preserving architectural heritage and natural heritage, restoring the
stream corridors and ponds, and preserving forested areas; "linking the north grounds and
central grounds" by building a pedestrian bridge over Emmet Street and maximizing
opportunities for development on Emmet Street and Massie Road and proposing a connection
("North Grounds Connection") that would bring auto traffic into Massie Road and on into
expanded parking areas in the U. Hall area, and into a light transit area.
He mentioned that during the planning process, officials have determined they have sufficient
land to handle any foreseeable growth for the University, and highlighted the additional proposed
buildings for housing and Schools. Mr. Anderson illustrated the possible placement for the new
proposed arena, and stated that they hope to bring academic buildings up to it, so that the
academic world "physically embraces" the athletic world. Mr. Anderson reported they are
hoping someday to build more housing along the west side of Emmet Street and add to Lambeth
apartments, and to improve the sidewalk areas along Emmet to make that area "more humane"
for pedestrian traffic.
In "creating a walking environment," the University hopes to increase foot traffic by
restricting vehicular traffic on a narrowed McCormick Road, creating new pedestrian and bicycle
pathways, implementing the "Groundswalk," and replacing surface parking lots in the center
with parking structures on the edges. He added that most of the future development in the
central part of grounds would be "infill," small additions to complement existing structures.
72
The plan focuses on making the University more connected by increasing pedestrian and bicycle
pathways, and placing related schools more closely together. The plan also calls for a foot
bridge over Emmet Street near Massie Road and a "light transit" system to provide a shuttle
service within the University area. Mr. Anderson reported that expansion of engineering and
basic sciences would bring those areas next to Scott Stadium to take advantage of the space
there and encourage integration of athletics and academics. He said the Piedmont area would be
more densely developed, but no specific uses have been outlined. Under construction starting
now, a new South end will be added to Scott Stadium with expected completion for the football
season of the year 2000.
Mr. Anderson reported that the University hopes to bring the principle of the "mixed use
component" which characterized the early Academical Village into the entire University, and
gave an example of the "Arts Precinct," which would bring the Music Departments in with the
Architecture, Arts and Drama Schools. He added that the "Groundswalk" would run through this
area, and mentioned small expansions of these schools and addition of a new Arts library.
He said that officials hope to bring all parts of the University together in "serving the larger
[University] community" through better parking arrangement, light shuttle services throughout
the University area, and the "Groundswalk," which will include a braided network of roads,
paths, transit systems, woodland corridors, and buildings. He mentioned that they hope to
"daylight" Meadow Creek as the center of a riparian path.
Mr. Anderson concluded by stating that they hope to return to Jefferson's concept of the U-
shaped Academical Village, by making the village itself the head and heart of the University of
the Future with a much larger U of the North Grounds, Central Grounds and Western University
Area. Mr. Anderson acknowledged that while the styles of buildings at the University change,
he hopes the principles outlined will last a long time.
In response to Commissioner comments and questions, Mr. Anderson said that the proposed foot
bridge over Emmet Street may materialize within 10 years as the Board of Visitors are very
interested in its creation, he stated that University enrollment will remain approximately 18,500,
with a growth of about 60 students per year.
A brief recess was taken
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the October 20, 1998 minutes as
presented. (The minutes were deferred from the November 3, 1998 meeting.) The Commission
moved, seconded and unanimously approved the October 27, 1998 minutes as amended.
Mr. Benish presented a review of the November 4, 1998 Board of Supervisors meeting. He
reported that there were no items that the Commission typically reviews, but mentioned that the
Board adopted a resolution of intent to consider amendment to the zoning ordinance for fees
relating to telecommunications towers, and will evaluate the fee structure to incorporate the
consultant work for future evaluations and fees. He reported the status of the Comprehensive
Plan on community facilities for the Crozet area presented to the Board, requested in relation to
comments made regarding the long term status of the old Crozet School. The Board reviewed
information provided by planing and engineering staff, and has requested that engineering
73
review the long-term feasibility of the use of that building for other public uses, and said the
Commission may in the future may be considering another component of that evaluation if it is
determined that the building does have viable uses.
Consent Agenda:
SDP 98-100 Wilco at 29 North
Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of the Consent Agenda item SDP 98-
100, which included one way circulation and critical slopes waiver requests for the Wilco
gas/market on Route 29 North. The motion passed unanimously.
