HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 22 1997 PC Minutes7-22-97
JULY 22, 1997
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 22, 1997, in
the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Tice,
Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce
Dotson; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney; Mr.
Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Susan Thomas, Planner; Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner; Mr. David
Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. David Hirschman,
Water Resources Manager. Absent: Commissioner Loewenstein.
The meeting was called to order at 7.00 p.m. and a quorum was confirmed.
SP 97-23 Rivanna Rowing - Petition for approval of a special use permit for a rowing facility on the
property described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 31 D. It is 3.276 acres in size, is located on Earlysville
Road (State Route 743), and abuts the Rivanna River Reservoir. The property contains the
Monticello Wesleyan Church. It is located at 2001 Earlysville Road in the Rio Magisterial District. It
is located in the Rural Areas and the Flood Hazard Overlay Zone. In addition to the request for
approval of the special permit, the Commission is asked to approve: (1) A cooperative parking
arrangement between the church and the rowing use under Section 4.12.4 of the Zoning Ordinance;
and (2) A waiver of the requirement in Section 4.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance that construction
quiring a building permit be set back 200 feet from any drinking water impoundment. {NOTE:
egarding the waiver of 4.2.1, the staff report explained: "in this particular case, there is no
foundation for a building being proposed, but approval is requested for racks through which rainfall
can come and under which runoff can go to the Rivanna reservoir. No damage from runoff would
be expected as a result of construction of this type of storage rack."]
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Staff recommended denial of the petition based on the
following reasons:
(1) The Comp Plan does not support, in general, commercial recreational uses in the rural
areas;
(2) The use of the Reservoir is primarily as a water supply and the County and Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority allow only "incidental" recreational uses;
(3) Safety concerns are being raised with the addition of this use which indicates to staff that
the level of activity would increase above an "incidental" recreational level;
(4) Staff could find no clear public need for this commercial recreational activity;
(5) Adjacent property owners and the existing users of the Rivanna Reservoir will experience
an increase in noise and numbers of rowers on the Rivanna reservoir at the same time as a result
of an additional facility being allowed.
(6) There is existing reasonable use of the property for a church which does not necessitate
the addition of an activity which is unrelated to the church.
the event the Commission and Board approved the request, the staff report listed 10
ommended conditions of approval, plus 4 additional conditions recommended by the Water
Resources Manager and the Engineering Department.
7-22-97 2
- tall answers to Commission questions included the following:
--A "session" (condition #4) may include as many as five boats, with eight rowers in each
boat. Two sessions per day are proposed. A session lasts approximately 2 hours.
--No boat rentals will be available.
--If this request is not approved, the Virginia Rowing Association "has committed to providing
community rowing." Rowing opportunities for community members are available through the
Rivanna Rowing Club. Community rowing exists now, and would continue.
--Presently, the Virginia Rowing Association restricts the number of people and boats which
can be present on the Reservoir at any given time. Approval of this request would increase the
number of rowers who can be present on the Reservoir "at the same time." By allowing a second
unrestricted access, two sets of rowers could be present at the same time. "That is where safety
concerns are raised."
--Up to seven boats have been approved by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Seven
permits presently exist: 2 permits for the Virginia Rowing Association; 3 for UVA; and 2 for the
Rivanna Rowing Club. Mr. Hirschman said all seven could not be on the water at the same time.
He also said that the seasons for the Virginia Rowing Association and the Rivanna Rowing Club do
not overlap, so all seven could not be on the water at the same time.
--On the question of whether the shoreline is public or private property, Mr. Hirschman
explained: "There is a thin strip of land all around the reservoir which is owned by the City of
Charlottesville and managed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Where that property line
is on any given property would have to be surveyed and in some cases it may be under water. The
assumption is there is a narrow strip of land between private property and the water which is under
iblic ownership and managed by RWSA." The RWSA (a public entity) is a party of this application
because they issued the permit. Mr. Davis explained: "The special use permit is for the applicant's
land only, which abuts the City land, which is managed by RWSA, so if we granted the special
permit and RWSA did not give them permission to enter the Reservoir, the special use permit would
be of no value." The RWSA permit (for use of combustion engines) is for a one-year period, with
annual renewals up to three years. In the event the RWSA should not renew their permit, Mr. Tice
asked if there should be a condition requiring the removal of the structure and the termination of the
special use permit. Mr. Hirschman said RWSA has granted two separate approvals --one for the
boat dock, which is not subject to periodic renewals, and the second for the use of internal
combustion engines on the Reservoir, which is periodically reviewed. The boat dock approval can
be terminated by the RWSA, but there is no requirement for removal of the dock. Mr. Hirschman
said he is not aware of any instance of forced removal of a boat dock. Mr. Davis said: "Since a
special permit is required for the placement of the boat dock, a reasonable condition would be for
its removal if the use ceases to exist for a set period of time. It would be a similar condition to what
you typically recommend for a tower, for example."
Mr. Dotson asked staff to explain why two other items which are on the agenda must be brought
into conformity with the Ordinance, but, for this application, staff is saying the church, which is to
provide parking for this use, does not have to be brought into conformity even though its use is
intensifying. Mr. Davis said the church does not have to have a special use permit for the shared
parking "because the church use is not being changed. This rowing use is a separate and distinct
-se from the church. If the church was expanding, that would require a special use permit to make
onforming, which is the second item on the agenda tonight, where they are expanding the
lurch itself." He added that the Panorama Farms request is not a nonconforming use --it is a non-
11 7
7-22-97
3
ermitted use and they have been cited for operating in conflict with the Zoning Ordinance and that
wise has to be brought into conformance, otherwise they are in violation rather than nonconforming.
Regarding staffs concerns about the commercial aspects of the use , Mr. Finley asked: "Does this
mean there is only going to be one boat club on the Rivanna Reservoir? Will there ever be facilities
for this many people if nothing is done except what is already there?" Ms. Echols said she
understands there are a set number of rowers (i.e. "those who stick with it"). Up until last year, that
number was able to operate out of the Virginia Rowing Association (VRA) boat house. The VRA
has set a cap of 250 community rowers on their facility. She said she understands the current
number if approximately 150. (The number may vary somewhat "depending on who you talk to and
when you get the information.") She said: "The result of this would be a single facility such as
exists now and ... and it seems to be a matter of preference as to from whom the rowers get their
instruction.
