Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 25 1994 PC Minutes14-25-94 OCTOBER 25, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 25, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of October 11, 1994 were aproved (6:0.1) as amended. Ms. Imhoff abstained from the action on the approval of the minutes because she had not been present at the October I Ith meeting. SP-94-26 Sprint Cellular Company - Petition to locate an antennae and support facilitites on 70.87 acres [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 75, parcels 47C and 47C1, is located at the end of Route 702 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 3). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The staff reported concluded: "Staff opinion is that the proposal is acceptable in terms of provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance,. as they relate to the Rural Areas District. However, without resolution of ismes related to the Entrance Corridor District, staff is unable to recommend approval. Should the Board of Supervisors chose to approve this proposal, staff recommends modification of Section 4.10.3.I (to allow a reduction in setback from the I-f 4 right-of=way)...." Ms. Imhoff asked how much of the tower would be visible above the treeline of 1-64. It was her understanding that staff had performed balloon tests which had determined more than 60 feet of the tower would be visible. Mr. Fritz explained that because of windy conditions, the balloon test had given "mixed findings." He concluded: "It's hard to say how much you're going to see; (but) you're going to see it at some- point along the Interstate." Mr. Fritz confirmed that staff's recommendation for denial was based on. Section 31.2.4.1 and the finding that the tower would, based on the comments of the Architectural Review Board, negatively impact the character of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Mr. Nitchmann asked if staff would have recommended approval if the ARB had approved the proposal. Mr. Fritz responded affirmatively. Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant had been unable to proceed with a previously approved tower site (Bear Den Mt.) because of access problems. (The applicant later stated the Bear Den site will be abandoned if this site is approved.) /76 10-25-94 2 Though this site has more visual. impact, Mr. Blue noted that it will result in much less environmental dmage than the previous site because no road will have to be con&ucted, Mr. Fritz added that this site would require a minimal amount of construction activity. Mr. Fritz confirmed that the ARB considers only the visual questions, and does not consider environmental impact. Mr. Fritz also noted that the ARB's recommendations are "advisory" to the Commission and. the Board. Ms. Imhoff asked for more clarification as to staff s basis for recommending denial, She noted that she had not understood from the staff report that the recommendation was solely based on the ARB's comments about the visual impact. Mr. Fritz, quoting from the ,staff report, explained that staff also had concerns about the possible "cumulative effect" of multiple stand-alone towers on the rural areas district. He noted that does not mean that this one tower causes this effect, but it is simply being noted for the future. Mr. Frig added: "At the time we prepared this report, the ARIA had already taken action not to support this. They were in the process of actively re -considering it." Mr Fritz confirmed that the ARB has reviewed this request twice. Mr. Cilimberg added: "The ARB did not indicate that they could not issue a Certificate of Appropriateness, were this approved." (Ms. Joseph, the ARB staff planner, confirmed the accuracy of this statement,? The applicant was represented by Mr. Dick Gibson. He explained that the need for the tower is driven by the tremendous growth in the cellular industry, and it is expected that the rapid rate of growth will continue. One of the main problems which the tower will address is "dead spots" on I-64 and the 250 Bypass. These dead spots result in poor coverage and, in some instances, no coverage. The tower will also increase capacity, i.e, more Gaits can be handled at a given time, Sites for towers are determined by "high points", proximity to highways and population centers, and landowner consent. This site has excellent access and meets all of Sprinfs criteria. Barth disturbance and tree clearing will be minimal. Other information offered, and answers to Commission questions included the following: --The site will be leased from Camp Holiday Trails. The lease will be for 20 years. The site is near no residences. --The 1:1 setback cannot be met because of the site's sloping topography. The BZA has granted a variance for the setback. (Compliance with the 1:1 setback would result in a 380-foot, lighted tower, which would