Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201300001 PC Meeting 2013-04-09Albemarle County Planning Commission April 9, 2013 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 9, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Ed Smith, Bruce Dotson, Don Franco, Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach, and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chairman. Absent were Calvin Morris, Chairman and Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia. Other officials present were Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Ellie Ray, Engineer; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Bill Fritz, Chief of Special Projects; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Lafferty, Vice - Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. ZTA- 2013 -00001 Wireless Phase I Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, and 5.1.40, Personal wireless service facilities, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend the regulations pertaining to personal wireless service facilities by amending Sec. 3.1, by adding and amending definitions pertaining to personal wireless service facilities, and Sec. 5.1.40, by allowing equipment to be collocated and replaced by right if it does not result in a substantial change to the facility; allowing Tier II facilities to be up to 10 feet taller than the reference tree and to be approved administratively; requiring balloon tests at the request of the agent, rather than in all cases; eliminating the requirement that service providers submit annual reports; codifying the times by which applications shall be acted upon; eliminating certain design requirements for equipment located entirely within a structure; codifying the procedures and standards for changes to facilities approved prior to the adoption of Sec. 5.1.40 on October 13, 2004; and making other minor clarifications. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Bill Fritz) Sarah Baldwin in a PowerPoint presentation briefly reviewed some of the items highlighted in the staff report. What this ZTA Does • Adds and Amends Definitions • Revises Balloon Test Requirements • Eliminates Automatic Reporting • Establishes Procedures to Amend Existing Sites ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —APRIL 9, 2013 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES — ZTA- 2013 -1 Wireless Phase I - SUBMIT TO BOS • Establishes Reviews Times • Creates Administrative Review for Tier II Sites • By -Right Procedure for Collocation Definitions are necessary to incorporate the collocation requirements and implement the proposed process changes for previously approved /constructed sites. The ordinance currently requires all sites to submit an annual report stating the site is still in use. This is a time consuming venture for the Zoning Administrator to keep up with and serves no purpose as no site has ever been abandoned. The proposed ordinance will still allow a report to be required upon request. Amending existing sites has been time consuming and difficult to administer. This proposal also brings all old sites into the Tier structure and simplifies processing. This has been one of the most requested revisions from the industry. Review times are brought into the ordinance. Currently review times are by policy. These review times are consistent with the FCC recommended review times. "Shot Clock" Currently is in the United States Supreme Court and is being considered if the shot clock can be imposed on localities by the FCC. What this ZTA does NOT do • Does not reduce design requirements • Does not change Tier concept • Does not eliminate public involvement except for certain collocation proposals. This ZTA does not deal with the provision of either wireline or wireless broadband. Revises Balloon Test Requirements Balloons cannot be flown in cases like shown in the presentation due to power lines, guide wires etc. The proposed ordinance simplifies processing by making balloon tests required upon request of the agent. The agent will require balloon tests where the site permits testing. Making this change eliminates the need to process any special exceptions for balloon tests. Creates Administrative Review for Tier II Sites • Staff has 9 years of experience processing these requests. • The height would be 10 feet above reference tree. • Public notice is maintained. • All design requirements are maintained. Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 "Local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station." Section 6409 does not alter localities' processes for approving an application for a change that is not substantial; the statute only requires that the application be approved. The law contains no definitions except for - Eligible facility is an existing wireless base station or tower ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —APRIL 9, 2013 2 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES — ZTA - 2013 -1 Wireless Phase I - SUBMIT TO BOS By -Right Procedure for Collocation Site may not be in an avoidance area, an Entrance Corridor District or within 500 feet of Dwelling. • Adding one or more antennas. • Replacing a tower at an equal or lesser height. • Replacing a treetop tower with one that is not more than 10 feet taller than the reference tree. • Strengthening a tower without the use of guy wires. • Expanding the lease area up to two times the original lease area. • Adding