Mr. Dotson said he hoped to learn the answers to the following questions during the public hearing
comment-
--How many crew shells the Reservoir can safely handle without conflicts with fishermen,
canoeists, etc.?
--Is there any record of noise or other disturbance (or lack of noise or disturbance) to
shoreline owners?
Referring to a statement in the staff report about the Rivanna Rowing Club (RRC) that "after
:penses, the differential was retained as a profit", Mr. Tice asked staff why they consider the RRC
as a non-commercial operation and this proposal as a commercial operation. Ms. Echols said
representatives of the VRA could best answer that question. It was her understanding the primary
distinction is "an individual wants to operate this as his primary source of income as opposed to the
RRC collecting fees and using those fees for the boathouse activities and paying for private
instructors with that money." She did not know if the RRC is a formally established not -for -profit
organization.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Brett Wilson. He described his history with rowing on the
Rivanna Reservoir. His comments included the following:
--He has run this small business for the past eight summers. He has taught nearly 1,000
people to row in his "Learn to Row" classes. He is not aware of any complaints about the
operation.
--This proposal is simply to move the operation from one location on the Reservoir to
another.
--Rowing is a positive activity for the community and this operation has provided many
physical and mental health benefits to community residents. A wide variety of people participate
and many life-long friendships have been formed.
--The members of the Monticello Wesleyan Church have been very generous and supportive
through this entire process.
--There will not be a substantial increase in the number of rowers. There are a "finite
-tuber of rowers in this community...." For the past five years, the number of "returning rowers"
,,,.; remained constant, between 85 and 110.
`1 Y
7-22-97 4
--His operation has an excellent safety record. All boats must be equipped with lights which
„re visible for at least 3/4 of a mile. No rowers are allowed on the water during lightening storms,
nor even if storms are still distant.
--He is a proponent of propane powered engines, developed especially for him. The
emissions of a propane engine are 5% of the conventional outboard engine. A leak in a propane
tank would merely evaporate. Propane engines are also much quieter.
-"Weightless launches" are used, so as to disturb fishermen as little as possible.
--The dock will be constructed of "environmentally friendly materials." No arsenic treated
materials will be used.
--More activity on the Reservoir will result in more responsibility for its health. "Inactivity
means out of sight, out of mind."
--This program was started 9 years ago. "I would like for community rowing to have a secure
location where it is a primary concern. The primary concern of the VRA is collegiate rowing.
Community rowing plays a very distant second fiddle. I would like to have a place where
community rowing can be maintained and a healthy standard sustained." Where will community
rowers go if the present location is jeopardized?
Mr. Wilson's answers to specific Commission questions were as follows:
--Noting that Lake Monticello is not a drinking water impoundment, Ms. Huckle asked if any
consideration has been given to Lake Monticello for this activity? Mr. Wilson said Lake Monticello is
approximately 35-40 minutes away, which means rowers would have to rise much earlier. Rowing
would also have to begin earlier so that rowers could get back to Charlottesville in time for work. (A
gular 6:00 a.m. practice would have to begin at 5:15 a.m., so rowers would have to leave their
I*A'tomes at 4:30 a.m.) "It is the location of the Rivanna Reservoir which makes it a very unique and
valued resource to community rowers."
--The price of rowing may actually be less (than a non-profit organization), because of the
need to provide a better quality service for less cost.
--Young people have been included in the past (as young as 12 years). Height is a
determining factor. It would be a mistake to exclude young rowers.
--Addressing Mr. Dotson's questions about overcrowding, Mr. Wilson said his operation will
overlap with the UVA operation for about 1 month in the spring and 1 month in the fall. He said he
does not think crowding will be a problem. Problems occur not because of the number of boats,
but because of irresponsible or negligent rowers.
--Addressing Mr. Dotson's question about potential nuisance to adjacent property owners, Mr.
Wilson again said he has not aware of a "tremendous public outcry that it is too noisy." He said
there are many residents on the reservoir who enjoy watching the rowers. He again stressed there
will be very little increase, if any, in the number of rowers. There will, however, probably be a shift
from one organization to the other. If residents have not yet experienced problems, there will be no
additional problems as the result of this permit.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Tom Allen, representing the Virginia Rowing Association, expressed neither support for nor
^nposition to the request but offered comments;
--The wishes of the original donors was that the use be for the "faculty, staff and students of
die University of Virginia." Nothing was said about community rowing, "but we recognized that
7-22-97 5
")mmunity rowing could responsibly provide access to the Reservoir and, therefore, when we
Manned the boathouse, a substantial portion, (2/5), was dedicated for community rowing."
--Some serious safety issues arose with the youth program last summer. Those led to the
VRA's request that they reorganize as a not -for -profit, 501 C corporation. A serious accident, such
as a drowning, "could tear that place apart." The VRA was very concerned.. As a result, it was
requested that the youth program be stopped.
--It was discovered the insurance carried by Mr. Wiilson's organization did not cover the VRA.
A law suit would have resulted in the discontinuance of the entire operation.
The following persons spoke in support of the request: Mr. Forest Mellon; Mr. Sandy Reiski
(residence adjacent to the reservoir); Karen Dane (Her statement is made a part of this record as
Attachment A); Robert Wolf; Robert Harp; James Walker; James Wigman (Pastor of the Monticello
Wesleyan Church); Mary Elizabeth Forbes; Linda Vanderlinde; Richard Reese; Dixie Ordelli;
Howard Pape; and Rene Pietro. Their reasons for support were as follows-
--This is a good program which allows community residents, who are not members of the
VRA, to learn to row.
--The Monticello Wesleyan Church endorses this operation.
--Rowing is a healthy form of exercise which creates neither noise, appreciable exhaust or
chemical pollution of the reservoir.
--Having a choice between a for -profit or a not -for -profit organization is an indication of the
vitality of the community. Approval of this request will offer a choice to rowers and to community
residents. Presently, the VRA has total control of the boathouse. Though a non -university program
encouraged, such a program can only exist if the VRA allows it. Denial of this request will
effectively be granting a monopoly to UVA and its subsidiary, Rivanna Rowing Club.
--There will be no significant increase in traffic or rowers.
--Any precedent which may be set will be a good one.