Public Hearing:
SP 98-51 Triton PCS/Vepco/Allan (Sign #37)
Proposal to construct a Personal Wireless Service Facility on an existing Vepco high voltage
power line. This requires a special use permit in accord with the provisions of Section
10.2.2.(6). The proposal is to locate antenna approximately 4 feet above the height of the
existing Vepco monopole located on the west side of Barracks Road approximately 0.26 miles
east of Route 601, Old Garth Road in the Samuel Miller magisterial District. The property
consists of approximately 53 acres and is described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 3, and is zoned RA,
Rural Areas. This site is not located within a designated development area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report, and told Commissioners that Triton Communications has met
with staff on several occasions, and have been working to identify existing structures that will
support their facilities. Mr. Fritz said Triton has identified several power line corridors that
satisfy their needs in terms of location, which has prompted the applications now before the
Commission. Although these types of facilities using existing powerline corridors are not
uncommon in other communities, Mr. Fritz reported, these are the first in Albemarle County.
Mr. Fritz noted in his staff report that use of existing structures has generally been endorsed as a
means to facilitate the provision of wireless service with minimal impact on the county, the
attachment on these structures has occurred some cases by -right, and in others has required a
Special Use Permit.
He said that staff opinion is that attachment to existing conforming structures has not resulted in
negative impacts, and the use of towers for antennas allows for a large service area without
significant additional negative visual impact, as the equipment installed by the personal wireless
service provider appears similar or compatible with the nature of the existing power line and
tower. With a large service area provided by use of existing structures, the total number of sites
required by a personal wireless service provider can be reduce, thus reducing the overall impact
to the county.
Mr. Fritz told the Commission that the antenna would be about 4 feet above the height of the
existing power line, which is approximately 116 feet tall; the nearest dwelling not located on the
parcel under review is about 1000 feet distance. He added the tower does comply with the
setback requirements of the ordinance, and referenced in illustration in the report which shows
how the antenna would be attached to the monopole. The ground equipment will be located near
the monopole within the Virginia Power right-of-way, and will not be visible from Barracks
Road.
74
Mr. Fritz concluded that staff recommends approval as the proposal is consistent with the
provisions of the zoning ordinance, and approval of the waiver of the site plan with conditions as
a detailed plan was submitted in support of the application. He noted that no new entrance is
required onto the public road because there is an existing access road, and little if any additional
grading would be needed.
Mr. Rieley asked if the new consultant has had any comments on this proposal. Mr. Fritz
responded that this has not been discussed with the consultant who is working with the county on
the case -by -case reviews because no contract has been entered into. He added the concept of
power line attachments, but not the particulars of any application, has been discussed and is
likely going to be one of the recommended policies that the county view these structures as
resources that are available and allow for large coverage areas to reduce the total number of such
facilities needed. Mr. Fritz said the design used is now a fairly conventional one, and is a widely
supported technique.
In response to Mr. Rooker's question regarding the staff condition requiring the permittee to
submit a report to the zoning administrator each year to identify each user of the tower, Mr. Fritz
responded that while no other user can colocate on the tower, the condition is a fairly standard
one to ensure that if any wireless provider locating on the tower ceases transmission the
equipment could be used by a new provider or removed to be replaced by the new provider's
equipment.
In response to Mr. Thomas' question about how long it would be before Triton comes up with
another way to install antennas that are not so big. Mr. Fritz said that on this particular
application, he examined the concept of using a dual polarization diversity antenna (a larger
' antenna that consolidates panel antennas into a single antenna), but found it would extend even
higher than the monopole.
The applicant's representative, Steve Blaine, addressed the Commissioners, and told them that
Triton has formed a joint venture with AT&T wireless service which will offer customers time
division multiple access digital technology. Mr. Rieley inquired about the alternate antenna
arrangement Mr. Fritz spoke of which was rejected, and George Cumming of Triton addressed
the Commission to clarify the issue. Mr. Cumming said that the dual polarization antenna would
have a smaller coverage area, and would precipitate multiple locations along Barracks Road. He
said that in working with staff on the proposal, they determined that the current plan would
prevent destruction of raw land.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Thomas commented that the dual polarization antennas are larger and would be more
conspicuous than the monopole arrangement. "Visibility seems to be the key that we're looking
at .... the polarization really does stand up."
