HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 20 2000 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
June 20, 2000
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday,
June 20, 2000 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley,
Chairman; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Pete
Craddock; Ms. Tracey Hopper. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of
Community Development; Mr. Steven Waller, Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County
Attorney. Absent: Mr. Dennis Rooker, Vice -Chairman.
Approval of Minutes- May 30, 2000
The Commission moved, seconded, and unanimously approved the minutes of May 30, 2000 as
amended.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting - June 7, 2000 and June 14, 2000
Mr. Benish indicated that he did not have a report, and suggested that Mr. Cilimberg provide a
report at the Commission's next meeting.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Consent Agenda
(SDP 00-025) North Fork Town Center Office Building #2 Waiver Requests - Proposal to
construct parking which requires building on critical slopes [4.2.3.2], curvilinear parking
[4.12.6.5.c], parallel parking [4.12.6.5.c] and service space reduction [4.12.7.2.b].
The Commission moved, seconded, and unanimously approved the Consent Agenda as
presented.
Items Requesting Withdrawal:
SP 00-023 Hertz Corporation Car Rental Office (Sign # 70 & 71) - Request for special use
permit to allow a car rental office, in accordance with Section 27.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The property,
described as Tax Map 32 Parcel 17E, contains approximately 1.27 acres, and is located in the
Rivanna Magisterial District at the intersection of Doble Ann Drive and Airport Road [Route #
6491. The property is zoned LI, Light Industrial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Industrial Service in the Hollymead Community.
Applicant requests withdrawal ofapplication.
SP 00-024 Hertz Corporation Outdoor Storage (Sign # 80 & 81) -- Request for special use
permit to allow outdoor storage and display, associated with a car rental office, in accordance
with Section 30.6.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property, described as Tax Map 32 Parcel
17E, contains approximately 1.27 acres, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District at the
intersection of Doble Ann Drive and Airport Road [Route # 6491. The property is zoned LI,
Light Industrial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The Comprehensive Plan designates
Albemarle County Planning Commission — June 20, 2000 350
this property as Industrial Service in the Hollymead Community. Applicant requests withdrawal
of application.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Ms. Hopper seconded approval of withdrawal of SP 900-
023 and 00-024 as requested by the applicant. The motion passed unanimously.
Public Hearing Items:
SP-2000-18 CVR-336 Union Run (Sign #36 & 37) - Request for special use permit to allow the
construction of a 65 foot tall wooden telecommunications pole, in accordance with Section
[10.2.2.6] of the Zoning Ordinance. The property, described as Tax Map 79 Parcel 10, contains
866 acres, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on the north side of Richmond Road
[Route # 250] at the intersection with Louisa Road [Route #22]. The property is zoned RA, Rural
Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as Rural. Area 1. Staff and applicant request deferral to August 1, 2000.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the
Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Hopper moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of deferral of SP 00-18 to
August 1, 2000. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-2000-12 CFW Intelos — CV 307 (Pantops) - Request for a special use permit to attach
telecommunications equipment to an existing power pole in accordance with Section 24.2.2.6 of
the Zoning Ordinance. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 15C1, consists of 15.28
acres, and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The site is located adjacent to South
Pantops Drive [Route 1140], approximately. 10 mile from the intersection of Pantops Drive and
River Bend Drive [Route 1116]. The property is zoned HC, Highway Commercial, The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Community Service use in Development Area
Neighborhood Three. Request deferral to July 11, 2000.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the
Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of deferral of SP 00-12 to
August 1, 2000. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-2000-15 CFW Intelos-CV206 (Route 654) (Sign #30)-- Request to attach
telecommunications equipment to an existing power pole in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of
the Zoning Ordinance. The
property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 81, contains 1.322 acres, and is located in the Jack
Jouett Magisterial District. The property is located on Magnolia Drive, off of Montvue Drive
(west of) and (north of) Barracks Road [Route 654]. This general area lies approximately one
mile west of the intersection of the intersection of Barracks Road and Georgetown Road. The
property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural
Area [Rural Area 3]. Request deferral to July 11, 2000.