--No additional buildings or impermeable surfaces are proposed. No change to infrastructure
will be needed.
--There will be no negative impact on the water supply.
--The conditions proposed will ensure that this use meet strict requirements.
--The applicant has accommodated all types of participants, including the elderly,
handicapped, and youngsters.
--The applicant has kept the property very clean.
--If UVA needs take priority, other rowers will have no place to row. All residents of the
County are entitled to have access to the reservoir. This organization will be for the people of the
community, not for the university.
The following persons spoke in opposition to the request: Virginia Taggermyer (residence adjacent
to reservoir); and Tom Schlossberg. Their reasons for opposition were as follows-
--There is already sufficient opportunity for rowing activities.
--Given that this is a for -profit organization, what is to prevent it from expanding into other
water activities ?
--There are already problems with overcrowding during the fishing season and the rowing
mason will overlap with the fishing season.
--Increased noise.
--Danger to the capacity, health and longevity of the watershed impoundment.
/,2 0
7-22-97 6
--Unsafe water traffic conflicts between rowers and other community residents who use the
reservoir for fishing, canoeing and sailing.
--Safety concerns about increased usage of Rt. 743.
--Because this is a water supply impoundment, it is reasonable to expect limitations on
recreational use. Is this precedent -setting decision compatible with the protection of the watershed?
--The peace and quiet of those who live adjacent to the reservoir should not be disturbed by
a for -profit organization.
--Is this use compatible with the zoning on the adjacent residential properties?
Some speakers expressed neither support for, nor opposition to, the request, but voiced certain
concerns. Those persons were: Bill Batlick (residence adjoins reservoir); Ann Lederer (residence
adjoins reservoir); John Daggett; Kevin Sauer (Coach of the UVA Women's Rowing Team); and
Nancy Gillmer Those concerns included:
--Increased noise.
--Is the church, a tax-exempt organization, engaging in a use which is not church related?
--Abuse of the reservoir comes from fishermen, not from the rowers. If this proposed use is
not successful, a 96-foot dock will be left available for fishermen.
--There are already conflicts between users and accidents do happen.
--In the past, safety issues have had to be addressed from time to time. If this request is
approved, there should be a governing Board which sets the rules for cooperation between the
clubs. (Kevin Sauer)
--What is the applicant's record for keeping the reservoir clean?
--Though there may not be more people on the reservoir, there will be more boats as a result
of this request.
--The issue is one of allowing a for -profit use on the reservoir.
Reverend Wigman said the applicant is presently paying the church for the use of the parking lot,
even though the Church did not ask for payment. He also said that the applicant has cleaned the
area several times and is dedicated to keeping the reservoir clean.
Referring to Mr. Sauer's comments about safety issues which have arisen in the past, Ms.
Washington wondered why the different rowing organizations have not been able to cooperate to
resolve these issues. Mr. Keeler noted that most comments related to conflicts have been about
conflicts between the rowing clubs, not about conflicts between private citizens, boaters, fishermen,
etc. He wondered what happens if a boater gets in the way of one of these rowing groups. (Ms.
Forbes, one of Mr. Wiilson's students, said that it is Mr. Wiilson's practice to give the right of way to
other individuals who are on the reservoir.)
There being no further comment, the public hearing was closed.
Ms. Echols addressed a question raised by some members of the public related to property taxes.
She said the for -profit portion of the property will be taxed.
''r. Nitchmann asked staff to explain the RWSA's control over the operation. Ms. Echols said the
VSA has rules about who can build boat docks on the reservoir. An adjacent property owner can
build a boat dock and the Executive Director is given the authority to grant a permit. There is a
maximum size set. Also, the RWSA can grant the use of a motorized boat on the reservoir for
1,21
7-22-97 7
,afety purposes. In this case, the RWSA has granted a permit for an oversized dock, has allowed
,, user who is not an adjacent property owner, and has granted a permit for motorized boats. As he
had explained earlier, Mr. Hirschman said the permit for the internal combustion engines must be
reviewed and renewed yearly, and the RWSA can decide not to renew it. The permit for the boat
dock is a one-time thing and is not reviewed. He was uncertain about removal of the boat dock but
guessed that the landowner (the City of Charlottesville) could request that the dock be removed.
Ms. Huckle asked how the size of this proposed dock compares to those which have been built by
private property owners on the reservoir. Ms. Echols said the requested dock is 12 feet x 96 feet.
RWSA's current design guidelines are 4 feet x 22 feet.
Mr. Nitchmann asked who oversees safety issues on the reservoir. Mr. Davis said presently there
is a County ordinance which deals with reservoirs (Attachment G to the Commission's report), and
"the County has chosen not to be overly restrictive in how it is used." The second layer of
regulation is by the owner of the reservoir which is the City of Charlottesville in this case. There is
a legal arrangement between the City and the RWSA "that they hold that reservoir for as long as
the Authority is operating as an Authority." Mr. Davis said he believes the lease period is 40 years.
"As owner of the property, they can put restrictions on the use of the property as well and that is
how they operate in conjunction with our ordinance about permitting docks, which is basically a
license for someone to put something on Charlottesville's property. And they regulate the
combustion engines. If they chose to do so they could put more stringent regulations on the
reservoir. I am assuming, at this point, they have not found that necessary. If there became a
-oblem in the future that was interfering with the purposes of the reservoir property rights, they
mould take whatever measures they felt were appropriate." Based on the explanation given by staff,
Mr. Nitchmann concluded that if safety becomes a problem there is a way to address it. Mr.
Hirschman said the RWSA, as the manager of the property, would be the first contact.
Mr. Hirschman said he feels it is the clear intention of the RWSA that the three rowing organizations
coordinate their activities so that conflicts will not occur. If that coordination does not take place it
would be handled by RWSA and the renewal of all these permits would be in question.
Mr. Nitchmann said his concerns about safety have been satisfied.
Based on comments heard tonight, Mr. Hirschman said he could foresee the development of a type
of Conflict Avoidance Plan at some future time. Mr. Nitchmann suggested more discussion about
such a plan should take place prior to the Board hearing.
He said the proponents of this proposal present at this meeting outnumber the opponents by about
4:1. Mr. Finley said he believes in competition and he does not feel anyone should have a
monopoly on the recreational activities of the reservoir. He concluded he would support the
request.