ground equipment. Section 6409 requires approval if the change to a site does not represent a substantial change. It should be noted that some are questioning if the Federal Law can mandate a state or locality to approve changes to a site. Staff is not taking a position on the ability of the Federal Law to mandate a local action. Staff does believe that by -right changes to a site should be permitted if those changes are not substantial. Therefore, we have developed these standards which are not substantial changes. All of these changes require that design requirements are met. Changes that exceed these limits, such as adding lighting or changing color or not meeting any other design requirement, would be considered a substantial change. Nationwide Programmatic Agreement - Existed prior to the adoption of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. - Was an agreement between Federal Agencies designed to address review of impacts on Historic Resources. Agreement exists that a definition of what "does not substantially change the physical dimensions" is needed. Some belief that the "Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas" should be used. Comparison of the Act and Programmatic Agreement Middle Class Tax Relief Act "Does not substantially change the physical dimensions" - No definition is contained in the law except for eligible facility as an existing wireless base station or tower. Programmatic Agreement - "substantial increase in the size of the tower" 1) The mounting of the proposed antenna on the tower would increase the existing height of the tower by more than 10 %, or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas; or 2) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four, or more than one new equipment shelter; or ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —APRIL 9, 2013 3 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES — ZTA- 2013 -1 Wireless Phase I - SUBMIT TO BOS 3) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via cable; or 4) The mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current tower site, defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site. The proposed by right procedure for location the site may still not be located in an avoidance area or an Entrance Corridor District or within 500 feet of a dwelling unit. Such other things as adding one or more antennas, replacing a tower at a equal or lesser height, replacing a treetop tower with one that is not more than 10 feet taller than the reference tree, strengthening the tower without the use of guide wires, expanding the lease area up to two times the original lease area or adding ground equipment. The premise exists that a definition of what does not substantially change the physical dimensions is needed. Staff held a roundtable and there was no consensus about what that definition should be. Some believe that the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the co- location of wireless antennas should be used. However, the programmatic agreement is not clear. The agreement allows existing facilities to be increased in height. However, the term "existing facilities" is not defined. Would it be a facility as it existed when the agreement was adopted in 2001; or is it when the act was adopted in 2012; or the time that the application was made? Also, how many extensions are permitted? What is the standard number of new equipment cabinets? Impact of Using Programmatic Agreement The PowerPoint slide showed what could happen if the Programmatic Agreement was used. Staff opinion is that the County can and should develop a definition for what "does not substantially change the physical dimensions" means. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of ZTA 2013 -01. Mr. Lafferty noted on page 2 where staff says dimensions of facility and therefore would have to be approved by the agent adding one or more antennas, does that mean of a different nature. In other words, if they were talking about adding a similar flush mounted antenna does that change the review. Mr. Fritz replied staff was saying the addition of an antenna, provided that they meet the design standards, would not substantially change the nature of the tower and would be a permitted use provided that those antenna additions meet the design standards. An example is if they have one array and want a second one. Mr. Loach asked does it have to be similar to the existing array or a similar design. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —APRIL 9, 2013 4 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES — ZTA - 2013 -1 Wireless Phase I - SUBMIT TO BOS Mr. Fritz replied that it just has to meet the design standards. It has to be flush mounted and meet the size and color. It may actually not meet the standards. The existing ones may not meet the design standards currently. There may be an array that stands off and may be an older site. Mr. Loach said he assume when they talk about the facilities and setback requirements for property lines that also includes any easements that also may be attached. He asked if they have had these with fall zones where they have gotten easements on the neighbors' properties to allow it. Ms. Baldwin replied that is correct. Mr. Loach noted when they say setbacks that include those easement areas. Mr. Fritz pointed out that was a design standard. Mr. Randolph commended staff on a well done visual presentation and also a concise one. He had