Alhem irlP Cnnntv Phnnino Cnmmiccinn — TnnP 90 ?nnn Zil
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the
Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Hopper moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of deferral of SP 00-15 to
August 1, 2000. The motion passed unanimously.
Addition to Hardware River Agricultural/Forestal District- Proposal to add 153.48 acres in
five (5) parcels to the Hardware River Agricultural/Forestal District. The properties descried as
Tax Map 88, Parcels 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D, 20F are located both east and west of Seminole Trail
(Route 20 South), just north of the intersection of Secretary's Road (Rt. 708) and Seminole Trail.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report, noting that the time period for the district is 10 years, being
last reviewed in November 1997. He explained that the district currently includes 3,868 acres in
37 parcels; the land in the proposed addition is primarily forested, with some agricultural and
residential uses. He stated that there are four dwellings on five parcels; the district and proposed
addition are located in the Rural Areas of the Comprehensive Plan, and it is zoned RA — Rural
Areas. The nearest development area is the southern urban area boundary (Neighborhood 5),
which is located approximately four miles from the property. The environmental benefits of the
A/F district is the conservation of the area, which maintains the environmental integrity of the
county and adds to the protection of groundwater, surface water, wildlife habitats, critical slopes,
historic landscapes, and open spaces.
Mr. Benish reported that the A/F District Committee recommended approval of this at their May
31, 200 meeting; Planning staff also recommends approval.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the
Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Craddock moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of the addition to the
Hardware River A/F District. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-2000-11 CFW Intelos--CV201 (Rt. 676) (Sign #26) - Request for special use permit to
allow for a
personal wireless service facility in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance
which allows for radio -wave transmission and relay towers. The property, described as Tax Map
44, Parcel 12H, contains 1.6 acres, and is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District on
Woodlands Road [Route 676], approximately one mile east of the intersection of Woodlands
Road and Reas Ford Road [Route 660]. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report, noting that the applicant is requesting approval to install a
self-supporting wooden pole approximately 10 feet above the tallest tree to provide wireless
service to the Earlysville/Free Union area. He explained that the proposed site is located on a
property that contains the Ivy Creek Methodist Church, which includes a church building, a
parsonage, and a cemetery. He said that the proposed tower would be on a 20'x20' leased parcel
AlhPmarlP ('minty Plannina rnmmiccinn — 11-P ?n ?OO() Vi?
CM
that is approximately 20 feet from the northern boundary of the church property, west of the
actual church. The pole itself will be located approximately 25 feet from the northern boundary
of the property. The applicant has provided information indicating that there is a grove of
approximately nine mature trees within the 25 foot radius from where the tower will be located.
The tallest trees (4) have been surveyed at 110 feet in height; the applicant seeks to place flush -
mounted panel antennas at a height that is 10 feet taller than these trees. The pole will be
wooden.
Mr. Benish noted that the proposed tower site is on a parcel which is adjacent to property in the
Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District; the property is also in a conservation easement. The
tower itself will be approximately 25 feet from the boundary line to that property; access to the
pole site will be through the church parking lot. The existing development in the immediate area
is primarily agricultural and rural residential with smaller parcels along the road and large farms
interspersed and located back from the road. There is some screening of the tower site; the
fenced enclosure at the base will be partly or mostly screened by the house to the south of the
site and by the topography that rises slightly and falls away to the north. The proposed tower lies
at an elevation of 500 feet, which is at a higher elevation than the property within the A/F
District to the north and east; the tower will be somewhat visible from a neighboring property
within the district.