Mr. Dotson said he is still concerned about the crowding issue and he would feel better if a Conflict
°voidance Plan was already in place. On the question of noise, he said though there were some
,nments about noise and nuisance, they were not numerous so he feels they are not as
*ftwigVgnificant as the crowding issue. He said if recreational uses are to be an incidental part of the
reservoir, he questioned whether the RWSA is prepared to become a recreational manager. He
/�2 -_),
7-22-97 8
Iso said if there is a continuing source of community conflict, then it is not in the community's best
�%Knterest. He concluded: "It is very questionable whether I could support it without having a Conflict
Avoidance Plan ahead of time."
Ms. Huckle said she has many concerns about this request. (She requested that her comments be
recorded verbatim.) "First of all many jurisdictions do not allow any activity at all --no boating, fishing,
rowing. In many cases these are fenced with chain link fences to keep people out so they can
protect their source of drinking water. I see this as creating a precedent which it would be very,
very difficult for the County to refuse if someone came in --some landowner who had property
adjacent to the reservoir --and decided they wanted to build a boat ramp. The fisherpeople are very
anxious to have a boat ramp and a place to park their cars. If there is such a thing built I am sure
people will come from miles around, from other jurisdictions, other counties, bringing their cars. We
all know cars leak all sorts of chemicals which are not good to drink. Not only would there be boat
ramps, it is possible there would be bait and tackle shops, boat rental, and refreshment stands.
One problem we have with our reservoir right now is it has already lost a quarter of its capacity
because of siltation. In this kind of soil we have any disturbance of the soil results in further
siltation. I looked at the dock and the location is reached by going down a grade --a dirt path on
either side of which the applicant is planning to put racks to leave his shells on. That means when
they go to regattas and events in other places a trailer will have to back down this dirt road, or if
not, the people will have to carry the shells and put them on the racks. In either case, there will be
a lot of disturbance of the soil which will run straight into the reservoir. As you have probably
noticed there is a good deal of siltation already in the vicinity of the place where they want to put
e dock, as shown by the numbers of little plants that are growing in the reservoir. There is a
great opportunity for a water traffic impact. First of all, there is an island just off to the right of
where the dock is supposed to go. This was created by logs and other things which have gotten
stuck there and then as they stay there in the water silt builds up on them. When the water is low
this island is big enough so you can step out on it. I foresee a traffic problem when one shell
comes off of this proposed dock and heads into the main body of the reservoir. If there isn't good
coordination between these various groups, it is quite possible that other shells will be coming from
the other boat house, coming under the bridge, making a left turn. They will not be able to see this
dock and it is a good opportunity for a serious crash. So, with all of these problems, 1 think that I
will support the staff and say since there is opportunity for the public to participate in rowing at the
present boathouse and I would imagine 'there are other venues where people could have such a
rowing club if they were not satisfied with the one at the present boathouse. Lake Monticello is
nearby. It is much larger and there may be lots of people there who would just love to take up
rowing."
Mr. Nitchmann said he feels this is a very mature group of sportsmen who will do everything they
can to ensure that safety is paramount in everything they do. He said he is confident that the
controls which are in place will ensure a safe operation and if not, the RWSA can withdraw their
permit if safety problems occur which are not addressed. He agreed it would have been preferable
to have a Conflict Avoidance Plan already in place. He did not think precedent is an issue because
it is the role of the Commission and Board to review each request on its own merit. He said it is
- .:*ai for the community to be able to have a choice.
MOTION.- Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 97-23 for Rivanna Rowing
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions, and
/,?3
7-22-97 9
,ith the understanding that an effort be made to develop a draft of a Conflict Avoidance Agreement
prior to the Board hearing:
1. A single boat dock of no greater than 96 feet in length constructed to Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority specifications shall be allowed.
2. The existing church parking lot shall be used for the rower's parking needs. No additional
parking spaces shall be constructed.
3. The basement of the church shall be used for rowing practice, warm-ups, and restroom
facilities only.
4. Not more than 40 rowers per session shall be allowed nor shall there be more than two
sessions per day. The use may operate year round.
5. No motorized launches shall operate before 6:30 a.m. and there shall be no rowing after
dark.
6. Outdoor storage of equipment shall be allowed on vertical and horizontal racks comprised
of 4" x 4" and 2" x 4" boards.
7. Organized "Learn to Row" programs shall be allowed; however, no youth programs for
children younger than 16 shall be allowed.
8. The use shall employ not more than 3 staff members and 5 coxswain (one per boat) to
assist in the operation.
9. No more than 2 motor powered launches shall be used, in accordance with permits
issued by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
10. No regattas or organized events shall be held from the facility.
11. Any shoreline modifications or vegetation removal shall be approved by the Water
esources Manager.
12. The final dock configuration shall be approved by the Planning and Engineering
Departments to minimize visual impact.
13. Construction for the dock and related improvements shall be approved by the
Engineering Department.
14. A site plan or sketch plan shall be required showing the proposed dock, parking areas,
access paths from the church to the dock, and boat storage and staging areas.
Discussion:
Mr. Tice asked if Mr. Nitchmann wished to add a condition to his motion which would require the
removal of the structure in the event the RWSA withdraws their permit at some future time. Mr.
Nitchmann did not think such a condition was necessary.
Mr. Tice said he agrees with Commissioner Dotson that the main issues are safety and potential
crowding. He was disappointed the RWSA had not addressed these issues more during their
meeting. However, he said: " I am persuaded there is the opportunity for them to take that issue up
again before the Board addresses this, or later on." He said the Commission does not have the
opportunity to defer action to allow a Conflict Plan to be developed because of time constraints.
The Board, however, has a much longer time frame within to take action, so they could defer action
allow the RWSA or the different rowing organizations time to address the issue. He said he
„jught the issue of precedent had been stated very well in Ms. Dane's statement (Attachment A to
these minutes). He said he could not imagine there being a flood of other applications which would
cause a problem.
/gl
7-22-97 10
Is. Huckle asked the County Attorney to comment on the question of precedent. Mr. Davis
,responded: "The question of precedent is always a tough one to answer. Obviously, it would be a
precedent, and the burden on the County, in the future, would be to distinguish it from a future
application --if the County wished to deny it --in order to defend against a claim that we are being
arbitrary or capricious.... The reasons that have been cited could be used to distinguish this
application from probably most other applications. But there could be other applications similar in
nature that this would be used as a precedent to argue for approval of future applications. Probably
not a flood of them."