a question on page 3 under eliminating the automatic annual reporting requirement. The last sentence says the proposed ordinance does require that a service provider notify the county if a facility is discontinued. What are the consequences if a service provider does not notify the county that a facility is discontinued? He asked are there any. Ms. Baldwin replied that it would be considered as a zoning violation. Mr. Loach asked is there rules and regulations now when they discontinue as far as the equipment and handling the removal. Ms. Baldwin replied yes. Mr. Fritz commented that staff did not provide a full history. In a work session with the Board of Supervisors that was a specific request to be added into the ordinance. It had been mentioned in a staff report. Mr. Dodson understood that this is phase one of a two phase set of amendments. Phase one is more sort of process and definitions. However, at some point standards come in, too, when they try to decide what is minimal impact or not. He was confused about one thing. If he looks at attachment B on typed page 8 and hand numbered page 12 up at the top it talks about the height of the monopole. The new wording at the bottom of the previous page is the Board of Supervisors may approve a special exception allowing the height of the monopole to be up to 10' taller than the tallest tree. So he reads and understands that. However, in the staff report it seems to say about Tier II applications that the 10' taller would be handled administratively and be by right. That is something he did not understand because it seems to be contradictory. Mr. Fritz replied that needs to be corrected. It should not say Board of Supervisors. It should say agent and remove reference to the 7' and 10' difference. They would just ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —APRIL 9, 2013 5 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES — ZTA- 2013 -1 Wireless Phase I - SUBMIT TO BOS be reviewing it. It is either an appropriate site or it is not. They would have to work with the applicant to say what the right height is in a particular case. Mr. Dotson reiterated that it would be a correction to say the agent rather than the Board. Now they are saying apparently that 10' is henceforth if this is approved, it would be by right. Mr. Fritz replied that was correct. Mr. Dotson asked if the whole thing about a special exception would no longer apply, and Mr. Fritz replied that was correct. Mr. Dotson said they are changing that standard in this process document. They are not letting that carry over to when they are looking at all of the standards. Mr. Fritz agreed that was correct. He noted that was done because obviously 10' has been permitted and what they did in working with the Board of Supervisors is they looked at all the applications that had been approved and they were at 10'. Summarizing what he thinks the Board was saying, the Board believed that they could review those and that 10' was appropriate. Then if in a particular case 10' was not appropriate they would not approve that and maybe it would be 9', 8', 3' or whatever the right number is. But, not having that 7'/10' split and just saying it is 10' and working there. Mr. Dotson questioned whether in this document it is the time to consider that standard or whether they should consider it when they are considering all of the other standards. Then they can see the combined effect of making those changes is what he is asking. It is significant in terms of defining a substantial change because in the third bullet down on page 2 it proposes to say "replacing a treetop with one that is not more than 10' taller." So again, they are using that to say if it is up to the 10' it is not substantial. So it is a significant change to define that. Mr. Fritz noted they are proposing to go to 10'. Mr. Dotson pointed out the second comment is on the balloon tests. He was confused because it seems to say that the agent can require a balloon test when they feel it is necessary. But, then the last line under that paragraph on page 3 of the staff report says balloon tests will still be required for new facilities where it is possible to fly a balloon. Mr. Fritz replied staff was saying whenever it is possible to fly a balloon that as policy they will require the balloon test to be done. Mr. Dotson suggested the ordinance should say that. Mr. Fritz noted staff tried to craft it in such a way to say where possible and so forth and because of the St. Clair case they could not write it in such a way that they still would not need a special exception. This is an ease of processing it. They are using the other side of the coin. Right now what happens is they have to process a special exception, ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —APRIL 9, 2013 6 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES — ZTA- 2013 -1 Wireless Phase I - SUBMIT TO BOS which means they have to go through a finding that it is not necessary or can't be done. They have to go through all of that work to do that. It is much easier by flipping the coin on its head and saying it is not required unless they ask for it. All they have to do is say they have to do a balloon test. The processing is much easier on staff with less special exceptions. Mr. Dotson said he was raising a concern for two reasons. One, he finds a balloon test very helpful on any matter that comes before the Commission. He would think the Board