HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 19 2000 PC Minutesl
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 19, 2000
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on
Tuesday, September 19, 2000 in the County Office Building. Members attending were:
Mr. Dennis Rooker, Vice -Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Pete Craddock; Mr.
Rodney Thomas; Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Ms. Tracey Hopper. Other officials present
were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior
Planner; Ms. Joan McDowell, Planner; Mr. Steven Waller, Planner; Mr. Ted Glass,
Planner; Mr. Scott Clark; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; Ms. Jan
Sprinkle, Department of Zoning. Absent: Mr. William Finley, Chairman.
DISC Worksession — Review of the Transect, Review of Section 4: Building A Master
Plan, Review of Section 2 of the Neighborhood Model.
Approval of Minutes — September 5, 2000
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the minutes of September
5, 2000 as amended.
Approval of Minutes — DISC Worksessions — August 15, 2000, August 29, 2000, and
September 5, 2000.
The Commission expressed concern over "inaccuracies" and "missing information" in the
minutes of these worksessions. Commissioners suggested redoing the minutes to include
just the comments made by Ms. Echols and Ms. Catlin at each meeting.
Mr. Rooker asked if the minutes would be going to the Board of Supervisors, noting that
they just capsulize the changes being made to the DISC document and do not include all
of the Commission's discussion. "They really don't incorporate many of the comments
that we made before someone makes a specific suggestion for a language change."
Mr. Benish responded that the minutes might go to the Board of Supervisors, and
emphasized that in worksessions, the minutes are intended to summarize discussions, not
"cover the full breadth of the discussion." He suggested correcting any inaccuracies or
adding language to clarify points included.
Ms. Golden pointed out that she had not been in attendance at the meetings, and compiled
the minutes with rough notes taken by someone else, in combination with recordings
from the meetings.
Mr. Rooker said he would like a "disclaimer" put on the minutes to state they are not
intended to reflect all of the comments at the meeting, but are simply a summary of all
points covered.
Mr. Rieley said that if the minutes are to be passed along, the Commissioners should
spend some time with them to review them and clarify points made.
AlhPmarla rinnnty Plannina r nmmiccinn — 9/19/Mn
54R
on
Mr. Rooker suggested moving them over to another date.
Mr. Loewenstein commented, "In some of these minutes, there's value to the details that
were presented; in some of them, there's clearly not. There's an awful lot of verbiage in
here that's really just sort of conversational backing and forthing that doesn't really add
anything to what was finally decided. It's not enough just to say we're going to revisit
them — I think we ought to say on what basis we want to see them again."
Mr. Benish noted, "As a general rule, we don't use these type of [worksession] minutes
for the Board, but they are a documentation, and sometimes they have been use .... when
we've done worksessions on the Comp. Plan review, we generally don't give the [Board]
worksession minutes."
Mr. Loewenstein suggested either making them comprehensive, or scaling them back
considerably.
Mr. Rieley said, "I would be perfectly happy with simply letting our action stand... [but] I
don't want to have a set of minutes floating around that's going to give a distorted
impression of how we got there."
Mr. Benish commented, "We generally rely on the recommendations you make, and the
supporting documentation — the reports that go with it."
Ms. Hopper suggested getting rid of the minutes, and just having a summary. "I'd like it
to be taken off the tape in a lot more detail on some topics, or not used at all."
Mr. Loewenstein suggested just limiting the minutes to state that the Commission
reached decisions on certain items, and not including all the details.
Mr. Rooker said, "I think it either has to be complete in terms of the details, or we should
do without it. I think in light of perhaps the difficulty in having someone available to
transcribe detailed minutes for the worksessions, maybe the best approach is not to have
minutes. To the extent that notes are taken, they could be used as an aide and revising the
wording of the plan as we've done at the meeting. In which case, we would not adopt
these minutes at all as minutes. They would just be, in effect, notes for our future use."
Mr. Rooker said, "In the future, if we get anything back, it would just simply be notes of
proposed changes to the text."
Mr. Rooker added, "I think the consensus here tonight is we would not have... anything
we call minutes, that if someone is there to transcribe, they transcribe a set of notes which
might be an aide in altering the transcript according to the decision of the Planning
Commission on a particular day." Mr. Rooker noted that the Commission does not intend
to ever adopt these as minutes, but they might just serve as notes from the meetings.