Mr. Tice said he was prepared to support the motion.
The motion for approval passed (4:2) with Commissioners Dotson and Huckle casting the dissenting
votes.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that a waiver of Section 4.12.4 to
allow cooperative parking between the church and Rivanna Rowing, and a waiver of Section 4.2.1
of the Zoning Ordinance, requiring a building permit for construction be set back 200 feet from any
drinking water impoundment be approved for SP 97-23 Rivanna Rowing.
The motion passed (5:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
P 97-25 Spring Hill Baptist Church - Petition for approval of a special use permit for the church
`"and building addition on the property described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 5A(1). It is 4.75 acres in
size, is located at the intersection of Frays Mill Road (Route 641) and Spring Hill Road (Route 606)
in the Advance Mills area of the County. The church is located at 2620 Frays Mill Road in the
White Hill Magisterial District. It is located in the Rural Area zoning district and is shown as a Rural
Area on the Land Use Plan.
AND
SDP 97-057 Spring Hill Baptist Church Request for Waiver of Site Plan Requirements - Request for
a waiver of Section 32.2.2 which would require a site plan for the new entrance.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the special permit subject to
conditions, and approval of the waiver request, subject to conditions. The staff report explained that
one of the two existing entrances will be closed.
Staff confirmed that this request does not reflect an intensity of use. Rather the church just needs
more room.
The applicant was represented by Lee Estes. He described the history of the church. He
explained how the membership has grown and has outgrown its present facilities. Presently the
'lurch has an active membership of 150 members and expects that membership to double.
,, .tivities in addition to usual Sunday services include youth programs and Wednesday night
fellowship. No child care program presently exists but there may be a need for one in the future.
7-22-97
11
1s. Huckle asked if a condition should be added which says that a day care use would require
amendment to this permit. Mr. Keeler said a standard condition is: "This special use permit is
approved for worship and church related activities only. Day care, pre-school, or other such
activities, shall require amendment to this special use permit." It was a staff oversight that this
condition had not been included in the staff report.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Eugene Frisch, adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He said the driveway
which is to be closed is on his property. He asked that the paving be removed and the grading be
changed so that it does not have the appearance of a driveway. He said he has repeatedly
attempted to discuss this with the church but has received no response.
Ms. Echols said the Engineering Department has said that the driveway has to be closed "using a
permanent means which would constitute removement of pavement or putting up of bollards or
something that will make clear to the public that it is not open to access." Mr. Keeler later added
that VDOT will require that the entrance be "obscured," which involves "removal of the pavement
and stabilizing the area within their right-of-way." However, what happens outside of the VDOT
right-of-way is an issue to be resolved between the two property owners.
Mr. Frisch said there seems to be some discrepancy between his plat and the church's plat, but he
is certain the majority of the driveway is on his property. Ms. Echols said staff is aware that there is
discrepancy as to who actually owns the driveway property. Staff has recommended to the
"applicant and Mr. Frisch that they work this issue out between them. The County will be satisfied
as long as the entrance is removed.
Mr. Frisch said the removal of the driveway should not be at his expense given the fact that the
driveway was for the use of the church. Mr. Keeler said staffs review deals only with public safety
on a public road. Staff cannot settle disputes between property owners. Mr. Keeler doubted that
VDOT's requirements would address any of the part of the driveway which Mr. Frisch believes is on
his property because it appears to be outside of VDOT's right-of-way.
Mr. Estes interjected that the driveway in question is part of the old road bed which was abandoned
in the early 30's. He also said that the church's surveyor has not been able to establish the exact
location of the property line and that is the reason it is taking some time to resolve this issue.
Mr. Davis said staff, with this site plan, has required that the driveway be blocked with a permanent
means, and that would be on the property of the church, with the church's surveyor to establish the
location of the property line. "The driveway will be blocked and it is very likely that VDOT will
require that the entrance be obliterated within the 30-foot prescriptive easement. What happens
between the prescriptive easement for the existing road and the property line is a private
matter ... but it is unclear to me whether the church has any responsibility to do it at all. But that is a
matter to be resolved between Mr. Frisch and the church." Mr. Davis said the road was probably
'landoned 60 years ago and reverted back to private ownership. He said the history of the road
,,,,,�uld show up in the survey notes.
There being no further public comment, the mater was placed before the Commission.
/.2(
7-22-97
12
1OTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that SP 97-25 for Spring Hill Baptist
church Building Addition be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Health Department approval of the modified septic system and receipt of an appropriate
easement to support an alternate drainfield on the adjoining property.
2. Combination of Tax Parcels 21, 5A1, and 5C prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. This special use permit is approved for worship and church related activities only. Day
care, pre-school, or other such activities, shall require amendment to this special use permit.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that a waiver of the requirement for a site
plan (Section 32.2.2) be granted to the Spring Hill Baptist Church, subject to the following
conditions:
1. The location of the entrance on Spring Hill Road (Rt. 606) shall be subject to VDOT
approval.
2. The western most entrance on Frays Mill Road (Rt. 641) shall be closed to through traffic
by permanent means.
3. A good faith effort must be made by the church to improve sight distance at the remaining
entrance on Rt. 641. Specifically, the inside of the curve on Rt. 641 opposite the intersection of Rt.
606 must be cleared in line with the existing power pole (looking from the site entrance on Rt. 641).
the church cannot gain permission for this clearing, the "good faith effort" must be demonstrated
niith written correspondence.
4. The plan submitted with this request shall be modified to include a parking schedule.
5. Critical slopes shall be shown on the plan and modification of these slopes will be
avoided. If they cannot be avoided, the applicant will need to request a waiver of critical slopes.
6. The heights of the various portions of the building shall be shown on the plan and must
conform with zoning ordinance requirements.
7. A note indicating that all three properties owned by the church will be combined prior to
the issuance of a building permit shall be placed on the plan.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP 97-11 Panorama Trails - Petition to allow operation of a private mountain bike club (10.2.2.4) of
100 to 300 members on approximately 350 acres of an 840-acre farm zoned RA, Rural Areas.