Mr. Benish concluded that staff has identified both favorable and unfavorable factors to this
request. He stated that the favorable factors are: the tower will provide increased wireless
capacity; it will not restrict permitted uses on the adjacent property; and the design and siting of
the site is such that it will have limited impact on the adjacent properties. Access will be
partially from an existing driveway through the existing entrance, so no new entrance is
necessary. Mr. Benish noted that unfavorable factors are: the site's potential visibility from the
A/F District; there is a relatively limited number of trees screening the site; a non-residential use
will be introduced in a residential area into the rural area immediately adjacent to an AN District
and conservation easement; constructing the tower on church property will not further the goals
and objectives of Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Benish stated that staff has mixed opinions about this proposal. As issues of towers usually
focus on visibility, the site may become more visible if any one of the large trees nearby were
lost in the future. He added that the site would be visible from Woodlands Road and the
surrounding area — including the property in the AN District — the visual impact could be limited
because of the character of the pole design and successful history of this type of structure. Mr.
Benish said that the AN District Committee recommended against the proposal because of the
incompatibility of the tower to the district. Due to the lack of tall structures to allow for
collocation, no reasonable alternative site could be provided that was superior to this site.
However, Mr. Benish emphasized that the impacts created by this site are unique due to its close
proximity to a property within an AN district and under a conservation easement; it will be
visible from that property. He added that installation of the tower on church property could
compromise the integrity of the historic value of the church should it seek historic designation in
the future.
Mr. Benish concluded that although staff is recommending denial of the proposal, staff has
AlhemarlP rminty Planning Cnmmiscinn — Time ?0 MOO 151
provided a series of recommendations should the Commission recommend approval of the tower
site to the Board.
Mr. Benish presented some slides of the site.
Mr. Thomas asked if the applicant had searched for another site.
Mr. Benish responded that they had been looking in the general area, but were not able to find
other sites to lease.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Benish to summarize the differences between this application and a
similar one previously reviewed on the same site.
Mr. Benish said that this is an improvement over the previously proposed site, as the first
proposal had "erratic screening," and was within 10 feet of the neighboring property on both
corners. He explained that this one was further back from the northern boundary, and from the
eastern boundary it's 400 feet. Mr. Benish said that the landscape on the current site allows for
better screening from Route 676, and obscures the views from the A/F District. He said that this
is a different parcel from the first.
Mr. Benish added that the property owner of the A/F District that abuts the property is opposed
to the proposal.
Mr. Finley asked how far outside of the A/F District boundaries the vote of the Committee
affects abutting properties.
Mr. Benish replied that under the intent of an AN District and the review procedures, it is the
county's obligation to consider proposals adjacent to A/F Districts for the impacts on those
districts. He said that since the Arrowhead proposal, commercial uses are run through the A/F
District Committee for their review. "It's purely advisory though; they don't specifically have
any powers or controls on properties adjacent to the district."
Mr. Loewenstein commented that A/F Districts are voluntary on the part of the landowner.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Debbie Vosser, Site Acquisition Manager of CFW Intelos, addressed the Commission. She
explained that CFW is requesting a Special Use Permit to install a 120-foot wood pole within a
stand of approximately 9 trees, with the tallest being 110 feet. Ms. Vosser said that the 20' x 20'
compound area which will be fenced with a six-foot high wooden fence. She noted that the two
antennas will be flush -mounted, adding that the BZA approved a rear setback variance (reduced
to 20 feet) on April 4, 2000. Ms. Vosser said that CFW will use an existing 20-foot easement to
access the property for ingress and egress. She added that the adjacent property to the rear is in
an A/F District.
Ms. Vosser emphasized that the Board has previously approved a wooden pole in an A/F District
AlhPmnrie rnnntvPlanning C"nmmiseinn— TnnP')O ?nnn '254
cm
on a property owned by Peter Easter; the property is located southwest of Route 676. She
indicated that there are a number of church members in favor of the request. Ms. Vosser
presented a letter from an adjacent property owner (Attachment "A") indicating no opposition to
the proposed tower. She mentioned that CFW did talk to Virginia Power about collocating on
their poles, but the company said it would work out.