AlhemarlP Cnnnty Plannina rommiscinn — 9/19/00 S49
Mr. Kamptner said, "The worksessions are public meetings, and minutes are supposed to
44w, be taken, so I think that eventually... these summaries should be incorporated into your
Planning Commission minutes of a particular date. They may be in a different form — not
verbatim — like the minutes taken at your regular public meeting."
lm
Mr. Rooker asked, "What you're saying is that we do need at some point to adopt these
minutes."
Mr. Kamptner confirmed this, adding, "I'm not saying that they have to be verbatim. It
can be reflected that they are summaries."
Mr. Rooker said he would like a disclaimer or explanation attached to each set.
Ms. Hopper suggested deleting most of the minutes.
Mr. Loewenstein said he could not vote to accept any of these minutes, and suggested
starting over with the tapes.
Mr. Benish stated that for a number of committee meetings, the minutes cite the item,
indicate that there was a presentation made and what the topic was, then include a
narrative of the discussion, but do not include a substantive description of discussion in
between. "It explains what went on, what you reviewed, and what the results of that
meeting were. That's typically what we do with the Recreation Facilities Authority, as an
example."
Mr. Rieley asked, "And that satisfies the law?"
Mr. Kamptner responded, "Minutes don't have to be verbatim, or even anything close to
reflecting the exact discussion."
Mr. Benish said that including a summary "will tell you what your findings were that
night, and there are tapes that will document the discussions that went on." He suggested
going back and deciding if the findings included are accurate or not.
Mr. Rooker suggested including the topic of the worksession, the subtopic being
discussed, a summary of the staff report, and the list of changes agreed upon. He
suggested changing the minutes to reflect the actual changes to the DISC document made
with Ms. Catlin and given to Ms. Echols.
Commissioners agreed to use Ms. Catlin's notes to create a summary of the meetings.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
AlhPmarlP rniintu Planning rnmmiasinn — A/19!l o 54t1
In
Consent Agenda
SDP 00-085 Crozet Farmer's Market Waiver Request — Request for a site plan waiver
to allow a weekly farmers' market on Tax Map 56A2, Section 01, Parcel 17 (Crozet
Methodist Church), which has an area of 2.2 acres.
SDP 00-098 Peter Jefferson Place V Waiver Request — Requests to allow construction
on critical slopes, curvilinear parking, cross -slope grades in excess of 2%, one-way
circulation and service space reduction in association with a three-story office building
totaling 75,000 square feet on 7.32 acres zoned PD-MC Planned Development — Mixed
Commercial
SDP 00-054 Hydraulic Dental Waiver Request — Request for a waiver to allow
construction on critical slopes in association with a preliminary site plan to allow 6090
square feet of office space (as allowed by special use permit SP 99-067).
SDP 00-084 Thomas Jefferson Parkway Bridge Minor Amendment — Critical Slopes
Waiver - Proposal to construct improvements to Route 53 and the entrance to Monticello,
which includes a request to establish a waste area over critical slopes on a portion of
Mountaintop Farm. The property, described as Tax Map 77/Parcel 31, is located on the
southern side of Route 53, across the road from the entrance to Monticello (Attachment
A). The property is zoned Rural Areas (RA) and Entrance Corridor (EC), and designated
as Rural Areas 4 by the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rieley announced that a firm he is associated with worked on one of the projects on
the Consent Agenda, and therefore he would abstain from participating in discussion and
vote; Mr. Rooker indicated that he has a client associated with one item on the Consent
Agenda also, and announced his abstention.
MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Ms. Hopper seconded approval of the Consent Agenda.
The motion passed in a 4-0 vote, with Mr. Rooker and Mr. Rieley abstaining.
Item Requesting Deferral:
SP 2000-44 —
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of deferral of SP
2000-44 to October 17, 2000 at the applicant's request.
Public Hearin Items:
ZMA 2000-6 Greenbrier Office Park — Request to amend a preexisting proffer to allow
for the inclusion of 3040 square feet of storage space in building #4 for the use of tenants
of Greenbrier Office Park. The property, described as Tax Map 61 W Section 1 Parcel 4
is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Greenbrier Drive at the intersection of
Whitewood Road. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community
Service in Neighborhood 1.