Subject property is located between the Earlysville Road (State Rt. 743) and Reas Ford Road
(State Rt 660) in Earlysville. This site, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 1, 1A, and Tax Map 31,
Parcel 23A, is located in the Rio Magisterial District. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas,
designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and is not located within a Development Area.
The applicant was requesting deferral to September 16, 1997.
Public comment was invited.
/;)_7
7-22-97 13
1r. Al Reiderman (name unclear), a resident of Nelson County, addressed the Commission. He
°maid Albemarle County is a leader in "consciously preserving rural land and what is done here has
an impact on the entire region." He supported anything that can be done to help a farmer keep his
farm viable and will help preserve rural land. He said that is the main issue of these requests
(Panorama Trails and the ARC Day Camp). Also, these types of uses introduce people to
agricultural lands and makes them stewards of the land. He stressed that when a farm goes out of
business, it is not usually replaced by another farming operation. Rather, it is replaced by a
subdivision. He said he strongly supported both of the Panorama requests.
Ms. Nancy Desmond, a resident of Panorama Road, addressed the Commission. She said she
supported the efforts of Panorama Farm to maintain its integrity. She agreed that the access issue
is an important one, but is "far less horrible" than someone being forced to sell land to keep at
least part of their farm going.
Mr. John Hermsmier, Director of the Environmental Education Center, addressed the Commission.
Referring to a proposal made by Citizens for Albemarle that the County adopt a plan for protection
of biological diversity in the County, he said this request "points to the need for the County to have
a plan in place for the protection of its biological resources." He said the proposal raises several
long-term questions:
--How to permanently protect our rural areas and the specific functions they provide?
--The question of land use taxation and the justifications for it.
--What is appropriate for an ag-forestal district?
--Should there be biodiversity districts to protect habitat for wildlife? A bike trail may do more
o protect wildlife habitat than does traditional farming practices.
He urged that every consideration be given to the applicant's serious search for alternative ways to
keep the family farm in a way that is in keeping with this community's stated goals.
Mr. Doug Wilkins, a resident of Earlysville and a cyclist, expressed support for the proposal. He
said he is very concerned about the loss of open space and it is properties like Panorama Farm
which make Albemarle County such a wonderful place to live. He said there is a serious shortage
of biking trails and safe bikeways in the County. He said bike trails will not destroy the land for
future agricultural use; rather they will preserve it for agricultural use for future generations. He said
he would much prefer bike paths to five -acre lots and highways.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
There was a brief discussion as to whether or not to defer the item 60 days, as requested by the
applicant, or to defer it indefinitely. Mr. Davis said the 90 -day rule does not apply to the 60-day
deferral that the applicant has requested. But, beyond that, the Commission would have to live
within the 90-day rule.
Mr. Finley said he would disqualify himself from discussion of, or any actions taken on, either SP
97-11(Panorama Trails) or SP 97-27 (ARC Day Camp/Panorama Education Camp). He said he
— ould submit to Mr. Davis signed disclosure statements following the meeting.
7-22-97
14
''ommissioners Nitchmann and Huckle said they would not be present for either the September
6th or 23rd meetings. Mr. Davis confirmed that a deferral to September 30th was acceptable.
The applicant expressed no opposition to a deferral to September 30th.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that SP 97-11 for Panorama Trails be
deferred to September 30, 1997. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 97-27 A.R.C. Natural History Day Camp/Panorama Environmental Education Camp (E.E.C.) -
Petition to allow operation of two summer day camps [10.2.2.20] of three and four weeks duration,
respectively, for a maximum enrollment of sixty-five campers at any one time, on approximately 840
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Subject property is located between the Earlysville Road (Rt. 743)
and Reas Ford Road (Rt. 660) in Earlysville. This site, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 1, 1A,
and Tax Map 31, Parcel 23A, is located in the Rio Magisterial District. The property is zone RA,
Rural Areas, and is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. It lies within the Panorama
Agricultural/Forestal District, and is not located within a Development Area.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Murray. He described the history of the Murray
family's commitment to education camps. The farm has been involved in these camps for many
vears. The A.R.C. camp began 15 years ago, but only a couple of years ago was it realized that a
)ecial use permit is needed. He stressed that the family has donated the use of the farm and
"eceived no compensation for the first 13 years. The purpose of this request is to bring the camps
into compliance with the ordinance.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Kevin Murphy, Director of the A.R.C. Camp, addressed the Commission. He said the camp has
served 1,000 children over the years. 50% of the children car pool, so traffic has not been a
problem. He said discontinuance of the camp would be a tremendous loss to the County.
There be no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 97-27 for A.R.C. Natural History
Day Camp and the Panorama Environmental Education Camp be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance.
a. Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfires, cooking pits, etc., shall
be subject to Albemarle County fire official approval whether or not a site
development plan is required.
b. All such uses shall conform to the requirements of the Virginia
Department of Health Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation and other
applicable requirements.
2. A.R.C. and E.E.C. camps are to be operated in accord with the project
description dated May 19, 1997, and representations made to staff as described
/.;29
7-22-97 15
herein. Maximum enrollment of the E.E.C. Camp shall not exceed thirty (30) campers
per session, for 2 two -week sessions during the months of June, July, and/or August.
Maximum enrollment of the A.R.C. Camp shall not exceed thirty-five (35) campers per
session, for 1 one -week session and 1 two -week session during the months of June,
July and/or August. Structures on Panorama Farms to be used under this special use
permit are to be limited to the existing structures on the property.
3. A sign ("Road Narrows") shall be posted on Reas Ford Lane in accordance
with the Virginia Department of Transportation letter of July 3, 1997, unless the road is
improved under SP 97-11.
Discussion:
Mr. Tice said it seems that in some cases the need for special permits results in
"micro management." He wondered if there might be some other way to deal with
these types of requests in the future. He said: "If a farmer or rural property owner
wants to allow a week-long camp on their property --it seems to go too far to (require a
special permit)."
Ms. Huckle disagreed. She said though these camps might be fine, there may be
some which are not. She said, however, that she would support a waiver of county
submittal fees for any non-profit group such as this.
The motion passed (5:0:1) with Commissioner Finley abstaining.
