Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 12 1995 PC Minutes9-12-95 SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 12, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Vice Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. Tom Jenkins. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Huckle, Nitchmann and Vaughan. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of August 22, 1995, were unanimously approved as amended. Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the September 6th Board of Supervisors meeting. SP 95-28 Church of God - Request for a special use permit to allow the expansion of the existing church on 1.6 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(35)]. Property, � x described as Tax Map 9, Parcels 4 and 6A, is located on the south side of Route 663 approximately 0.7 miles east of Route 810 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This is the site of the Nortonsville Church of God. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). Because the applicant was not present the item was moved to the end of the agenda. When the applicant did not appear by the end of the meeting, it was agreed the item would be deferred to the September 19th meeting. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that SP-95-28 be deferred to September 19, 1995. The motion passed unanimously. SP-95-20 Centel Cellular Company of Charlottesville - Request to construct a communication tower/antenna and support buildings on 43 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 74, parcel 14A, is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Route 637 and 1-64 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 3). The request also included the need for a modification of Section 4.10.3.1 to allow a reduction in setback requirements from 134 feet to 74 feet. 4�4 9-12-95 2 Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that the change in the character of the district and the impact on dwellings in the area outweigh the convenience provided by cellular phones. Therefore, staff does not recommend approval of this special permit." The ARB was recommending denial also. The applicant was represented by Mr. Dick Gibson. He was accompanied by several Centel officials who have been involved in the project. Mr. Gibson gave a lengthy presentation during which he explained the proposal in detail and described how the site had been selected. He presented several photographs showing the visibility of the tower from various vantage points. Specific comments included the following: --By proposing the "tree tower" Sprint is doing everything possible to make this proposal work for all concerned. All other options have been exhausted. Sprint is not aware of any other available land in this area which would not face the same challenges. --The coverage in the area to be covered by this tower is nonexistent. The goal is to have "seamless" coverage so that the network will be acceptable to the public. Because of the rolling topography, this "dead spot" cannot be covered by existing towers. This location is the only one which will work to provide the desired coverage. The dead spot is a "2-3 mile radius in any direction." It is impossible to place a call, using a portable unit, while in that area. --Balloon tests indicate that the tower will be visible from 1 lot in Rosemont, and from 3-4 lots in Langford, but will not be visible at all from Peacock Hill. From 1-64 East, the balloons were visible, intermittently, for 25 seconds above the tops of the trees going west. Going east on 1-64, the balloons were visible, for approximately 1 minute, for approximately 1 mile at heights above the treetops of up to 30 to 40 feet. --Demand for cellular phones is increasing rapidly with 28,000 new users added each day. The demand for portable (vs. mobile) units is increasing greatly. Because the portable units have lower power, they present more of a challenge. Systems must be designed to accommodate the portable systems. --The structure proposed will be 129 feet tall, with a tree tower treatment. It is to be painted rust brown. Panel antennas (3' x 1') will be mounted near the top of the tower, and will be concealed in branches of the "tree." Three whip -type antennas, 3" in diameter x 8 1/2' in length, will protrude above the branch treatment. A lightening rod will be on top the antenna. The structure will not be lighted. It will be 180 feet from 1-64 with approximately 150 feet of dense woods from 1-64 to the site compound; it is 1,000 feet from the nearest dwelling, and is near an existing, smaller utility line. A 12' x 28' equipment building and a security fence will also be located on the site. Screening will be placed around the perimeter of the compound. --An attempt has been made to address the concerns of the Entrance Corridor Overlay through the tree treatment design. 