would, too. One thought is to say if an item comes before the Commission there will be a balloon test. That is very clear. Mr. Fritz replied that staff can certainly look into that. If an item is normally scheduled for a Tier III or anything with a significant change, staff can do that. He understands what he is saying and can advise the Board of it. Mr. Dotson asked if it is currently stated that the agent can waive a balloon test, and he assumes they do that, and if there were 10 proposals may be they waive it 2 out of the 10 times and 8 times the balloon test is done. He is afraid if they change the language to the staff or the agent can request or require it that it sort of changes the burden of the decision. He fears that instead of having 8 balloon tests the staff will say this is sort of a gray area and the applicant does not want to do it, so alright let's not do it or require it. So it puts the burden on the staff to require instead of which seems like it is pretty easy to say let's waive that. Mr. Fritz said the burden is still on the staff under the current ordinance language when the applicant says they don't want to do a balloon test in a particular case. Staff has to then analyze that. They are always in agreement. It is both because it is an existing tower and they don't need to do a balloon test because they can see it. Or, there are power lines. Even in cases where they have had thick tree cover they have still done balloon tests maybe not at the exact site, but moving it some distance so they can get a rough idea of what it is going to look like. They would continue to do those things. They are simply proposing to flip the coin here for processing. It makes it easier to process. Balloon tests are important for staff to be able to analyze. They cannot analyze it most of the time without a balloon test. Mr. Dotson said his bottom line would just be he thinks balloon tests are useful. Mr. Smith said balloon tests are important for the public. Mr. Loach said on the balloon tests very often the applicant has brought a facsimile of what the tower would look like. It is probably a technology question. But he wonders if in lieu of the balloon test, even if they waive it, if they could still require a facsimile. He finds the balloon test very useful because the full height of what the tower would look is displayed if the technology provides true representations. Mr. Fritz said staff agreed. The ordinance is written in such a way that staff can require those things if they ever need them. Staff does the same thing. There are times when staff simply says having a photo simulation would be really helpful. The default is going ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —APRIL 9, 2013 7 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES — ZTA- 2013 -1 Wireless Phase I - SUBMIT TO BOS to be then to deny it. If they don't know what the impact is going to be, they would deny it. Staff would tell the applicant they don't have the information to be able to approve the request and therefore they go the other way. If staff cannot make the affirmative findings, it would be denied. The applicants are here in the audience and they have been very good to work with to get that information. There being no further questions, Mr. Lafferty opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Laurie Schweller, with LeClair Ryan, represented Verizon Wireless. She would like to provide comments about the proposed ordinance amendments. Verizon Wireless does support these amendments. They think it is very important to bring the County's ordinance into compliance with the FCC's ruling, the "Shot Clock ", and with Section 6409 The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. They believe that this amendment does that to a large extent. They are very happy to see that facilities approved prior to this current ordinance in 2004 will now be treated the same as facilities approved under the current ordinance, the tiered facilities. That will help a lot with predictability and treating like applications alike. That will help to effect these other changes. She thinks for Verizon Wireless and maybe for some of the other carriers they are particularly pleased to see this new administrative process for co- locations or placements of existing towers, extensions of towers and even new towers. By towers, she means monopoles up to 10' above the reference tree. She thinks they all know that the Albemarle County staff is well equipped and has plenty of experience to evaluate these applications. They have been doing it a long time and are very familiar with the ins and outs of them. She thinks it will save everyone unnecessary time in hearing for the sites that they have approved readily. In the past year and a half Verizon Wireless has had seven Tier II requests that were approved without any controversy. They have had a number of Tier III special use permits that were merely co- locations of new antennas below the existing antennas and other things that under this new ordinance could be approved as a Tier I administrative approval, which they do believe is appropriate. She just wanted to point out, however, that was with the carve outs, of anything that is within 200 feet of a Scenic Byway, along the Entrance Corridor, or in the Historic Districts, which cover about one -third of the County on the eastern side, or within 200' of three (3) other monopoles or within 500 feet of a dwelling off site. There