SP 97-30 U.S. Cellular - Request to construct a cellular telecommunications tower on
a 2-acre parcel zoned LI, Light Industry. Property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel
37G, is located on the south side of Route 738, Ivy Depot Road, approximately 1.1
miles west of Route 250, Ivy Rd, in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is
not located in a designated growth area.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant is also requesting a modification of Section
4.10.3 to allow setback of the tower a distance from the property line which is less
than the height of the tower (140 feet). The staff recommends approval of the
modification but not at the distance requested by the applicant. (The applicant is
requesting an 18 foot setback, but staff is recommending that the maximum setback
possible on the site is 125 feet if the site is shifted.) The applicant later said the
potential site proposed by staff is 15-20 feet lower than the applicant's proposed site.
Mr. Tice wondered why conditions were not included as had been discussed at the
July 15th meeting related to (1) preservation of existing trees and (2) the color of the
tower. Mr. Fritz said in this case the preservation of existing vegetation would not
accomplish anything. The omission of the condition related to color was a staff
/3�
7-22-97 16
oversight. He agreed that it should be added. Also, a condition related to co -location
should be added.
Ms. Huckle thought a condition had been added to the approvals of the 15th requiring
bonding to ensure that the towers are removed when they are no longer in use. Mr.
Fritz said bonding had been discussed, but no condition was added requiring bonding.
Mr. Fritz added that the special permit is issued to the property owner, who is
responsible for the removal of the tower. Ms. Huckle did not think removal of the
tower should be the responsibility of the property owner.
Mr. Fritz said U.S. Cellular "worked diligently" to co -locate, but staff has not been able
to identify any opportunity in the Ivy Valley for co -location that would serve any of the
existing providers--U.S. Cellular, 360 Communications, or CFW.
Mr. Fritz said the applicant held a public information meeting at Murray Elementary
(notice sent to parents via children). Only a couple of people had attended the
meeting.
The applicant was represented by Mark Gartley. He said a diligent search of the
area, which took into account all possible factors related to neighborhoods and zoning
regulations, had ended with this site. This seems to be the best place available
which can improve and enhance the service in this area. He said if the Commission is
concerned about a possible tower collapse, he was sure those concerns could be
addressed through proper engineering.
Mr. Mark Keller, the applicant's engineer, explained the process which is followed in
site selection and in the final selection of this site in particular. The purpose of this
tower is to address service problems. There is presently a "hole" in the Ivy Valley
which is a problem for all providers in this area. He said the tower is proposed on
the lowest possible elevation. If it were to be shifted to the site suggested by staff,
there is a 15-foot grade difference and, the height of the tower would have to be
increased to provide the same coverage.
Mr. Gartley answered Mr. Dotson's questions about how much service the company
plans to provide. He said the applicant's build program --this year and next --to first to
fill in the holes and then improve service. The plan is reanalyzed every 6 months so it
is constantly changing but as the area grows and more customers come on-line,
service will be expanded. He said he feels providing service for 50% of the county
(the figure used by Mr. Dotson), is a "high number" for the heavy, green units. 30%
might be more accurate. But during the next four or five years, the number of
customers will again double and those customers will make more demands as they
want to use the smaller, hand-held phones inside their cars.
Ms. Huckle asked if the other two cellular providers will be able to co -locate on this
tower. Mr. Fritz said the applicant is actively working with the other two providers so
that they can make use of this tower. The information given staff by 360
Communications and CFW is that "both those companies have a deficiency in the Ivy
/ g/
7-22-97 17
Valley area." U.S. Cellular is working with those other providers to see if there is a
co -location opportunity on this tower. Mr. Gartley said: "We will cooperate wherever
we can, in a practical way." Ms. Huckle asked if there was any aspect of the service
provided by the three companies which is incompatible. Mr. Gartley replied: "No. We
need some separation of space (20 feet) on the tower, but the frequencies (are not a
problem)." He later acknowledged that if other co -locators were 20 feet lower, they
would experience diminished service, but knowing the site location problems in the Ivy
Valley, they may fee, some service is better than none. Mr. Nitchmann thought it
might make sense to allow a taller tower so as to make co -location more feasible for
the other providers. Mr. Fritz pointed out that a potential co -locator could request an
amendment to this permit which would increase the height of the tower. That
amendment request would be reviewed based on its merits.
Mr. Tice asked if the shift in location (to a lower elevation) would cause a problem for
co -location. Mr. Gartley said: "Their coverage will diminish." The answer would be to
allow a taller tower. Regarding staffs suggested shift in the location, Mr. Gartley said
he does not think the landowner will agree to such a shift. Ms. Huckle asked if there
was no space available next to the mid -sized building. Mr. Gartley said the site
proposed (which is 18 feet from the property line) is the only one the landowner was
willing to consider.
Mr. Tice asked if there is a provision in the lease with the landowner which gives the
landowner the right to approve or disapprove a co -locator. Mr. Gartley said: "We
have a provision in our lease where the landowner shares in the revenues from it, but
not in the approval."
Mr. Tice asked Mr. Gartley to describe the applicant's co -location policy. Mr. Gartley
said the typical policy is to allow co -location on U.S. Cellular towers for those
companies which allow U.S. Cellular to co -locate on their towers. He said: "Usually, it
works because it is to everybody's advantage." Mr. Tice asked what happens if a
company which is seeking co -location does not have its own towers. Mr. Gartley
replied: "Usually, we don't run into it because our company always has a competitor.
We're never in a situation where we don't have the competition." Mr. Fritz pointed out
that companies are competing across state borders so arrangements can be made for
co -location on towers in other states.
Mr. Finley asked what will happen if the Commission approves the request, but with
the location shift as suggested by staff, which the applicant thinks the landowner will
not approve. Mr. Gartley confirmed that it could mean another site would have to be
found.
Mr. Dotson asked about the use of the adjacent property where the proposed tower
will be only 18 feet distant from the property line. Mr. Gartley said a cinder block
building is located on the site. He said that property owner is present and may wish
to speak. (NOTE: The adjacent property did not speak during the hearing.)
/ ,.2 .-,7-
7-22-97 18
Ms. Huckle asked if there had been any consideration of sites on the adjoining LI
property. Mr. Gartley said when this site had been found there had been no
compelling reason to look elsewhere at this point. Mr. Keller pointed out that a move
in the direction of the LI property would be getting closer to more sensitive existing
uses. For example, there is a day-care use in that area.