Mr. Harold Robinson of Woodlands Road, across the street from the church, addressed the
Commission. He said that he would be able to see the tower from his window, but has no
objection to the tower locating there.
Mr. Bob Sylvester, who was Chairman of the church's Trustee Committee when the application
was submitted, addressed the Commission. He said that the proposal is a win/win situation for
the community as a whole to fill in a gap in wireless service, and also provide the church with
needed income. Mr. Sylvester mentioned that after the original site was not acceptable to one
neighbor, the church and CFW went back to find a site that would not be objectionable to
anyone.
Mr. Finley asked if the neighbor who opposed the last site is against this one also.
Mr. Sylvester responded that he believes that the neighbor is still opposed to the site.
Ms. Paula Figgit of CFW said that she has had conversations with the neighbor, Ms. Riviere,
who has mixed emotions about the location of the tower on the property. Ms. Figgit said that
Ms. Riviere is still opposed to the location of the tower, despite the fact that CFW has moved the
site several times to try and accommodate her concerns.
Mr. Thomas asked how far the pole would be from her property line.
Ms. Figgit said that the variance distance is 20 feet.
Mr. Benish said that the leased area is 20 feet on the north boundary, and approximately 400 feet
from the eastern edge of the church property.
Ms. Figgit commented, "We've moved it further from her homesite so she wouldn't have direct
visibility."
Mr. Robinson said, "Mrs. Riviere would have to climb up on the roof of her house to see this
pole once it's in place. She could never see it from her house unless she's up on the roof."
Mr. Jim Towell, Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Ivy Creek Church, addressed the
Commission. He said that as a small rural church, the location of the tower on the site would
provide needed funding for the church. Mr. Towell stated that the church's budget is increasing
by about 15% a year. He emphasized that the tower would not be very visible to anyone.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
AlhPmarlP rnnnty Plannino rnmmiccinn — Tnne n) )OOO Iss
Mr. Rieley asked if the A/F District abuts the property.
Mr. Benish responded that it surrounds the property on three sides. He noted that the setback is
located along the boundary of the A/F District.
Mr. Finley commented that there were no negative comments from staff in their review of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Benish replied, "The basis for the recommendation of disapproval in our minds lies largely
with maintaining the integrity of the Agricultural and Forestal Districts, and its consistency with
the intent of that voluntary Zoning District. And also... [the site] relies on a more limited level of
trees and deciduous trees such that it's riskier over time that it may become more visible if the
trees are lost, or during the winter."
Mr. Loewenstein said, "I think the county owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to those property
owners who have chosen voluntarily to put their land under easement... it is important not only to
consider that contribution, but to consider what we do on property immediately adjacent to it."
He added that there are some physical characteristics of the site that are troubling also. "I
appreciate the position the applicant is in, I appreciate the position that Ivy Creek Church is in,
but in my view, we need to maintain the integrity of those districts and all that their creation
implies."
Ms. Hopper agreed, adding that there are lots of trees in the area that have been wiped out by
storms. "One storm could go through, and then all of the sudden that pole is just going to be
there without any screening." She added that she is sensitive to the church's financial issues, but
considering the application on a county -wide basis, "it worries me that it's not fair to the county
and to the people who might purchase the neighbors property down the line, especially if all
those trees go.
Mr. Rieley commented that he is very sympathetic to this site, especially the church, adding that
this site is a "much better location than the previous one." He acknowledged that it is probably
difficult to find a better site in this location. "I really think the overwhelming issue here is that of
the AgNorestal District, and the fact that that property owner — who has put their property under
easement — is not satisfied, and is opposed. The Committee has recommended denial... since
I've been on this Commission, we have never approved a setback waiver when the adjacent
property owner was not in favor of it."
Mr. Rieley expressed concern that the height of the tower is based on the height of one I I0-foot
tall tree. "I didn't see the documentation that that had been surveyed by a licensed surveyor."
