Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 02 1991 PC MinutesJuly 2, 1991 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 2, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of June 18, 1991 were approved as submitted. SP-91-23 Charlottesville Quality Cable Corporation - Petition to locate approximately 190 foot transmission tower f10.2.2(6)] on a portion of 234.2 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 91, Parcel 28 (part) is located on the south side of Rt. 53 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This property lies on Carter Mountain. This site is not located within a designated growth area. Rural Areas IV. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Johnson suggested that condition No. 1 be amended so as to reference more specifically the placement of the antennae. The Commission expressed no oposition to this suggestion and condition No. 1 was changed to read as follows: "Tower height not to exceed 200 feet. Tower, ground equipment and satellite dishes to be located and configured as described by applicant in sketch titled Attachment C and initialled W.D.F., dated July 2, 1991." Ms. Huckle felt there should be a condition limiting the number of dishes to 3. Mr. Fritz did not feel this was necessary because the application was for a tower with 2 to 3 dishes. Ms. Andersen pointed out that the sketch referenced in condition No. 1 should address Ms. Huckle's concern. (Mr. Cilimberg later pointed out that the dishes and other equipment are all referenced in Attachment C.) Mr. Rittenhouse questioned whether the number of dishes should be limited since applicants are asked to design towers to accommodate more users. He suggested that amendment to the special permit be required for more than 3 dishes. Mr. Johnson felt additional antennae should be subject to "maybe" administrative approval for aesthetic reasons. He suggested condition No. 3 be amended to read: "Staff may administratively approve similar additional antennae installations...." The applicant was represented by Mr. Dean Johnson. He described the service to be provided and presented a model of an antenna which will be installed on individual homes. 7-2-91 E There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Johnson if any future towers or boosters were anticipated. Mr. Johnson responded negatively. He noted, however, that the owner of the land (Henry Chiles) which will be leased has offered "small bits of his other orchards on other mountains so that we could fill in shadows." He noted that any such expansion would require Commission approval and was in the distant future. Mr. Rittenhouse quoted from the applicant's Attachment C: "The applicant has attempted to obtain space on existing towers on Carters Mountain but was unsuccessful because of existing loading or refusal of owners to accept new users." He emphasized this statement "because it still remains a problem until we come up with some sort of unified county -wide approach on these towers of asking that they design for other users and then trying to get access on those towers...." Mr. Johnson felt all future applicants should be put on notice that "the staff will review the configuration of the various antennae from the standpoint of their effect on ecology." He noted that alternatives to the large white plastic dishes are available. Mr. Johnson moved that SP-91-23 for Charlottesville Quality Cable Corporation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Tower height not to exceed 200 feet. Tower, ground equipment and satellite dishes to be located and configured as described by applicant in sketch titled Attachment C and initialled W.D.F., dated July 2, 1991. 2. Administrative approval of site plan to include: a. Staff approval of equipment building and satellite receiving dishes sites and, if appropriate, screening measures; 3. As to future tower users, staff may administratively approve additional antennae installation under the following circumstances: a. Continued compliance with Section 5.1.12 (Attachment D) of the Zoning Ordinance including safety measures related to cumulative RF radiation such as fencing of areas where ANSI standards would be exceeded; b. If such installation is an element or segment of a network or system which requires Board approval, such installation shall not be authorized until Board approval has been obtained for the entire network or system. 4. Department of Engineering approval of tower design to insure that in the event of collapse the tower falls within the leased area. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. 7-2-91 3 Discussion: Mr. Rittenhouse noted that he felt this could be separated from some other tower applications because there are other towers located in this area and therefore precedent for locating towers on Carters Mountain exists. He noted that the applicant had attempted to gain access to existing towers. The motion for approval passed unanimously. SP-91-24 Jean Baum - Petition to locate a commercial stable [10.2.2(16)] on 25.1 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. property, described as Tax Map 35, Parcel 43C, is located on the east side of Rt. 20 approximately 4/10 mile south of Rt. 641 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area. This site is within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Rural Area II. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions including the following amendments to the conditions: Change No. 5: Hours of operation for outdoor activities shall be during daylight hours only; indoor facilities may operate between 6 a.m, and 10 p.m. Change No. 6: Facilities shall be limited to that shown on Attachment C, provided that the existing stables may be expanded in order to achieve an Olympic size ring. Add No. 7: Upgrading of entrance in accordance with VDOT comments of June 10, 1991. The applicant was represented by Mr. Robert Janey. He described the expansion of the stables. He stated all conditions of approval were acceptable to the applicant. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-91-24 for Jean Baum be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Riding rings and riding surfaces shall be covered and maintained with a material such as pine bark to minimize dust and erosion; 2. Fencing and other methods of animal confinement shall be maintained at all times; 3. Not more than three (3) employees; 4. Not more than fourteen (14) horses shall be boarded on -site; /a5' 7-2--91 4 5. Hours of operation for outdoor activities shall be during daylight hours only; indoor facilities may operate between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. 6. Facilities shall be limited to that shown on Attachment C, provided that the existing stables may be expanded in order to achieve an Olympic size ring. 7. Upgrading of entrance in accordance with VDOT comments of June 10, 1991. The motion passed unanimously. SP-91-25 WCYK AM -FM - Petition to locate two satellite receiving dishes atop the Jefferson Savings Bank [23.2.2(3)] on 1.186 acres zoned CO, Commercial Office. Property, described as Tax Map 61, parcel 123A, is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Rt. 29 and Rio Road. This site is located in the Charlottesville Magisterial district. The site is in Neighborhood II and is in the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. (Ms. Huckle excused herself from this item due to a possible conflict of interests.) Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Ms. Andersen asked why this proposal did not fall under the Architectural Review Board's review. Mr. Fritz explained: "It is a special permit because of the use not the location. It is located within the entrance corridor and the ARB is advisory. ... The ARB was made aware of this application and made no comment. That's the reason it doesn't require submittal to the ARB; it's not a site plan and it's not a special permit requiring their action." Mr. Johnson "took exception to the comment that 'they made no comment."' He stated Mr. Lindstrom had contacted staff and stated that at least one member of the ARB wanted to review the application... assuming that the Commission approved it." Mr. Fritz stated that he had understood through a phone message that Mr. Lindstrom had some concern and wanted the ARB to review the application. But he had not received that information from Mr. Lindstrom directly nor did he have any action from the ARB. The applicant was represented by Mr. Kevin Dalton. He offered no comment at this point. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Ms. Andersen's inquiry, Mr. Fritz confirmed that the Commission could add a condition requiring ARB approval. He emphasized that such a condition would require that the Commission "be very specific as to what the ARB is approving because the applicant has submitted a plan showing what the dishes look like, a description of their location and shielding and once you approve the fact that the dishes 7-2-91 5 can be located there, the dishes can go there." Ms. Andersen asked if perhaps Commission action should be delayed until after ARB review. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that was possible. However, he noted: "The ARB's jurisdiction, basically, is in the visual, aesthetic aspects of an application, whereas ultimately the Board's decision is in the use itself." He stated that staff is advising that "the best route would be to make recommendation regarding the use and if you feel uncomfortable about the aesthetics that we have essentially accepted, then you would place the review of those aspects, essentially the screening and shielding from Rt. 29, with the ARB, asking that they issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for aspects of aesthetics as related to screening and shielding from U.S. 29." Mr. Cilimberg further explained that the ARB would probably be reviewing the issues of color or forms of shielding because "staff has already advised that the applicant has done what needs to be done from the standpoint of staff's view of the color and the limits of the shielding." He concluded: "There's only so much that can be done in that regard." He pointed out that this application had been forwarded to the ARB May 24th, but "possibly members just didn't see what were the complete characteristics of this proposal at that time and are now saying they would like to see it." Mr. Rittenhouse stated he could support a condition requiring ARB review, provided it was very specific. Mr. Johnson stated he had "grave concerns about the entire request...