Mr. Nitchmann asked the applicant what type of parameters cellular companies know
they must "stay away from" when dealing with Albemarle County. Mr. Gartley said
that companies know they must address visibility issues, concerns about the
proliferation of towers, and neighborhood impact issues. Mr. Nitchmann asked if Mr.
Gartley feels the County is doing itself a disservice in limiting towers to around 140
feet, when allowing taller towers could mean that there will be the necessity for fewer
towers. Mr. Nitchmann hoped the Telecommunications Task Force was considering
this question. Mr. Gartley indicated that shorter towers are more acceptable to the
community and there is a political reality which must be dealt with. He said.. "We
have to balance those issues." The lower the visibility, the better chance of getting an
approval.
Mr. Dotson asked if the power of the hand-held units is a limiting factor. Mr. Gartley
replied affirmatively and confirmed that increasing the height of the tower does not
result in a bigger coverage area. Mr. Tice pointed out that higher towers may provide
better co -location opportunities. Mr. Gartley said the units which will use this tower
will be both the 3 watts and the .6 watt.
Mr. Nitchmann questioned the wisdom of the technology because it seems if the units
were more powerful, there would be fewer towers needed. Mr. Gartley said he did not
have a good answer to Mr. Nitchmann's questions. Mr. Fritz said there has been
concern about using a more powerful unit in such close proximity to the brain.
Mr. Keller completed his presentation. He pointed out that lattice structures give more
opportunities for co -location.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann wondered if it was possible to include a condition which would require
that the lattice tower be designed in such a way that would allow its height to be
increased at some future time if needed. He thought the only way to limit the number
of requests for towers might be to be able to locate more antennae on the towers.
Mr. Davis said such a condition would not be unreasonable. Mr. Davis added that
staff is presently taking a fresh look at whether or not a co -location requirement can
be imposed. There are certain jurisdictions (in Tidewater and Northern Virginia) that
are imposing those conditions and a legal analysis is being done to determine what
type of condition may be appropriate.
Mr. Tice wondered what would happen if a tower were built to County requirements,
so as to allow an increase in height, and then a subsequent request to increase the
7-22-97
19
height were denied. Mr. Davis said: "It would certainly be a strong argument that
they would make for approval, but I don't think it would preclude denial under the
appropriate circumstances."
Mr. Finley asked questions about lighting requirements. Staff said towers must be
lighted if they are above 200 feet, or less than 200 feet if they are close to an airport.
In response to Mr. Finley's request, staff clarified their recommendations related to
setback. Mr. Fritz explained: "What we are recommending is that a modification be
granted, but not to the extent that the applicant has requested --that it be located as far
from the property lines as can be accomplished. We realize, and the applicant has
pointed out, that doing that will interfere with the use of the property because it will put
the tower in the middle of the property. So that would interfere with the plan the
applicant has submitted. In past requests we have recommended approval of the
modification ... (but) in most of those cases there were located in rural areas and they
were located near a ridge where the property line was actually a ridge and moving off
that ridge to get the distance away from the property line you begin to go downhill
very quickly. So the tower has to get much taller, much faster, and you're having to
develop on critical slopes. We've also recommended approval in areas that have
urban zoning. For Hall's Auto Body Shop, we did not recommend that one be re-
located because the adjoining property was zoned industrially, the Hall's site was
zoned industrially and was designated for industrial use in the Comp Plan, and we felt
it was an unwise use of land to require a large setback to accommodate a tower. The
difference in this case is that it is not recognized in the Comp Plan. It is zoned LI, but
it is not recognized. That is a significant part of our finding."
Mr. Fritz said condition No. 7, as written in the staff report, would stand if the
Commission approves the applicant's request for an 18 foot setback. If the
Commission chooses to approve the staffs recommended setback, condition 7 should
be deleted.
Mr. Tice pointed out that condition No. 5 requires that the tower be designed to
collapse within the lease area. He said that though he would prefer that the setback
be greater than 18 feet, it appears that condition 5 will cover safety concerns. He said
even if the tower could be moved, as suggested by staff, it could cause co -location
problems.
Mr. Tice reminded the Commission that two additional conditions, one related to color
and the other to co -location requirements, should be added to staffs suggested 7
conditions. Also, it was agreed a condition should be added requiring a lattice type
construction.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP 97-30 for U.S. Cellular
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Tower height shall not exceed 140 feet.
/3/-/
7-22-97 20
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency.
All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground.
4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval
shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers,
antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any
antennae administratively approved under this section.
5. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property
lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain
within the lease area.
6. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days
of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunication purposes.
7. Tower shall be located as shown on attached plan titled "Schematic Site
Plan U.S. Cellular @ Precision Sports Surfaces, Inc." and initialed WDF 7/11/97.
8. Except as specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or the
Federal Communications Commission, transmission structures shall use colors such
as gray, blue or green, which reduce their fiscal impacts.
9. The permit holder shall make available unutilized space for co -location of
other telecommunication facilities, including space for those entities providing similar,
competing services. A good faith effort in achieving co -location shall be required of
the host entity.
10. The tower shall be of lattice type construction.
11. Tower shall be designed to allow an increase in height for a maximum of
199 feet. (This condition was added after discussion.)
Discussion:
There was a discussion as to whether or not to require that the tower be designed so
as to be able to accommodate additional height (up to 199 feet) if needed in the
future. Mr. Fritz suggested the following wording: Tower shall be designed to allow
an increase in height for a maximum of 199 feet.
Mr. Davis pointed out that an increase in the height would require an amendment to
the special permit. There was a question as to who would submit the amendment
request and bear the costs of constructing the added height--U.S. Cellular, or the
company which was proposing the co -location and needing the additional height. It
was agreed the cost would have to be worked out between the companies.
Ms. Huckle questioned how a 140 foot tower could fall within 18 feet of the property
line.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that approval of a
modification of 4.10.3.1 to allow location of the tower as shown on attached plan titled
"Schematic Site Plan U.S. Cellular @ Precision Sports Surfaces, Inc." and initialed
WDF 7/11/97, be granted to U.S. Cellular, SP 97-30.
7-22-97 21
The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourQed at 12:00 a.m.
Recorded by: Janice Farrar
Transcribed by: Deloris Bradshaw
V. WaynX Cilimberg, Secretary
156