He added that if it was a grove of trees at that height, it may be considered differently. "I think
we really have to respect these Agricultural/Forestal Districts and the feelings of the people who
give these easements."
Mr. Finley said, "We'll all be under a `shed' in the rural areas, it looks like, in the future. The
fact that the District [Committee] voted to not recommend the tower does not affect me at all... if
my property abuts an Agricultural/Forestal District... it is voluntary. They got into it, and others
AlhPmnr1P Cnnnty Plnnnino rnmmi-inn — TnnP ?n ?nnn 156
on
choose not to. I think they all have equal rights. They have a right to protect what they have
chosen to do, and the abutting property owners likewise." He noted that the Committee vote was
very close — with 4 in favor, 3 against, and one abstention.
Mr. Thomas acknowledged that the A/F Districts are to be respected, but added that the church
has some property rights, and can lease it if they want. "It's a shame that there couldn't be
another site found to put the pole on." He added that he views the pole much like a utility pole.
Mr. Thomas said he supports the tower location.
Mr. Craddock asked if the pole would have a light on it.
Mr. Benish responded that it is not at a height that requires it to be lit.
Mr. Craddock asked if it could be placed on the church, similar to the church in Ivy.
Mr. Benish replied that the height of this church is below the tree line.
Mr. Craddock stated that he has mixed feelings about the application. He said he would vote
against the application, because of the proximity to the Agricultural/Forestal District.
MOTION: Ms. Hopper moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, denial of SP 00-11. The motion for
denial passed in a 4-2 vote, with Mr. Finley and Mr. Thomas dissenting.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, denial of the site plan waiver
associated with SP 00-11. The motion for denial passed in a 4-2 vote, with Mr. Finley and Mr.
Thomas dissenting.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Ms. Hopper seconded, denial of the setback waiver associated
with SP 00-11. The motion for denial passed in a 4-2 vote, with Mr. Finley and Mr. Thomas
dissenting.
Mr. Rieley commented the staff work on the item, noting the excellent staff report on a very
difficult issue.
SP-2000-17 CVR-318 Mt Jefferson (Sign #34 & 35) - Applicant seeks approval to construct a
128 foot tall wooden telecommunications pole in the Bellair Subdivision. The property, zoned
RI, Residential (1 dwelling unit/acre) and EC, Entrance Corridor, and described as Tax Map 76C
Section 2 Parcel 2, is located on the west side of the Route 29 bypass (Monacan Trail),
approximately one half mile south of the intersection of Routes 29 and 250 West (Ivy Road) in
the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is located in Neighborhood Six, and
recommended for Neighborhood Density. Residential (306 dwelling units/acre) in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Waller presented the staff report, explaining that the applicant — American Tower
Corporation — proposes to construct a 115-foot tower, 12 feet above the height of the tallest tree
within 25 feet. The tower is to be located within a 10' x 15' lease area on property adjacent to
Alhemnrle Cnnnty Alanninv CnmmkQinn — Time 90 'M fl 157
ONN
the Route 29/Route 250 Bypass within the Bellair Subdivision. He noted that the request also
includes a request for a reduction in setbacks, and from the right-of-way of the bypass. Mr.
Waller said that such a reduction will require a setback waiver; a variance to allow the tower at
the proposed height is also being requested, which will require a BZA hearing at a later date. He
mentioned that the Commission could defer action on the SP until the variance is heard. Mr.
Waller said that the nearest existing tower is a 97-foot tower approximately 90 feet north of this
tower site; the other tower is owned by CFW.
Mr. Waller said that staff s opinion is that the request generally complies with the provision of
the
Zoning Ordinance, and is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that staff
recommends approval of the proposal with conditions as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Waller
presented slides of the site, which showed a red balloon being used to show the tower height.
The slides also showed the existing tower, and illustrated the relationship that the height of both
towers would have to one another.