Mr. Benish presented the staff report, noting that the proposal is to amend proffers to
allow for an additional 3,040 square feet of storage space in a building within the
AlhPmarlP Cnnnty Planning rnmmiacinn — 9/19/00 Sri
Greenbrier Office Park. He said that the property is subject to a proffer that indicated
%, there would be no more than 43,200 square feet of space built on the site. One of the
buildings was approved to have a basement, and upon issuance of the building permit for
that basement, an additional amount of square footage was built beyond what the proffer
allowed on the site. Mr. Benish stated that the Board of Supervisors agreed with the
Zoning Department that the basement space was not consistent with the proffer; the
applicant subsequently submitted a rezoning request to modify the proffer. He said that
staff initially recommended denial because of the Zoning Department's indication that
based on the additional square footage, there is not adequate parking to serve the
additional square footage.
en
Mr. Benish presented a proposed proffer that the applicant agrees with that satisfies
Zoning's concerns in terms of parking; staff now recommends approval of the proposed
change to the proffer, which would allow for 43,200 net square feet of office space and
establishes some provisions by which that additional basement is constructed to ensure
that it is maintained as a storage space.
Mr. Thomas asked what the total square footage would be with the basement.
Mr. Glass responded that it would total 47,280 with the basement.
Mr. Benish said that the original proffer speaks to total square feet, and has now been
revised to reflect office space and storage space. "It does allow for additional square
footage, but that is consistent with the total construction anticipated. This site is built -out
practically, and this basement area is just the remainder of the last part of the building."
Mr. Rooker stated that the site plan for Greenbrier Park shows four office buildings with
43,200 gross floor area, with 34,560 square feet net. "Are we not being in effect asked to
approve an increase in the buildings from 34,560 net feet to 43,200 net feet plus some
additional space for storage?" He added, "Why are we looking at changing the word net
to gross?"
Mr. Benish said, "What is before you should actually be 43,200 gross square feet, and an
additional [4,080] gross square feet."
Mr. Loewenstein commented that the staff report says that the gross square footage
approved for the entire project is stated as 43,200. "I'm assuming that would have
included any storage."
Mr. Benish said, "There is more building than what was approved in the proffer, but the
4,000 square feet is for storage purposes."
Mr. Rieley noted that he could not find a site plan with the application, although it is
referenced in the staff report.
AlhemariP rnnnty Plsinnino rnmmiaainn — 9/i gloo 1,52
M
Mr. Glass indicated that he neglected to include a site plan with the staff report,
confirming that all of the additional storage space is in the basement. He confirmed that
it would be up to Zoning to enforce this type of use.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if anything would have to be removed from the space in order to
allow it to qualify for the uniform statewide building code for use of this type of area.
Ms. Jan Sprinkle noted that the number of minimum number of electrical outlets and
overhead lights will be referenced "as determined by the Zoning Administrator," and
there would be none. "The idea is to just keep it physically so that it can't be occupied as
normal office use, and that way we won't feel the need for the enforcement." She added
that the building has left that area unfinished, with a gravel floor.
Mr. Rooker asked what the gross square feet of office buildings is today on the site.
Ms. Sprinkle replied that the total is 47,280 gross square feet — with 43,200 in office
space, and the additional 4,080 in storage space.
Mr. Thomas asked about the recommendation for a door to be installed.
Ms. Sprinkle responded, "That was the compromise to allow the building to
continue... they had already dug that foundation and built the walls up a certain level
when we found it. We agreed that if they put in a wall with just a crawl -space door so it
could not ever be accessed at all, they could continue with the building. Should this
action — the ZMA — not be approved to change the proffer, that's how the building will
have to stay....if it does not get approved, the area will still be there — there will still be
4,000 square feet under the roof, but it won't be allowed to be used for anything."
Ms. Hopper asked if the construction violated the footprint specifications.
Ms. Sprinkle replied that the footprint specifications were met.
Mr. Thomas asked if there is any requirement for additional buffering.
Mr. Glass responded that there is no additional screening required, since the building
didn't get any larger or change fundamentally.
Public comment was invited.
The applicant, Frank Stoner, addressed the Commission. He stated that there was never
an intention to deceive anyone with construction of the additional square footage, adding
that the proffer limitation was a function of the amount of parking on -site. He said that
they offered the proffer because the county requested it, and the intent was to proffer the
amount of office space on the site. Mr. Stoner said that they had just finished a similar
project where the parking was a fixed element, and because of the grades, a full -basement
was a practical solution to that building. He indicated that he considered the proffer to be
AthamnrlP rnnnty Plannina ('nmmissinn — 9/19/Ml 55't
a proffer for office space, not storage space, and they did not feel they were in violation
of the proffer. "We had never intended to proffer away our ability to build storage in the
portion of the basement that was unusable as office space." He stated that he agrees with
the language that limits the use to storage space, noting that there has been confusion
over "gross" and "net" square footage.