(because) we're looking at putting a major structure in the Entry Corridor." He noted the building has a highly visible location and the diagram does not show the proposed placement of the antennae. He was in favor of deferral to allow for ARB review. Mr. Rittenhouse felt a condition requiring ARB issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness would accomplish the same result. Mr. Johnson felt this would limit the ARB's review because approval of the Commission would tie down the rooftop location and shielding as proposed. Mr. Rittenhouse felt that if a Certificate of Appropriateness could not be issued, the conditions of approval would not have been satisfied. Mr. Cilimberg explained that it would depend on the terms of the condition, i.e. "if you leave it open and essentially approve two satellite dishes similar to those shown in Attachment C with no location specified and no shielding or screening specified, then that puts all that in the ARB's hands." He did not know if this would be acceptable to the applicant since it leaves in question whether "they have been approved for the use they really need which is the antennae on the building." Mr. Johnson noted that the dishes could be located satisfactorily on the ground. Mr. Rittenhouse questioned whether or not this would be an advantage. /01 7-2-91 6 Mr. Cilimberg noted that the site is limited and if the structures could not be located on the roof they would probably have to be located in the parking area. Mr. Rittenhouse felt location on the site should be left to the ARB. Mr. Johnson suggested two conditions, one limiting approval to two satellite dishes and the second requiring issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness from the ARB in regards to color, location and screening. Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that the applicant should be consulted because "it sounds as though you are saying approval is limited to two satellite receiving dishes, period; you're not even recognizing the two that they are apparently going to move... and then you're asking that the ARB issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for the dishes location and screening." Mr. Rittenhouse noted: "We want to be more specific about location on the top of the two-story portion of the structure which is what's contemplated in the application... two dishes on the two-story portion." He stated he was willing to support that portion of the application and let the ARB deal with all the aesthetic issues that accompany screening. Mr. Bowling pointed out that part of the application is to move the existing dishes from Crozet to this site. He noted that the color, style, size, etc. of these existing dishes is already determined. Ms. Andersen noted: "Since we went to the trouble of establishing an EC Overlay District, then I think this should go to the ARB." Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the applicant had not anticipated this type of action. Mr. Dalton stated the applicant had indicated to him that he would be willing to cooperate with the ARB in any way. He confirmed that the applicant was aware of possible ARB review. There was discussion about how to amend the existing conditions and add a condition requiring issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Mr. Bowling stressed that once the Commission, and ultimately the Board, have approved the use, the applicant will have the right to place two satellite dishes on the site, and though the ARB can deal with the issue of aesthetics, "they can't negate that use through saying 'aesthetics just won't allow two satellite dishes here.'" Mr. Cilimberg noted that if the ARB determined that a Certificate of Appropriateness could not be issued, then the Board would have to "decide aesthetic issues as well...." 7-2-91 7 There was further debate about whether to require ARB review before Commission action or to act with an added condition requiring ARB approval. Mr. Jenkins noted that the "appropriateness of the location of the dishes hinges on the visibility 100%." Mr. Cilimberg advised: "If you feel that the appropriateness of the dishes is completely based on aesthetics --whether or not there can be a Certificate of Appropriateness issued --and nothing else, then it should be deferred and should go to the ARB." Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-91-25 for WCYK AM -FM be indefinitely deferred to allow ARB review prior to Commission action. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Discussion: Staff was uncertain as to the date the ARB would be able to hear the item. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the ARB may take the position that they do not want to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness without Commission approval of the use. Mr. Johnson pointed out that staff could relay to the ARB that the Commission has no objection to the location of two satellite dishes, though formal approval has not been granted. Mr. Grimm indicated he felt the use was an appropriate one given the circumstances of the application. The applicant confirmed this proposal included a relocation of broadcast facilities. Regarding signage, he stated there would be no additional signs. Mr. Cilimberg concluded: "If you defer it, we will go to the ARB and have the ARB simply review and make recommendation as to the various conditions that they would want to see for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness and then you could deal with just the special use permit use aspects and they would not have to issue the Certificate of Appropriateness before you actually acted on the special use permit." Mr. Rittenhouse explained the Commission was interested in knowing, from the ARB's standpoint, "Can it be made to work?..If the answer to that question is 'yes,' then the Commission is prepared to pass on the appropriateness of the use there, not to be confused with the appropriateness of the aesthetics." The motion for indefinite deferral passed unanimously. Ms. Huckle returned to the meeting. SP-90-99 Rappahannock Electric Cooperative - Petition to permit construction of an electrical power substation and transmission line [10.2.2(6)]. The properties crossed by faq 7--2-91 8 this line are between Rt. 29 and Rt. 763 (near Piney Mountain) in an eastern and southerly direction to the Proffit area. Properties are zoned RA, Rural Areas and PRD, Planned Residential Development. The properties are Tax Map 21, Parcels 12, 12A, 12D, and 14C; Tax Map 33, Parcels 10, 12, 12E, 2, 20, 21, 36, 4, 4B, 4C, 1; Tax Map 46, Parcel 3313 and 33F and Tax Map 47, Parcels 2 and 3A in the Rivanna Magisterial district. A portion of this route is within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. A portion of this route is located in the Village of Piney Mountain, the remainder of the route is located in Rural Area II. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Johnson asked for the basis of staff's statement that "the line becomes more visible across open space than through wooded areas." Mr. Fritz responded this was based on past policy to locate this type of line in wooded areas as opposed to open areas and on staff observation. In response to Ms. Andersen's inquiry, it was determined the following condition would be added: 119. Rappahannock Electric will negotiate other means of maintenance with individual property owners objecting to herbicide usage." The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob Yeaman. He described the new alignment and properties which would be effected. He described the types of poles which will be used and noted that using taller poles will result in the need for fewer poles. He stressed the need for the line because of the overloading, at certain times, of the existing lines. He emphasized that time was a critical factor. He indicated that the applicant had tried to accommodate property owners' requests as much as possible. He concluded that he felt the applicant "had done what was requested, within the bounds of practicality." He explained that the line was more than 500 feet from the centerline of every dwelling, with the exception of 2 (Safely and Pritchett). He asked that condition No. 8 reference the centerline of the transmission line. He stated the applicant had no other concerns about the conditions of approval. It was later determined No. 8 would be amended to read: " Centerline of transmission line shall not be located closer than 250 feet to any dwelling and shall be in accord with the routing indicated in Attachment A." Mr. Johnson asked to what extent was wooded vs. open areas a factor in the alignment of the line, i.e. was a conscious effort made to keep the line in wooded areas rather than open areas? Mr. John Dalton, representing the applicant, responded. He explained that an attempt was made to keep the original route .in the woods as much as possible, but the revised route crosses more open areas. He noted that the issue of greater visibility (open vs. wooded) is a matter of opinion. Mr. Johnson noted that 75% of the line is located in wooded areas which he felt results in much greater visibility //0 7-2-91 9 (because of the "canyons" which must be cut through the trees) than when located in open areas. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Dalton described the differences in concrete/steel poles vs. wood. He explained that they looked very similar except the concrete/steel poles might be broader at the base with a slightly different color. In response to Ms. Huckle's question regarding overloading, he explained that a line may "burn down" if overloaded or changes in service (e.g. "blackouts") may take place to accommodate everyone. The Chairman invited public comment. The following members of the public addressed the Commission: --Oakley Strayley: He expressed opposition because the alignment follows his entire back boundary line resulting in several pole structures, with accompanying guy lines, being on his property. He felt a more direct line would be less damaging to his property and would be less costly to Rappahannock. He asked why the applicant had allowed previous permits to expire. He asked how this line would effect the future use (development) of his property. --Gerald Herring: He explained that Cellular One had a contract with him to place a tower on his property. He noted that the applicant had made provisions at various locations to "accommodate someone," but he asked why no provisions had been made to accomodate him and Cellular One. He was in favor of the same alignment as suggested by Mr. Strayley (i.e. move it to the left of Mr. Strayley's boundary). --Alice Strayley: She expressed opposition to the proposed alignment, though she indicated she would not be opposed if the alignment were straightened as suggested by her husband. She indicated she had felt the Comprehensive Plan, which designates her property as agricultural, should offer some protection from this type of use. She agreed there was a need for the additional service but questioned that she would receive any of the benefits of the improved service. --Mr. S.W.Heischmann: He explained that over 50% of the line crosses his property and though he would prefer that it be located elsewhere, he understood that -it had to be "someplace." He noted that Mr. Strayley's suggestion to move the line to the left would place more of the line on his property; thus, he preferred that the line be moved to the right. He expressed concerns about possible health hazards associated with such lines and about visibility. He asked that particular attention be paid to screening to the maximum degree possible. The applicant was asked to comment on the suggested movement of the line off the Strayley property. Mr. Dalton addressed this issue and explained that there was a pond in the area suggested by Mr. Strayley and the applicant prefers not to cross bodies of water because of possible problems