Mr. Thomas asked him to explain why the applicant can't collocate on the existing pole.
Mr. Waller suggested that the applicant respond to that question.
Public comment was invited.
The applicant, Ms. Valerie Long, representing Triton PCS, addressed the Commission. Ms.
Long explained that Triton is willing to accept the conditions recommended by staff for the
special use permit and the site plan waiver, should the Commission choose to recommend
approval. She indicated that they have requested a height variance from the BZA, and will be
appearing before them on July 18t'. Ms. Long explained that the parcel is located in the back of
the Bellair Subdivision, adding that the ARB has approved their request subject to certain
agreeable conditions and staff monitoring of those conditions. She said that Triton feels the
application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and is an appropriate location because it
will take advantage of an existing access easement. Ms. Long said that the Triton tower will be
minimally visible, noting that the existing tower is much more visible.
Mr. Rieley commented, "The only reason it is visible is because a big tree blew down in the
tornado that came through that area.... it was completely obscured before that happened."
Ms. Long commented that the Triton tower would be further back from the road, and they
propose extensive landscaping to shield all of their ground equipment. She added that the ARB
has also proposed some additional landscaping, and the entire facility will be brown. Ms. Long
noted that the antennas will be flush -mounted to the pole, and Triton measured the tallest tree
within the 25-foot radius at 103 feet. She stated that the Triton tower is proposed to be 115 feet,
noting that there are some trees beyond the 25-foot radius that are taller than those closest to the
facility. Ms. Long explained that Triton had considered locating closer to the road to get in front
of those taller trees, but that would have made the tower more visible, and might have required
some tree removal. She concluded that the visual impact test demonstrates that the tower would
be minimally visible, and Triton believes that the proposal is consistent with the county's
Athp.mnrip. Cnnnty Alannina C—i-inn — Time ?0 ?000 TSR
LIM
proposed design guidelines for wireless facilities in terms of visibility.
Mr. Finley asked if the towers ever fall, noting that the nearest house is about 103 feet away.
Ms. Long responded that she is not aware of any falling, although the towers have not been in
use for very long. She said that the total pole height is 130 feet, with 15 feet going into the
ground. Ms. Long stated that the pole height has been challenging, and the ARB granted
approval for a wooden or steel pole, so long as the steel pole would be painted brown. She
explained that shortly after -the ARB's decision, Triton was able to locate a pole (comprised of
two pieces together) made of wood.
Ms. Hopper asked if any adjacent property owners oppose the proposed tower.
Ms. Long said that the northern property owner is owned by the same landowner of the tower
site, and the property owners to the south (the Priest family) had actually agreed to have a tower
on their property as well.
Mr. Rieley asked if she knew the elevational difference between the CFW site and the Triton
site.
Ms. Long said that she did not know for certain, but the height looks the same to the naked eye.
Mr. Waller commented that the CFW site is 535 feet, but there is not elevation information on
the new site.
Mr. Rieley asked how many trees there are within a 25-foot radius.
Ms. Long responded that she did not know the precise number, but the tallest tree was 103 feet,
with an average height of 100 feet for the other trees in the area (6 — 7 trees).
Mr. Rieley asked if there was a drawing showing these trees.
Mr. Waller replied that there is not such a drawing with the staff report.
Mr. Rieley asked Ms. Long if Triton is willing to accept the conditions that would go along with
having a wooden pole.
Ms. Long replied that they would still like to have the option of a steel pole, in case there is a
problem with the wooden one. She indicated that they would comply with the ARB's
restrictions on color, etc.
Mr. Waller noted that the design planner has already researched swatches for paint on the pole.
Mr. Kamptner said that the elevation noted on the site survey is 552 feet for the proposed tower
location.
AlhemnrlP Cnnmty Plannino Cnmmk6nn — hmP '70 9000
MIM
in
Mr. Waller said that the CFW site is 535 feet, according to the staff report. He added that the
Triton site seemed to be downhill from the CFW site, adding that the staff report for the CFW
pole may include USGS information.