Mr. Fritz confirmed that they are usually 12 to 18 feet and sometimes larger.
Mr. Rieley said, "I think we have to act on what we have before us. I will support this with
reservations, but I do think these two applications are extremely different. This one is on an
'*MW existing monopole — it doesn't require an additional structure, and its height above the existing
one is fairly minimal. It is highly visible right along the edge of Barracks Road, and while I'm
75
not in agreement with the general strategy of trying to get these things up as high as we can so
that they cover these big areas. I think we've demonstrated that if we had 20 Bell Airs it would
have much less negative effect than one Keswick. I'm very reluctant to support any of these
propped way up in the air. I think that fundamental premise is mistaken. However, I think that
the negative impact of this one really is relatively minor because the pole is already there and
we're going up above it a relatively small amount."
Mr. Rooker agreed with Mr. Rieley. "I do think that the Bell Air model for a tower and some of
the other ones we've approved similar to that are a lot less noticeable... I've yet to talk to anyone
who has said anything negative about that tower, including the people that live in Bell Air. I
think as part of the strategy for tower location it does make sense to try to use existing structures
where there is [not] a significant visible addition to the structure. For that reason I would support
this application.
Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of SP 98-51 (special use permit) with
conditions as proposed by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of a site plan waiver pertinent to SP 98-
51 including conditions as set forth by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-52 Triton PCS/Vepco/State Farm (Sign #35)
Proposal to construct a Personal Wireless Service Facility on an existing Vepco high voltage
power line. This requires a special use permit in accord with the provisions of Section 23.2.2(3).
The proposal is to locate antenna approximately 18 feet above the height of the existing Vepco
lattice tower located behind the State Farm building at Pantops in the Rivanna Magisterial
District. The property consists of approximately 30 acres and is described as Tax Map 78, Parcel
20F, and is zoned CO, Commercial Office. The site is recommended for Office/Regional
Service in Neighborhood 3.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report, and noted that it differed from the previous application.
He said that Triton is proposing a telecommunications pole on the utility corridor, and wish to
locate on a high -voltage lattice pole supporting the cables that Virginia Power Company owns
the easement for. Mr. Morrisette said the existing tower is approximately 110 feet tall, and is
located behind the main parking lot of the State Farm Headquarters; the site of these poles is
about 50 feet down grade from the existing parking lot level. He explained that the location of
any type of utility box would be fairly camouflaged from any direction.
Mr. Morrisette emphasized that Triton wants to locate a monopole within the center of the lattice
structures, as it may be difficult to locate on the actual structure itself due to its age. Triton
proposes 9 additional antennas which would be 18 feet above the lattice pole. He said it is in the
Monticello viewshed, and said that looking from that distance, he did not feel it would be an
increase as an eyesore. As outlined in the first staff condition, Mr. Morrisette stated that staff is
requiring Triton to paint the pole and panels a rust color to match the existing lattice structure for
low ambiance and reflectivity. He said there is also visibility from the entrance corridor coming
from Westbound I-64. The tower is adjacent to an important wooded area, as indicated in the
Open Space Plan, and there is no clearing proposed. One parking space would need to be
provided.
76
M
In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Morrisette provided the size of the panels with the
applicant's information as 5 feet in length and approximately 4 inches in width. In response to
Mr. Thomas' question, staff confirmed the panels as similar to those on the Sprint antenna. Mr.
Morrisette said that counting back from I-64, this Vepco tower is the third tower visible. He
explained that staff has requested that the applicant's RF engineer provide information to justify
why an additional 18 feet is needed; through conversations and a brief letter, the applicant stated
a need to "clear" the wooded area and compensate for the low grade these tower poles are
located in.
Mr. Finley commented that the conditions require removal of the antennas, and asked if the pole
would stay in place. Mr. Morrisette responded that staff would probably require removal of the
pole also, as the conditions staff used were initially written to apply to attached antennas, not the
tower within a tower concept. Mr. Rieley asked if staff could provide topographical maps as
they had in the past, and said they were useful in evaluating such proposals. Mr. Rieley
explained that Mr. Morrisette presented this tower location as being "down in a hole," but his
review of the USGS map shows elevation of 400 feet, about the same as Carlton and Meade
Avenue. "Those kinds of things are enormously significant when we are trying to figure out the
visual impact .... I'd like to request that in the future we get those topographic maps."