Ms. Mary Morris, a resident of a subdivision that borders the office park, addressed the
Commission. She asked if there would be vehicular traffic delivering to the storage area,
and wondered if there would be an affect on the storm detention basin being built behind
this building.
Mr. Glass stated that there are conditions of the proffer that stipulate the storage can only
be used by people in the building, not be others.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Thomas stated that he hoped any increase in vehicular traffic would not disturb
residents nearby.
Mr. Rooker said that since only those in the building can use the space, it shouldn't create
any additional traffic.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of ZMA 2000-6 to
amend the preexisting proffer, with language to be clarified before the Board of
Supervisors consideration of the item. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 2000-40 Blue Ridge Equine Partners — Request for amendment of a special use
permit to allow for construction of a new hospital barn for an animal hospital. In
accordance with Section 20.4.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for uses
permitted in the C-1 zoning district, and Section 22.2.2.5, which allows for veterinary
offices by special use permit. The property, described as Tax Map 30, Parcel 110,
contains 3.9 acres, and is located in the White Hall Magisterial District on Mockernut
Lane at the intersection with Buck Mountain Road. The property is zoned PUD Planned
Unit Development. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area.
Mr. Clark presented the staff report, noting that the application intends to amend a
previously approved permit (SP 97-32), which was approved in 1997 with a waiver of
Section 5.1.111 relating to soundproofing of veterinary uses. He said that it was
determined that those measures were unnecessary because this facility would only be
dealing with horses. Mr. Clark stated that the new permit would not change the level of
use at the site, but would simply improve the patient services. He said that staff
recommends approval of both the permit and the waiver.
The applicant, Dr. Reynolds Coles, addressed the Commission. He explained that the
barn would be a 40' x 40' structure adjacent to a border of white pines, and the Blue
Ridge Equine partners also own the lot leading to Route 665. Dr. Coles said that the barn
Alhemorle Cnnnty Plannina rommissinn — 9/19/00 554
cm
is necessary to help separate certain horses from the rest of the animals, especially in the
case of young foals receiving treatment.
Mr. Loewenstein asked how long this facility would be adequate.
Dr. Coles replied that they do not see an advantage in building more facilities, as it is
better to fully utilize what they have. "We don't anticipate that much growth."
Mr. Rieley asked if the well is uphill or downhill from the barn, because it is quite close.
Dr. Coles said the well is uphill, and it will be located a little further from the barn than
indicated on the map. He said that the Health Department has looked at it and has
checked off on approving the plan.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Loewenstein said that the local horse industry is a significant one, and possibly a
growing one. He pointed out an article in a recent issue of the New Yorker magazine on
Charlottesville's horse country.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that it was difficult to locate the site on maps presented in the staff
report, and there was no topography included.
Mr. Benish noted that he made a point in the last staff meeting to include better
referencing of site locations.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Craddock seconded approval of SP 2000-40
with conditions as presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Thomas seconded, approval of a waiver of
noise attenuation requirements (Section 5.1.11) for veterinary areas and hospitals. The
motion passed unanimously.
SP 2000-45 Sweeney (Triton PCS CVR 362B) — Request for special use permit to allow
a communications facility including a 90-foot high wooden pole, flush mounted antenna,
and ground equipment on a 14,747 square foot leased area of a 519.118 acre parcel in
accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for micro -wave
and radio -wave transmission and relay towers. The property, described as Tax Map 94,
Parcel 17, is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District at 2670 Thomas Jefferson
Parkway [SR #53) east of SR #729. The property is zoned RA Rural Areas District (RA)
and within an Entrance Corridor Overlay Zone (EC). The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Rural Area.
Mr. Benish indicated that staff would need to defer this item, due to new information
received about a setback variance.
AlhemnrlP Crnmty Planning Cnmmiaeinn — 9l19/OO
L&V
M
Ms. McDowell reported that the applicant would need a setback variance to one of the
property lines and staff did not know that until the meeting began. She said that there
would need to be a deferral because it was not advertised properly.
Ms. Valerie Long, representing Crown Communications and Triton PCS, addressed the
Commission. She explained that there was some confusion about the edge of the
property line, as the height of the tower (90 feet) exceeds the distance from that line. She
requested a deferral of the item based on the need for a variance.