be in the Camp Holiday Trails pond and would still be visible from I-64. It would require massive excavation and tree removal.) The ARB unanimously voted "no objection" to the setback variance. --VDOT has been contacted and they indicate they have no problems with the proposed facility. --No objections have been received from any adjoining property owners. --Regarding visibility, the applicant has done everything possible to Minitriile visibility. The tower will be painted slate grey. Dish antennae will be limited to one (1), and the size of the shish will be limited to 4 feet in diameter. A grid type dish antenna will be used. The tower will be located in thick trees. The applicant estimates that approximately 80 feet of the tower will be visible above the tree lute for approximately 20 seconds, to travellers along I-64. The applicant is willing to reduce the tower height to 150 feet, if necessary, even i71 10-23-94 though it wili result in "some slight descrease in the range of the tower." He explained that Sprint is willing to make this sacrifice "because it is so critically important to Sprint to have a facility on this site." --Mr. Gibson disagreed with the ARB's belief that the tower would cause a "visual intrusion" along the Entrance Corrdior. He presented photographs taken along 1-64 which showed what he described as existing man-made visual intrusions, e.g. guard rail, Vepco power lines, Carter's Mt, tower farts, directional signs, etc. --The base of the tower will not be visible through the trees in either summer or winter. -_Sprint routinely provides space on its towers for fire, police and rescue at no cost. These are typically flip -type antennae, which are 3 inches in diameter. --Sprint presently has approximately 8 towers in the area. Mr. Gibson confirmed that there would be more requests for towers in the future. --There is no existing tower (or any other facility) in the "search area" which could be shared. In answer to Ms. Huckle's question about the service area of this tower, Mr. Keith Lee, a Sprint representative, explained that this tower would provide service for approximately 5-6 miles along 1-64. Ms. Huckle pointed out that a car travelling at 65 mph would be out of the "dead spot" in a matter of minutes. Mr. Dotson asked if the applicant felt this site was a candidate for a tower farm. Mr. Gibson explained that the limited area of land was a problem. Mr. Lee added that a tower farm must have the landowner's consent. Mr. Dotson expressed concern about the possibility of a proliferation of towers and wondered if this tower could accommodate other users. Mr. Gibson pointed out that there are only two approved cellular carriers for every -surface area. He explained that the competitor's objectives are often different from Sprint's. Mr. Gibson stated that proliferation has not been a problem in other areas. He also explained that as new towers are constructed, the height is reduced because "the objective becomes more precise." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Marsha Joseph, the ARB staff planner, distributed photographs of staffs balloon test. She described how staff had performed the test. The Commission agreed that the photographs were inconclusive except to confirm that the tower would indeed be visible from 1-64. Mr. Blue asked if the ARB had taken into consideration any other factors, such as the fact that the tower farm (Carter's Mt.) is 30 seconds away as you pass this site, i.e. does the ARB ever think "these other things are here, are we being fair by trying to. outlaw something that is a minor irritant compared to what we've got?" Ms. Joseph stated that this area, from the 29 Interchange to ivy, is reasonably free from intrusions. Mr. Blue expressed the opinion that when travelling east on 1-64, "the worst case of this tower is not going to be as visually intrusive as the tower farm is." Ms. Joseph explained that the other concept which had been considered by the ARB is the fact that "this is one carrier, and there are other carriers." She also noted that the tower which had been approved for Beaes Den Mt. would have been very /T8 10-25-94 difficult to see. She confirmed that environmental damage is not considered by the ARB in its reviews. In response to Ms. Vaughan's questions about the lease arrangements, Mr. Gibson explained that the lease is for 20 years and once Sprint no longer uses the structure, it must be removed. If there is a need to extend the lease at the end of the 20 years, it is negotiated at that time. If the lease is terminated, Sprint will be required to remove the tower and restore the site to its pre -tower condition. Mr. Blue felt this was a simple issue --"Whether the visual disturbance to the people who travel on 1-64 is more important than the safety ;and convenience of having the cellular telephone?" He stated that, from his standpoint, the later was preferable, and he would support the request. Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the applicant's statement that there are other "dead spots" and there will undoubtedly be requests for more towers in the future, by not only this company, but others. She felt it could "mushroom" quickly. Mr. Nitchmann agreed that it was going to mushroom, because it is the new technology. He felt the benefits of cellular service "far outweight a 20-30 second annoyance." MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-94-26 for Sprint Cellular Company be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Tower height shall not excoed 200 feet. [NOTE: This was later amended to: Tower height shall not exceed 180 feet.] 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. Tower shall be located within the lease area shown on Attachment C. Mr. Blue seconded the motion. I?9 14-25-94 5 Discussion: Ms. Imhoff explained that she was a cellular phone user and that she was accustomed to "dead spots." She felt the more important issue was one of "vigerous protection of the Entrance Corridor." She felt this was an area of the road which had not been intruded upon. She noted that though the applicant had indicated a willingness to reduce the tower height to ISO feet, a change in the request lead not been made and she could not support the present proposal for 200 feet. She pointed out that staff was recommending denial of the request. It was Mr. Dotson's feeling that no one likes to have these structures, but "they are in our midst and it is a question of which is the lesser evil." He felt that facilities such as this are probably better located along a highway than in some other areas where they would be even less acceptable. He stated he would feel better about the proposal if it were for 150 feet rather than for 200 feet. He favored a single, mesh -type dish for this special permit but stated he "would not want to close the door to considering adding a dish if it meant we could avoid proliferation in the future." Ms. Vaughan also expressed a preference for a shorter (150 foot) tower. However, she indicated she felt there was a need for improved cellular service. She felt cellular phones provide an increased safety factor for travellers and she felt this safety consideration outweighed concerns about visibility. She pointed out that with rapidly changing technology, it may be that this tower will not be a permanent fixture. Ms. Huckle asked if Mr. Nitchmann would be willing to amend condition No. 1 to limit the tower height to 150 feet. Mr_ Nitchmann declined to amend the motion, saying that he would let the condition stand at 180 feet. It was noted that the condition said 200 feet, even though 180 feet was what had been discussed throughout the meeting. (Staff explained that the applicant had requested 180 feet, but staff had increased it to 200 feet to give the applicant a little flexibility with the constmetion procem.) Mr. Nitchmann agreed to amond his motion to make condition No. I read: Tower height shall not exceed 180 feet Mr. Blue, who had seconded the motion, agreed to this amended motion. Ms. Imhoff felt it was unfortunate that Mr. Nitchmann would not amend his motion to limit the tower height to 150 feet as had been offered by the applicant. She felt that would have resulted in a "win -win situation for everyone." The motion for approval passed (4:3) with Commissioners Dotson, Huckle, and Imhoff casting the dissenting votes. Both Mr. Dotson and bits. Huckle stated they would have supported the motion if the tower height had been limited to 150 feet. /Ja 10.25-94 6 Mr. Davis advised the Commission of the need to take action on the requested modification of Section 4.10.3.1, to allow a reduction of setback requirements. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that a modification of Section 4.10.3.1 be granted for SP-94-26. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Ms. Imhoff expressed the hope that the applicant, in a "good neighbor spirit" would consider constructing a lower tower. MISCELLANEOUS The Commission briefly discussed the schedule for upcoming work sessions on the Economic Development Policy. [NOTE: The recording equipment failed at this point, at approximately 10:20 p.m. The transcription of the last 10 minutes of the meeting are taken from the Recording Secretary's notes.] Mr. Nitchmann asked if there were any objections to his sitting in on staffs work sessions on the Economic Development Policy. Though some Commissioners had no objections to Mr. Nitchmann's request, others expressed concerns. It was finally determined to be the consensus of the Commission that the report presented by staff should be entirely staffs document and that Commissioners should not be involved at the staff level. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Wt . Wayne Yilimberg, S re /s/