Mr. Fritz replied, "We didn't know how much benefit they actually were .... and one of the
reasons we were providing them was because [the proposal] was in a site that didn't have
anything, no existing structure to give you any point of reference.... but we can certainly do that
again in the future." Mr. Fritz asked if aerial photography would be beneficial, if available.
Commissioners responded that it was not terribly useful because they are difficult to read.
Mr. Blaine readdressed the Commission, and stressed that the visual impact from Monticello
would be minimal given the height of the antennas and the distance from the mountain. Mr.
Rooker asked him how high the existing tower is relative to the State Farm building. He
responded that it is 110 feet, and Mr. Cumming added that State Farm is significantly uphill.
"When you're in the parking lot that is behind State Farm, it's very difficult to see the top of the
utility tower."
Mr. Rooker asked if it would be possible to provide coverage with a very short pole on top of the
hill instead of a large tower that's downhill. Mr. Cumming responded that the Triton signal may
need more clearance over the treeline. Mr. Fritz clarified that the array proposed differs from
CFW's wooden pole which uses an omnidirectional antenna that doesn't cover as much ground.
The proposed directional antenna with panels allows more ground coverage, Mr. Fritz added, and
said while the smaller sites are less visible, this proposal potentially eliminates the need for other
sites. "The thing you need to be looking at is `Is this one with this type of antenna better than the
potential of multiple omni-types located elsewhere....' This could very easily do away with
multiple alternative sites simply because of the ability of this type of site to handle calls."
Mr. Rooker replied that the same array of antenna could even be placed on top of the State Farm
Building. Mr. Fritz said the height and weight involved might preclude that type of arrangement.
He asked the applicant if the top of State Farm could be used. Mr. Cumming responded that
their previous use of buildings has been for heights of less than 15 feet, and said in this instance
that would not provide adequate tree clearance.
WSJ
Mr. Rooker said that he is very familiar with the area, and doesn't think that the height of any
trees there should require such clearance.
Mr. Cumming responded, "The tree line that I speak of. ... is the trees between the building and
64, which is our coverage objective."
Mr. Rooker stated that there is a downhill slope from the building toward 64, and asked the
applicant if he knew if it would be possible to locate on top of the building without a pole.
Mr. Cumming commented, "As far as a visual impact goes, it would be very visible on that
rooftop to users of the State Farm Building and surrounding developments, and I feel that within
the trees going down that hill is a much more stealth or camouflaged site."
Mr. Rooker asked if it would be possible to put a pole tower that's slightly higher than trees in
those trees going down the hill. Mr. Cumming said that would be possible, but would require
multiple sites. "We would have to put them fairly close together there along 64, and those
antennas would be visible to the discerning eye from 64 also...."
Mr. Finley asked if Triton would own the pole to be installed. Mr. Cumming said that Triton has
a master agreement with Virginia Power to use their facilities throughout the state, with Virginia
Power doing the installation and facility maintenance. Mr. Finley said he was trying to clarify
the pole ownership in the event it would need to be removed. Mr. Fritz interjected that the pole
serves no purpose that would benefit in any way the provision of electrical service, as it is free
standing within the lattice. Mr. Finley asked if there would be a reason to remove the pole, for
example, if another company wanted to use the pole
Ms. Washington asked if the pole would need to be lit. The applicant responded that it would
not be within the height requirement for lighting.
Mr. Thomas asked if this pole would eliminate the necessity for other towers. Mr. Cumming
informed the Commission that Triton would be approaching them in the next several months
with proposals for eight sites to provide coverage for the entire Albemarle area. Mr.
Loewenstein asked if it would be possible to see a plan integrating all of these sites even before
they are approved. Mr. Cumming replied that Triton has been working with staff to locate
existing structures and other areas that would not be visually impacted. Mr. Fritz said that a
questionnaire has been sent to Triton and the other three area wireless service providers asking
for information about their future plans, but responses have not yet been received.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Washington stated her support for the permit, stating she liked the fact that it would
eliminate the need for so many locations, and liked its location in an existing utility facility that
Vepco already has an easement to.
Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Finely seconded approval of SP 98-52 with conditions as outlined
by staff.