with maintenance and also because of possible damage to 7-2-91 10 recreational areas. (It was later determined that the pond in question --on Lot 13--was created by the dumping of sludge by the Rivanna Service Authority and had no value as a recreational facility.) Regarding Mr. Herring's lease with Cellular one he commented: "If the tower is to be built, then we will work with the tower company to get the line past there without interferring with them whatsoever." Regarding the angle structures and guy wires, he indicated there were very few adjustments which could be made and those which could be made would make little difference. Regarding the issue of effects on future development of properties, he explained that the only restriction of which he was aware prohibited building in the easement itself. He was not aware of any effect on development rights. There being no further applicant or public comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding maintenance of the right-of-way, Mr. Yeaman explained that stumps are cleared even with the top of the ground and herbicides are poured on the top of the stumps which causes them to deteriorate. No herbicides are used in subsequent maintenance of the right-of-way. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that it was the intent of staff's condition No. 9 that even the usage of herbicides as described would not be employed without the property owner's consent. Mr. Rittenhouse summarized the concerns of landowners had been narrowed down to those effected by one leg of the line and the property owners on the left want it moved to the right and the owners on the right want it moved to the left. Ms. Huckle asked about the status of the Cellular One tower. Mr. Rittenhouse explained that there was currently no special permit to allow said tower and that is a separate issue. (Mr. Cilimberg stated said application had been denied by the Board and there is now a second application in a completely different location.) Mr. Rittenhouse summarized that the Commission must determine if it agrees the use is necessary and, if so, must decide whether or not to endorse the proposed alignment. Regarding necessity, Mr. Grimm asked if there was evidence from any other source, besides the applicant, that the increased service was needed. Mr. Fritz explained that the staff relies on the applicant's information and on the determination from the State Corporation Commission that there is a need for the service. Ms. Huckle asked about the possibility of screening. Mr. Rittenhouse explained that plantings within the right -of --way would not be appropriate and plantings outside the right-of-way would require the approval of individual property owners. He stated that this applicant had not offered to plant screening if a property owner so desired. He did not think the Commission could make such a requirement of the applicant. !iA 7-2-9I 11 Mr. Johnson stated he felt the applicant had addressed the concerns of the public to the best of his ability and the main objection he had heard was that it should be on someone else's property. He viewed this type of proposal as a "necessary evil to support our way of living." Mr. Johnson moved that SP-90-99 for Rappahannock Electric Cooperative be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions. 1. The granting of this permit does not guarantee the availability of electric power to the applicant and shall not be construed as approving the modification, construction or reconstruction of any facility not specifically approved here; 2. The granting of this permit shall not be deemed to impair or otherwise affect the rights of the applicant or any other person concerning the acquisition of any right-of-way or other interest in property for such line or the compensation to be paid therefor. Except for angle structures as decribed in Attachment G, right-of-way width shall not exceed one hundred feet (1001); 3. Suspension structures shall be in general accordance with Attachment G, provided that structures shall not exceed height or width dimensions described in Attachment G. A maximum height limit of 100 feet shall apply where height limits shown on the attachments must be exceeded due to topography; 4. Outside of the right-of-way, the applicant shall have the right to cut danger trees only. A danger tree is defined as any tree which, if felled, would fall within ten feet of a conductor; Within the right-of-way, the applicant shall preserve vegetation and trees within fifteen feet of stream crossings and public roads to the maximum extent practicable alllowing for the safe operation and maintenance of the line; 5. The applicant shall take all reasonable measures to minimize the adverse impact of such line on adjacent properties, on the neighborhood and on the County, consistent with good engineering practice; 6. Department of Engineering approval of stream crossings; 7. Staff approval of site plans for substations; 8. Centerline of transmission line shall not be located closer than 250 feet to any dwelling and shall be in accord with the routing indicated in Attachment A. 9. Rappahannock Electric will negotiate other means of maintenance with individual property owners objecting to herbicide usage. Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously. //A 7-2-91 12 Discussion: In response to Ms. Andersen's question, Mr. Dalton again confirmed that if the Cellular One tower was to be installed, the applicant would work with Cellular One to resolve any conflicts. The motion for approval passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m. f V. Wayne.i ilimberg, etary LPN] //,v