Mr. Kamptner stated that staff has not had a chance to analyze a setback waiver, and it
may impact the property more than what the adjoining property initially understood.
"We just want to be sure that the notice procedural requirements are addressed property
so that we minimize the chance for any challenge."
Ms. Long suggested deferral to October 17, 2000.
Staff agreed.
Public comment was invited. None was offered, and the matter was placed before the
Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Craddock seconded approval of deferral of SP 2000-
45 to October 17, 2000 as requested by the applicant. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Rieley requested a copy of a tax map with the site located, as well as topographical
information.
SP 2000-46 Winston (Triton PCS CVR 363C) — Request for special use permit to allow
a communications facility including a 92-foot wooden pole tower with flush -mounted
antennas and ground equipment on a 125-foot by 125-foot lease area on a 18.18-acre
parcel, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.6 of the property, described as Tax Map 106
Parcel 7 is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on the north side of the Thomas
Jefferson Parkway (Route #53) approximately 2,000 feet from the Fluvanna County Line.
The property is zoned RA Rural Area and is in an EC (Entrance Corridor Overlay
District). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area.
Mr. Benish reported that with the Board of Supervisors approval of towers last week,
staff has tried to consolidate conditions of approval for towers. He noted that Mr.
Waller's staff report includes the format for tower approval conditions, in an effort to
keep the language consistent.
Mr. Waller presented the staff report, noting that the applicant is requesting approval of a
special use permit to allow construction of a personal wireless communications facility.
The site would include a wooden monopole, which would extend 7 feet above the height
of a tallest tree within 25 feet, with a total height of 86 feet. He said that the three flush-
AlhPmarlP Cnimty Plnnnina rnmmiscinn — 9/19/00 SSh
mounted panel antennas would be located on the top of the pole, and all the ground
equipment would be painted brown.
Mr. Waller reported that staff has reviewed the request for compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance, and found that the applicant has attempted to comply with the draft Wireless
Policy Manual. He said that an assessment of the visual impact of the proposed
monopole is included in the staff report, and pictures of a balloon visibility test are being
circulated. Mr. Waller concluded that staff recommends approval of the SP with
conditions as presented, and also recommends a site plan waiver and setback waiver. He
clarified that the pole would be wooden, and the tower would be seven feet above the
tallest tree within 25 feet.
Mr. Thomas asked if the Wireless Policy Manual provides for more one tower on a
property.
Mr. Waller responded that staff s review is based on the impact of visibility, and if more
than one tower can go on site without significant visual impact, then staff would
recommend approval.
Mr. Benish noted, "Nothing specifically says don't do more than three or four; what
happens is, when you start to cluster them, you lose the trees around the original
one... practically speaking, there's probably some inhibitors in our policy."
Mr. Craddock mentioned that there are different heights mentioned in the staff report.
Mr. Waller said that the original request was for 92 feet, but the actual request is for 86
feet. He mentioned that the special use permit, site plan waiver, and setback waivers,
include a recommendation for an 86-foot tower.
Mr. Rooker commented, "What is approved is ultimately what we set out in the
conditions, and a lot of these materials that are attached reflect the historic process of the
application. There may have been some changes between what was applied for and what
was ultimately recommended by staff."
Mr. Waller emphasized that the conditions are what govern what is constructed, prior to a
building permit being issued.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that the staff report mentions screening from I-64.
Mr. Waller pointed out that the reference should be to Route 53, not I-64.
Mr. Rieley mentioned that the tree height surveys seem to fluctuate greatly, with one tree
surveyed initially at 76 feet and later surveyed at 99 feet.
Mr. Waller said that hopefully the certified arborist report would clarify the actual tree
heights.
Alhr mnrle Cnnnty Plsinnina (`nmmiacinn — 9/19/00 1;57
09
Mr. Rooker asked about certification of the tallest tree within a 25-foot radius.
Mr. Rieley expressed concern about the discrepancy in measurement of the tallest tree.
Mr. Benish said that the reference to the average tree height in the area is what is
important.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Valerie Long addressed the Commission.
Ms. Long said that Triton has now found a surveyor that uses an acceptable measurement
system with more precision. She said that surveyors now use a cherry -picker truck and
drop a tape measure from the top of a tree to the ground. Ms. Long said that Triton had
initially submitted applications requesting a 4-foot lightning rod, but another carrier
requested 2 feet, and that became the standard. She indicated that Triton would prefer to
use 4 for safety reasons, but 2 is acceptable.