1-64, however, is a busy traffic corridor with many existing man-made structures which detract from the visible beauty of the area. --The concerns of residents have been addressed by moving the tower closer to 1-64 and by the tree treatment. �o s WR 9-12-95 3 Ms. Imhoff asked Mr. Gibson how many residences the tower will actually be visible from. Mr. Gibson said the tower will be visible from, possibly, six yards in Langford. Given the tree tower treatment, he did not think the change of the seasons would have any effect on the visibility of the tower. Referring to the applicant's statement that Sprint's goal is for "seamless" coverage, Ms. Imhoff asked if Sprint has a Master Plan. Because of the rolling topography of the area, she envisioned there could ultimately be many towers, very close together, all over the County. Mr. Gibson said Sprint's plan for the next two years calls for four additional sites in all directions. Beyond that 2 year period, he said "If that provides the level of coverage that the customers are satisfied with, then we're through building. If there are still dead spots that warrant customer complaints sufficient to provide a weak spot in the coverage, we would ask that those spots be filled." He concluded: "In this, and every application we've brought before you, we have endeavored to be as unobtrusive as possible in locating (the towers).... I cannot tell you that there will definitely come a time in the future when we will not be back with any other applications, but I think it stands to reason that, with the four we have planned, that will build out the system pretty well. The coverage now is pretty good County -wide; it's not quite there, but it's pretty good." Mr. Dotson asked if the gap in coverage includes the Rest Area on 1-64. Mr. Gibson responded affirmatively. Mr. Gibson also confirmed that the gap in coverage was *4uw based on the usage of the small portable units. Mr. Dotson asked if there is complete coverage for the larger mobile units (with car antennas). Another of Sprint's representatives said there is mobile coverage but it is "scratchy." Public comment was invited. The following people addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the proposal: Ms. Beth Lippard (Langford Drive); Dr. Richard Aubry; Mr. Bill Fishbach (representing the Rosemont Homeowner's Association); Mr. Charles Tractor; Mr. Joel Loving (Langford Farms); Mr. Richard Aulbach (Rosemont resident); and Ms. Barbara Harrah. Their reasons for opposition included the following: --Referring to the Ivy Landfill, the Ivy residents feel they have "paid their dues" in providing services for the citizens of the County. --The tower is unnecessary. (Several of those who spoke were users of cellular phones and said they had experienced no problems with coverage in the area described by the applicant.) --Skepticism about the alleged lack of visibility of the tower. --The tower will distract drivers on the winding county roads, thus resulting in possible schoolbus accidents, etc. --Inconsistency with the rural character of the area and the negative impact on individual property values. *. --Existing towers should be upgraded, rather than building new towers. 9-12-95 4 --It is the residents of the Ivy area who will have to live with this tower daily. The applicant's representatives and engineers will not. --Centel has not presented a Master Plan. --Drivers using cellular phones are often the cause of car accidents. --The tower will be located on the Entrance Corridor and will be the first impression many visitors have of the area. --Centel should direct its research to creating better individual car antennas, thereby making individual cellular phone users bear the burden that goes along with improved coverage. --The fear that the tower might be raised in the future. (Mr. Gibson later addressed this comment and said that rarely occurs, but such a change would require County approval at that point.) Ms. Lippard said she would be submitting a petition of opposition, with over 220 signatures, to the Board of Supervisors. Ms. Anne Widener, Mr. Hi Ewald, and Mr. Kyle Denzer addressed the Commission and expressed support for the tower. Their reasons included the following: --Seamless coverage makes it possible for cellular phones to be used at all times for emergency purposes. A camouflaged tree tower is a small price to pay for better cellular service. --The tower proposed is a monopole with a very small footprint. Mr. Gibson was allowed to address the public's comments. He thought the degree of visibility had been "greatly exaggerated." He stressed that this type of tower has been found to be acceptable in other areas and that it is not a tremendous, "looming" structure. Regarding the comment by some of those who spoke that the tower is not needed, he said that Sprint would not be making this kind of expenditure if the need did not exist. He said there is no other way for Sprint to meet the needs of its customers, and that there is no booster type of antenna that can be added to cars which would make the problem disappear. He stressed the value of cellular phones in emergency situations. He said there is currently no other technology available that would eliminate the need for towers. He quoted figures which confirm the usage of cellular phones for contacting 911 in emergency situations. He thought the saving of just one life justifies this type of tower. He stressed that Sprint has exhausted all other possibilities and has gone the extra mile to meet the concerns of the County. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Dotson said it seems that everybody is trying to do the right thing, but this is not an easy problem to solve. He agreed that the applicant has been very responsive. Though he though the photographs presented were helpful, he questioned whether W M 9-12-95 5 they could be a realistic representation of the visibility of the tower. He said the issue comes down to one of balance, i.e. "the neighborhood concerns --the visual, the ARB concerns vs. the gains in the public service --the added coverage, particularly for the lower powered hand-held phones." He concluded: "I don't think for me it quite passes that balance test." Ms. Imhoff addressed Mr. Gibson's comments about the emergency value of cellular phones. She said she is beginning to feel the opposite way because of the increase in accidents which are caused because someone is distracted while using their cellular phones. She thought the safety argument could be made both ways. She said to approve this tower, to cover a 2-3 mile area for the lower powered, portable units, will require an action against staffs recommendation, which was based on the position that the tower will effect the character of the rural area and will have an impact on existing dwellings. She concluded: "For me, the balance factor is, I am not willing to sacrifice the Rural Area Comprehensive Plan intent for the convenience of a portion of the population at this point." She also said that without a Master Plan, she was very reluctant to keep approving these towers on a one -by -one basis. She said: "I might be more convinceable if I had a sense that for the next ten years this is what we are signing on to." She concluded that she could not support the request. Mr. Jenkins said he did not feel either side had a convincing case. He did not doubt that Centel needed the tower in order to provide better coverage, but he said he would not be bothered much if the additional coverage was not provided. He didn"t think the citizens had a case either. He explained: "This business of 'stop the world I want to get off --the fact that you can run from Northern Virginia or anywhere else and find a spot that forevermore won't change --if they think they've found it in the Ivy Valley, I don't believe they have and I'm here to inform them of that." He concluded: "So when we vote, you'll know how I vote." Mr. Blue agreed that this is a balancing proposition. However, he said his reaction was opposite Commissioners Imhoff and Dotson. He said he has lived in Albemarle County for 60 years and agrees it is a beautiful area. He concluded: "But I guess after hearing this argument tonight, I am convinced, as I have been before, that there is no absolute standard for beauty, and that's what the issue is tonight --it's the natural beauty of the area vs. technology. I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder and there is no absolute standard. I disagree with the ARB on this. That is one reason I have been very reluctant to pass judgment on these issues because who is to say my idea of beauty is any better than anybody else's. But I do think Sprint Centel has made an argument sufficient to tip the balance in favor of their petition, though I agree I am not anxious to have towers sprouting up, like mushrooms, all over the county. But we do have control over that I don't think that has been the case so far." (of 9-12-95 R MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-95-20 for Centel Cellular Company of Charlottesville be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. The motion passed (3:1) with Commissioner Blue casting the dissenting vote. The Commission then took action on the request for a modification to Section 4.10.3.1 to allow a reduction in setback from the property line. MOTION: Mr. Imhoff moved that no modification to Section 4.10.3.1 be granted for SP- 95-20. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Dotson said if the Board should discuss this modification, he thought a question should be raised as to the security of the limbs, given the fact that this tower will be different from a monopole. In the event the Board should discuss the recommended conditions of approval for this proposal, Ms. Imhoff suggested that condition No. 1 should reflect the applicant's proposed tower height of 129 feet, and should not be 140 feet as stated in the staff report. The motion passed (3:1) with Commissioner Blue casting the dissenting vote. Miscellaneous Ms. Imhoff said some citizens have expressed to her the hope that the protection of the night sky will be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said this subject will be discussed during the second phase of the review. Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Commission of the upcoming county -wide public meetings. Mr. Cilimberg announced that a joint meeting will be held with the City Planning Commission on October 17th. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45. 69 9-12-95 N• '70