are so many carve outs that they can expect to see a large number of our applications still coming up for public hearing. That is something they hope to consider when they get to phase 2. She introduced the next speaker Tim Dykstra, who is the Director in Network Engineering with Verizon Wireless for the Virginia region. He can provide some comments on technology matters. Tim Dykstra, Director in Network Engineering with Verizon Wireless for the Virginia region, commended staff and the Commission for working with them because it really is a partnership between the wireless industry and the people who help govern and ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —APRIL 9, 2013 8 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES — ZTA- 2013 -1 Wireless Phase I - SUBMIT TO BOS ensure that what they are trying to do that they are working together to supply their customers a quality product that they are asking a lot for. He was here two -fold. First was with what Verizon Wireless is seeing from a built perspective and where they are going as technology continues to evolve. Secondly, he was open to any questions that anyone might have with respect to anything he can answer on wireless with respect to Verizon Wireless or any trends he sees at this point. He provided the additional information, as follows. That usage is growing faster now than it ever has before. It is partially voice, but most of it is data. What they are seeing in the industry is the usage of data, which is growing rapidly. To be able to handle that they have to continue to do things like buy additional spectrums from the FCC. To be able to utilize that spectrum they have to add different lines of antennas onto their sites. The physics of the way that the radio frequencies work is they can combine some frequencies but they cannot combine all frequencies. Otherwise, they start to actually degrade themselves and they don't get the performance out of the network. They are going to see more applications coming from Verizon Wireless. He would assume other carriers would be coming down the pike to add antennas to existing structures. They are going to need to add more lines and more antennas to service those new products coming down the road. That is being driven or fueled solely by the amount of usage that is being used on their network now as it continues to grow. They are talking about areas of 7 to 13 times growth over the next 4 or 5 years. That is a tremendous amount of growth. The customers are driving the need for this. They are trying to service them and give them everything they need. From a built perspective it is not just adding existing equipment to the existing cell sites. It is building more new cell sites in areas where they don't provide good coverage. They are trying to enhance the footprint that they have. People are using devices not just in their vehicles, but in their homes. They are replacing their home phones with wireless devices. They are using these devices to fuel their laptops and their I Pads at home so that they don't have to have hard connections inside their houses so they can continue to be mobile and use their devices anywhere. That is where they are seeing the huge amount of growth. People want to be able to utilize their I Pad from their bedroom into their living room into their vehicle on their way to work and anywhere else they want to go. They see that and it continues to grow. Therefore, they are going to be building more new sites and adding equipment to the existing sites at rates that they might have never seen before just because of the amount of growth they are seeing in the data world. Adding capacity to the existing network is the part about adding lines and antennas to the network in order to add coverage so that people can use these devices in other areas that they can't presently use them now. Mr. Lafferty thanked him for his comments. He invited questions. Valerie Long, an attorney with the firm of Williams Mullen, said she has been here on many occasions representing Ntelos Wireless and AT &T. First, she would ask that they feel free to ask them questions and let them serve as a resource to the Commission and ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —APRIL 9, 2013 9 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES — ZTA- 2013 -1 Wireless Phase I - SUBMIT TO BOS staff. They have always served as a good resource or certainly have always tried to for everyone. There is an exceptional amount of industry expertise here in the room. In industry it includes both those working for particular carriers and those who have been involved in the ordinance for many years. They are very familiar with it and use it every day. They know certain parts of it by heart for better or worse. She offered the following comments. They were around before there was an ordinance and when there was not a comprehensive plan that dealt with wireless. They have a lot of experience and have been working with people like Bill Fritz and Sarah Baldwin for many years. Stephen Waller is here tonight representing the industry. He was a planner for many years. She probably worked on 15 or 20 special use permits for towers with Mr. Waller when he worked with the county. Please take advantage of our experience with this ordinance and with the technology and let us serve as a resource so they can address concerns or questions that may be out there. They are not looking to get any special