Mr. Rieley stated that that is an important point to get resolved. Upon calculation, he noted that
the new tower would be 35 feet higher than the existing CFW pole. Mr. Rieley commented that
there will not be a definitive answer until the site is surveyed.
Ms. Hopper asked what surrounds the 6 or 7 tall trees.
Ms. Long replied that it is a wooded area, and the clearing is the most open area.
Mr. Craddock asked, "Where's the nearest antenna north?"
Ms. Long responded that there are building antenna mounts on the University Village facility,
and on the buildings at the UVA Research Park.
Mr. Craddock said that he has Sun Com, and doesn't really have problems with signals in that
area. He asked what the advantage would be in having another tower there.
Ms. Long responded that currently, Triton pays a roaming fee to CFW for signals in that area.
Mr. Craddock asked, "So your tower would essentially be so you wouldn't have to pay CFW any
fees?"
Ms. Long acknowledged that that is one reason; the other reason is to handle additional capacity
in the area. She added, "There is a gap in the Triton coverage without this."
Mr. Thomas asked why Triton couldn't collocate on the CFW tower.
Ms. Long responded that the signal would be blocked almost completely to the south if the panel
is just below the existing panels.
Mr. Thomas asked if there were some engineering that could be done to solve this.
Ms. Long emphasized that if the antenna panels are not sufficiently above the trees, it limits or
prohibits the signal from traveling the necessary distance.
Mr. Thomas asked if Triton chose the site because there was already a tower on the property.
Ms. Long replied that initially, they contacted the Priests, but eventually ended up with this site
because of access issues. She added that using the existing easement would eliminate the need
for additional tree removal.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was a limitation on the number of trees that can go on a single parcel.
AlhPmnrle Cnnntv Mannino Cnmmicsinn — Tnne M '7000 160
cm
Mr. Kamptner responded, "No."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rieley presented a disc with some photos he had taken on the site. Mr. Rieley pointed out
the site near I-64 at the Shadwell exit, noting that the trees there are quite low. He mentioned
that Triton gave the Commission assurance they would abide by the restriction of 7 feet above
the nearest tree within 25 feet. Mr. Rieley noted that the tower is not 7 feet taller unless you
measure to the edge of the tree, not the center. "Are we getting what we think we're getting
when we put these stipulations on, and is there follow-through to say that these things actually
get built in the places where we approve them to get built in, and when we say 7 feet taller than
the nearest tree within 25 feet, what are we really getting?"
Ms. Hopper asked if this situation would trigger civil penalties.
Mr. Kamptner replied that if it is a zoning violation, there would be a notice of violation, then
enforcement and possible fine.
Mr. Rieley said, "We somehow have to improve the follow-through on these."
Mr. Rieley stated that when a tornado came through the CFW site, a window of visibility was
opened up. "At this stage of the game, I don't think we have enough information to be able to
determine whether this is a good place or not. We don't know how many trees are within this
25-foot zone. We don't know whether they're being measured from a trip line or whether
they're being measured from a bowl. We don't know what the heights of them are."
He added that there is a huge issue as to whether another pole is really needed in this area, if the
companies can share poles and lease space from each other.
Mr. Loewenstein agreed with Mr. Rieley's comments, adding that ordinarily, the Commission
would not see the item before the BZA decides on the variance. "I would be more comfortable
having that input before us as well." He suggested deferring action until the variance is heard.
Mr. Rieley asked if there was any conversation between Planning and Zoning to ensure that the
structures meet the requirements.
Mr. Benish responded that they have to meet a site plan requirement or plan of development.
Mr. Rieley asked what would happen to the conditions if the site plan was waived.
Mr. Waller said that he wasn't sure if the conditions made it to the Zoning Department when the
reviewed the tower location. He indicated that that is why he requested a condition be added to
have the plan amended to show all the trees and then be reviewed by the design planner before
the site plan waiver leaves Planning.