Mr. Thomas asked how many carriers would be applying for special use permits in the near
future. Mr. Fritz told the Commission that there are three personal wireless service providers
78
other than Triton who applied for licenses for the area, one of which has since withdrawn from
intent to service the Albemarle area. Mr. Fritz said the consultant said there could be as many as
30 carriers applying for data transmission. "The licenses are out there for well more than 30; as
to whether or not they will be done in this market is up to the market to determine."
Mr. Thomas commented, "So the potential is there for us to have 30 or 60 or 100 carriers in the
area." Mr. Fritz said there are 88 potential licenses for paging services, wireless internet
connectivity, data transmission, but the market may not bear that many.
Mr. Rieley expressed his concerns about this proposal. "I think that this is a fundamentally bad
idea — the pole within a pole — particularly when it comes up as high as this does .... If you look at
a monopole of this height, and look at this existing structure, it's clear that the monopole with the
antenna on top is far more visible than the structure that's supposed to be hiding it .... This
location I don't think is being represented accurately. This tower is extremely visible from the
parking lot at State Farm, and you don't look down at it, you look up at it."
He added, "It's not a stealth site, and I think that if we were looking at this — if there wasn't an
existing utility corridor there — I don't think there's any way we would act favorably on this. It's
looming above the Rivanna River, one of our community's most valued ecological resources.
It's very visible from Monticello.... and this is going to loom above the top of State Farm, and
the reason its above State Farm is exactly what the applicant said, because they can get up higher
than mining a tower directly on the roof."
Mr. Rieley concluded, "It's really high, it's extremely visible, and I don't think we would vote
in favor of it if it were not for this `transparent cage' that is around it .... that's my overwhelming
Avam•' feeling about this, and .... we have to decide is this better than a lot of smaller ones, and I think
we have models for these in our communities already that have proven that we don't need these
highly visible disruptive towers. There's a better way to do it, there's lots of alternatives, there
are real stealth sites, and I think that we absolutely have to insist, particularly in light of these 88
licenses that our out there .... that people do a better job of finding less visible sites for these, and
so I can't support it."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "I can support it. I think it's a great place for it. I don't think you're going
to notice it from 64, I don't think people from State Farm are going to see it. If this was a
pristine area out there and I was coming on 64 and didn't see that huge white elephant out
there .... and if it eliminates the number of more poles going in this community than I have to vote
for it, and I call the question."
Mr. Rooker said, "I generally support the concept of using existing structures, where I think it
would present a less visible alternative. I have to agree with Mr. Rieley...."
Further comment was prohibited as the question had been called. In a 4-3 vote, with Ms.
Washington, Mr. Nitchmann, and Mr. Finley dissenting, the Commission denied approval of SP
98-52 (special use permit) with conditions as submitted.
Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval the site plan waiver pertinent to SP
98-52 with conditions in the event the Board of Supervisors approves the special use permit.
4*ftW-1 The motion passed unanimously.
79
Old Business
A) Ms. Washington asked staff for an update on the various phases of the Meadowcreek
Parkway, including the City's status on the project. Ms. Washington raised the issue of potential
conflicts of interest if members serve on both the Planning Commission and various committees
that deal with planning issues. She said she mentioned this to County Attorney Larry Davis last
week, and asked Mr. Kamptner to discuss this with Mr. Davis. Ms. Washington stated she
wanted the attorney's point of view of Mr. Rieley's role as consultant to the City's work on
Meadowcreek Parkway while serving on the County Planning Commission. Ms. Washington
said last week's discussion of the impact of the proposed parkway on Dunlora and Rio Road
prompted her concerns.
Mr. Loewenstein clarified, "You want a progress report on Meadowcreek and you want a report
on the City phase of it as well as on the County phase of it, and you also want the County
Attorney to investigate the possible conflict of interest of Mr. Rieley serving as consultant to the
City portion of that."
Ms. Washington affirmed this, and expressed her concern specifically over chairing a committee
while serving on the Planning Commission.
Mr. Loewenstein responded that he has investigated the latter question as it has been raised
before, and said at that time the County Attorney's office said that it did not involve any kind of
conflict of interest. Mr. Loewenstein said he also spoke with Mr. Tucker and several Board of
Supervisors members at that time and "they were in agreement with that opinion, although [their
opinion] wasn't a legal opinion."
Ms. Washington restated, "I just want to get a formal understanding in my mind.... reading
policies and procedures and different ordinances, they don't clearly spell out where we cross that
line...."