Mr. Dale Finnochie of Crown Communications said that there is a greater opportunity for
lightning to strike equipment with a shorter antenna; at four feet, there is less of a chance
of an arc from a lightning hit. He added that four feet is used as Triton's standard, as it
provides safety to the equipment and the site.
Mr. Rooker said he would like to see some type of studies that quantify the difference,
adding that if it is important to the carrier to have a taller antenna, it would be helpful to
have that information.
Ms. Long pointed out that the design is consistent with the wireless manual, and
confirmed that the height applied for is 86 feet, 7 feet above the tallest nearby tree of 79
feet. She noted that there is an existing buffer of evergreens between the edge of the
right-of-way and the edge of the lease parcel; the visibility of the site is quite minimal,
and is not visible heading east until you pass the site. Ms. Long said that the facility will
be slightly visible heading west.
Ms. Long reported that the site not visible from adjacent properties in the area of the
eastbound lane; it is visible from a very short distance when heading into town from the
west near the Sisson's property. Ms. Long said that Triton has worked with the Sisson
to make sure that the driveway improvements will not cause any drainage problems on
their property. She said that Triton is going to upgrade part of their driveway to ensure
that no drainage problem is created on their property. Ms. Long noted that only a few
trees will need to be removed for construction of the access road; an existing driveway
will be used to the point that it ends, then trees will be cleared to reach the site. She said
that Triton will provide a tree protection fence to protect the existing trees during
construction.
AN-.msde Cnnnty P1Rnninv Cnmmiccinn — 9/19/On
SSR
Mr. Craddock asked if having three panels [as in the Triton/Sweeney application]
,%M,, provided better coverage for Triton, and wondered if two -panel sites will experience a
dead zone.
M
Ms. Long said that the coverage objective is considered for each site, and the
recommended number of panels intends to meet each site's coverage objectives.
Mr. Frank Wentik, a RF engineer for Triton addressed the Commission.
Mr. Wentik said that the coverage objective for this site is Route 53, and the two
recommended panels will probably meet this objective.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rieley commented that the proposed facility seems to have a backdrop of trees in this
location, and is aided also by its close proximity to the road. "I think it's one that should
move ahead."
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of SP 2000-46 with
conditions as presented by staff. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Rieley seconded approval of a setback waiver
associated with SP 2000-46. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of a site plan waiver
associated with SP 2000-46 including conditions as presented by staff. The motion
passed unanimously.
Old Business
There was no old business presented.
New Business
There was no new business presented.
Staff confirmed that there is no meeting on September 26, 2000.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting — September 13, 2000
Mr. Benish presented a review of the Board of Supervisors meeting of September 13,
2000. He stated that the Board approved SP 00-26 (Alltel/Berman) with a tower height
of 10 feet above tree level; SP 00-27 (Alltel/Yancey Mills) with a tower height of 10 feet
above tree level; SP 00-28 (Alltell/lvy) with a tower height of 5 feet above tree level; SP
00-29 (Alltel/Mechums River) with a tower height of 10 feet above tree level; they also
approved SP 00-30 (Alltel/I-64 West) with a tower height of 7 feet above tree level; SP
00-31 (Alltel/I-64 East) with a tower height of 5 feet above tree level; SP 00-41
(Triton/Herring) with a tower height of 7 feet above tree level.
AlhPmarlP Crnmty Plannino rnmmicsinn — 9/1 A/OO Si9
M
Commissioners asked if the heights included the lightning rod.
Mr. Benish responded that the Board included a limitation of 2 feet for a lightning rod,
which will be a standard condition.
Mr. Rooker asked how the RF isolator was addressed in those applications.
Mr. Benish replied that the Board requested more information on that technology, in
response to questions about the equipment and its appearance. He confirmed that the
Board approved applications with RF isolators with the same limitations suggested by the
Commission — at or below tree height.
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful to have an answer for the question the Commission
raised regarding the need for RF isolators, noting the visibility of the equipment. He
suggested getting some outside guidance for when an RF isolator is needed. Mr. Rooker
asked about having an RF engineer available for answering questions about isolators
during the time the applications are reviewed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
V. Way* Cilimberg
AlhPmnrle Crnmty Plnnnino CnmmiQ6nn — 9/19/00
iCIO