Mr. Rieley emphasized that it is imperative to get a process in place to make sure that the
Alhemnrle Cnnnty Planning Cnmmiccinn — Line 90 900n ��'�
conditions are met.
Mr. Kamptner said, "It's not too late to go back and determine compliance with conditions."
Mr. Waller suggested that staff not give approval of a site plan waiver until the conditions are
met. `By the time the Zoning inspector gets it, [they] look at the site plan, and [they] have the
expectation that all the conditions made it to the site plan in its final set of revisions.
Mr. Kamptner asked staff about the "creep in the elevation" of the elevation of the antenna
height above the tree canopy — from six to seven to ten. "It might be helpful to understand why
we're going in that direction."
Mr. Waller said that the applicant seemed to be concerned about trees outside of the 25-foot
radius as being taller.
Mr. Kamptner noted that there seems to be differing opinion on the affect of foliage on the
signal.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved for deferral of SP 00-017 until the request for variance has
been heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals, and to receive additional information from staff.
Ms. Hopper seconded the motion.
Ms. Long re -addressed the Commission. Ms. Long explained that the 103-foot measurement
was done by Triton, who hand -measured the site instead of using a surveyor's estimate. She said
that Jaymar Joseph of American Tower, who consults with Triton, went out with bucket trucks
and a crew, who used a tape measure to determine the height. Ms. Long noted that Mr. Joseph
has signed an affidavit confirming the measurement.
Mr. Rieley asked if anyone from the county was notified of the measuring process.
Mr. Waller replied that he and Ms. Pickart were invited to the second measuring, which involved
the balloon.
Ms. Long noted that the ARB has recommended additional landscaping to the site to further
shield the ground equipment.
Mr. Rieley asked that additional information be provided in order for the Commission to make
their decision:
I. Provision of elevations of both this site and the nearby CFW tower site in the same datum.
2. Provision of drawings that show all of the trees regarded within a 25-foot radius of this tower
site, and whether the measurements are taken to the bowl of the tree, or the trip line of the
tree.
3. Provision of the heights of all the trees within the 25-foot zone, oriented the same way as the
site plan.
4. Measurements of the trees will be taken by a registered professional engineer with a certified
Alhemnrla Cnnnty Plannino Cnmmicsinn — Tnne 10 '7000 ��'�
En
stamp and his signature on the drawings.
Commissioners also expressed concern that the antennae heights seem to be gradually creeping
up to allowing taller and taller towers.
Mr. Loewenstein clarified that his motion included the setback waiver and right-of-way waiver
also.
Ms. Hopper mentioned that it would be helpful to have an expert on staff to advise on technology
issues.
Mr. Loewenstein said that the consultant hired helped create a manual that should be useful in
making decisions. He added that the current technology will probably have a short shelf -life, as
it will probably be replaced in the near future.
Mr. Kamptner emphasized that it is important for the Commission to focus on the land use
issues, and the technology becomes secondary.
Commissioners agreed that sometimes the issues are intertwined.
Mr. Finley said, "There are so many variables, there's no way that we as a Commission could get
into them and come up with a logical answer... land use is really what we have to deal with."
Mr. Kamptner emphasized that it would be helpful if the providers could report on possible
alternative sites.
The motion previously presented for deferral passed unanimously.
Old Business
There was no old business presented.
New Business
Mr. Benish told Commissioners that they would be holding worksessions in the near future
(sometime in July), and asked them to indicate a preferred time. Commissioners stated that they
would like to meet at 4:00 p.m. on Tuesdays, so that there would be a 1/2 hour break in between
the worksessions and their regular meeting.
Ms. Hopper mentioned that she had recently attended a Planning Commissioners conference, and
would share her findings in the near future.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Secretary
AlhrmarlP rnnnty Planning rnmmicsinn — T11nP. 7O "()O Zf,