Mr. Loewenstein directed her questions to the County Attorney
Commissioners recalled that question already being asked to the County Attorney, who then
responded there was no conflict of interest.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that there are two types of conflict of interest, a statutory conflict of
interest under the Code of Virginia, and a common law conflict of interest when you feel you
can't be objective in your decisionmaking.
Mr. Rieley mentioned, "I have removed myself twice when I did not have any statutory conflict
of interest at all, I just felt that my association with the projects at hand might cloud my
objectivity. I don't think anything has come before this Commission related to the Meadowcreek
Parkway in that category, and when it does I will certainly remove myself"
Mr. Nitchmann commented that Commissioners chairing committees does not set forth the
proper perception to the general public. "When a Commissioner who is going to vote on a
crucial matter is also the chair of that committee, he's guiding that committee .... then comes
`#ftw" before the Commission and gives a presentation for that particular project, there's no way in my
mind that individual can be objective about it because he's put his or her full support behind
80
whatever conclusions came out of the [committee]. You know the way that individual's going to
vote before the vote is taken; therefore instead of seven people voting on it, there's six people
theoretically voting on it .... Conflict of interest or not, I don't think it sends the right message
forward...."
Mr. Loewenstein asked how this would differ from the decision making process at the state and
national level when elected officials chair committees that then report out to the floor and the
entire House or Senate has to vote on it. He asked fellow Commissioners if any of them were
currently chairing a committee; none were.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Nitchmann if it was acceptable just to be a member of a committee, but not
chair it. Mr. Nitchmann said yes. Referring to his own past service on committees, Mr.
Nitchmann said that he has used his position as Commissioner as more of an advisory role rather
than trying to shape the decision.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that most of these committees are comprised of a fairly broad cross-
section of the community, and "I would like to think that the work that committee has done does
represent a pretty broad cross-section of opinion, both expert and general public opinion .... a
committee member who is also a seated Planning Commissioner presumably comes into this
meeting as probably the best informed individual on the topic because he or she has wrestled
with this issues for weeks, months and sometimes years .... it's incumbent upon that person to
represent that committee's work and its deliberations and its thinking and the reasons why
they've come up with the conclusions they have for the rest of us who will have a staff
report .... and we probably haven't got nearly the information that individual has."
..r Mr. Rooker said he did not see a lot of distinction between being on a committee and chairing
one. "It seems to me that all of us take a position at some point based upon the information we
get, and a person who is on a committee perhaps becomes better informed. ...and that should be
reflected in their ultimately supporting or not supporting a matter that might come before us.
Acting as chairman of a committee I don't view so much as shaping all of the issues, but simply
presiding over a group of people with an objective. Quite often people who are not the chair of
the committee seem to have more of an input in shaping the issues than the chairman."
Mr. Rooker concluded, "It seems to me it's one of those things you almost have to decide on a
case -by -case basis, and each Commissioner needs to decide whether or not it makes sense for
him to be on a committee and if so what position he's going to take on that committee, and later
if the matter comes to a vote .... as a matter of conscience, what each of us deems is appropriate
given the particular circumstances."
Mr. Kamptner stated, "When you obtain the additional information on a particular topic by virtue
of your being member of a committee, that doesn't create some kind of conflict of interest.
Really all you have done is obtained the information and developed an idea or an opinion as to
how a particular course of action should go."
Mr. Nitchmann restated he did not feel a Commissioner should play the role of chairing
something or championing something because it gives the wrong perception to the general
public.
on
81
Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that from his committee experience, the person chairing does not
necessarily represent the majority opinion, and in fact the reverse is sometimes true. He asked
Mr. Kamptner to restate opinion of any legal conflict.
Mr. Kamptner replied that chairing a committee does not create a conflict of interest.
Mr. Benish pointed out that the Commissioners decide who sits on committees, and could
stipulate when the appointment was made whether the person should chair.
Mr. Rieley mentioned that regarding the Mountain Protection Committee, he was on the
committee before he joined the Planning Commission, Mr. [David] Tice was selected as chair of
that committee before he became a Planning Commission member, and Mr. Nitchmann was the
official Planning Commission designee.
B) Regarding the earlier discussions about the monopole towers, Mr. Rooker asked if staff could
provide alternatives to the proposed tower arrangements for future such proposals. Mr. Fritz
mentioned that the recommendations forthcoming from the consultants currently working with
the County Planning Commission may address this and related issues. He mentioned that the
issue of alternatives was partially resolved a week prior when the Board of Supervisors adopted a
resolution of intent to amend the fee structures; the board is considering a tiered fee structure
whereby three or four tiers that will have differing levels of information submitted. Mr. Fritz
said the process includes informing the Commission of the types of facilities available generally,
and then providing specifics on available alternatives; he mentioned that one thing considered is
having a fee charged at the point of application, with any unused fee for a consultant refunded to
the applicant. He said staff is working with the Board of Supervisors to set up a January work
session to discuss the work of the consultant and his advice for the county. Mr. Fritz said the
approach they are aiming for, which has not been determined definitively at all, is something
along the design guideline approach.
He added that the consultant will be done with his work by spring, and the Planning Department
staff will work on development of policy to present to the Planning Commission and the Board
of Supervisors by summer. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's comments that the consultant may
have more expertise in urban areas and less in rural areas, Mr. Fritz informed him that the
consultant has experience with urban areas because those systems are more mature and are using
the camouflage and other technologies that the County is trying to use; there are no rural
examples. But he assured Commissioners that the consultant has experience in rural areas as
well, and this was specified as criteria during the selection process. He said that often urban
strategies need to be implemented because those strategies do not exist in rural areas.
Mr. Finley asked Mr. Fritz what the applicant would get out of the higher fee. He answered that
staff has discussed with the consultant the option of having the applicant reduce the cost of the
tier review by providing the necessary information so the consultant just reviews the application
for accuracy, completeness and other alternatives. Mr. Fritz said this approach would actually
reduce the cost to the county, and provide the county with more knowledge. He added that the
applicant will get a more complete review out of the higher fee, and would know what the
comments would be and whether they would likely get approval for their applications.
Mr. Fritz clarified that even if the consultant's review was negative toward a proposal, the
w.► applicant would still have the right to address the Commission with any option he wished; the
consultant's report would outline what staff requested he review. In response to Mr.
82
VIM
Nitchmann's concern about understanding the information provided by the consultant, Mr. Fritz
assured Commissioners that they used comprehension as a significant criteria in the selection
process.
New Business
Mr. Benish presented Commissioners with the proposed Capital Improvements Project budget,
which they will discuss next week. Mr. Benish said that generally a public hearing on the CIP is
usually reserved for the Board of Supervisors, and added that they may want to consider public
input at the Commission level in the future. In response to Mr. Finley's question regarding the
school portion of the CIP, Mr. Benish replied that staff reviews that to some extent with a
technical committee that is composed of people who are involved in capital programs at various
levels. Mr. Benish added that staff hopes there is coordination with the schools, but said most of
that school budget comes from the School Board and Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Bob Watson of KALAC addressed the Commission with several procedural
recommendations for 1999: he asked if the Commission would entertain unscheduled public
items prior to the consent agenda as the Board of Supervisors does (limited to no more than 3
speakers for a maximum of 5 minutes); he asked if the Commission would consider lengthening
the public hearing speaking time of 3 minutes for issues that do not have a large number of
speakers; he also asked if the Commission would lengthen the speaking time from 3 minutes to 5
minutes for those speakers representing a group, as was done in the past.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Watson to provide staff with a copy of those recommendations for
future discussions. He added that the Commission is trying to parallel the Board of Supervisors'
procedure with time limits, whether the speaker represents one person or more than one person.
"I think it would probably be well for us to consider.... having parallel procedures with the
Board. I think it's a lot less confusing for the public because often the same people will appear
twice..."
Mr. Benish mentioned that the reason the Commission and Board went back to a three -minute
time limit is because it was difficult to define "a group."
Mr. Loewenstein said, "We occasionally had situations where the president of a group would get
up and ask to represent that group for five minutes, then the vice-president would get up and do
the same thing because he or she was also representing the group. So you've got 10 or 15 or as
many officers that you had could drag it out, and I think that got to be a problem for the Board."
He added there may have been other reasons as well, and indicated that this and other procedures
should be reviewed carefully for future discussion.
Mr. Watson stated that he has also written the Board a letter concerning operational issues in
regard to committees that have been appointed by the Board, and will furnish the Commission
with a copy.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. � `^
V. Wayne Cilin
Secretary
83