treatment. They really are just asking for flexibility to streamline the ordinance and not undermine the regulations that they provide. As the staff presentation indicated this does not change the regulations. It does not change the design standards. It really just streamlines things and they support the ordinance. They have a couple of suggestions they think will make it a little bit better. However, on the whole they very much support it. They are very grateful for the time that Mr. Fritz and his team have put towards working and soliciting their input generally in a partnership to get to where they are now. There was a significant change that she would ask to be considered, which Ms. Schweller spoke to generally when she talked about the carve outs. One of the best things this ordinance does is it takes a thousand little issues that right now are not a by -right co- location and clarifies it is a by -right co- location that is administrative. The easy example is if they have an old wood pole approved in 1999 and it needs to be replaced because the wood is deteriorated over time. The carrier or owner of the tower wants to replace it with a steel pole. Right now that is not necessarily a by -right situation. It could have been approved under an old special use permit that says as a condition of approval this pole must be made of wood. There were a number of them approved in that way in the early days. She thinks staff now agrees and the Commission and the Board have all come to the consensus that steel poles for a variety of reasons are far better than wood poles. This ordinance exception, among other things, would allow that pole to be swapped out administratively. It is by- right, simple, quick, and fairly affordable. Similarly, attaching an additional set of antennas below the first set, as Verizon and other carriers are doing, to accommodate those additional users would be an administrative Tier I. That is all wonderful and they strongly support it. However, the benefits of that provision she thinks are large gutted by the fact that this giant couple of exclusions exist. It says all those things are by right unless the site is along an Entrance Corridor or if it is in an avoidance area. An avoidance area is defined in the ordinance to include among other things anything within an historic district. For a long time that was not such a big deal because there was the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District, but not a lot of other historic districts in town. Within the last ten years the County implemented the Southern Rural ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —APRIL 9, 2013 10 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES — ZTA- 2013 -1 Wireless Phase I - SUBMIT TO BOS Albemarle Historic District, which covers roughly a quarter of the County particularly in the Scottsville District. So all of the sites they have been working on along the Route 20 Corridor the vast majority of them would have been a Tier II tower, but they were a Tier III tower only because they were in the historic district. Any facility whether it was approved in 1999 or last week if the carrier that owned the tower wanted to come along and put a second set of antennas on it lower down if it was along an Entrance Corridor that is not a by -right co- location. It could become a Tier III special use permit, which would require them to spend all of the time and resources to bring it to staff for review and then come before the Commission and Board. If they think about all of the Entrance Corridors, the vast majority of the cell towers are along an Entrance Corridor because that is where the vehicles are. It includes Route 20, Route 29, 1 -64, Route 250, and Route 53. Towers on those routes would not get the benefit of the very positive revisions that this ordinance provides. That is the significant change that she would ask to be considered. Mr. Lafferty invited further public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Mr. Dotson asked to hear staff's response to Ms. Long's point about the "carve outs ". Mr. Fritz noted staff does not disagree and has not hidden the fact that the "carve outs ", as it is being referred to, does cover a significant portion of the County. The reason they did not tackle that as part of this zoning text amendment is that was going to be something that was investigated as part of the phase 2. They certainly can talk about it now if they like, but staff has in the past expressed or at least his opinion is that probably the rural historic districts probably can be removed as an avoidance area. He made the recommendation by virtue of the history they have of approving applications in the rural historic districts. He was not sure about carving them out as a separate avoidance area. They are trying to follow the guidance that they received from the Board and not tackle that as part of phase one. Staff is interested in hearing what the Commission's thoughts are either now or in the future. He agreed with the suggestions made to use the knowledge of others in the industries to get technical advice when they move into phase 2. He felt that would be very valuable and plans to set up work sessions in the future with the Board and Commission. Mr. Franco asked about the lower antenna comment. There was a comment made by Ms. Long that going back and adding an antenna lower on the pole than the existing antennas takes it and creates a Tier III condition. Mr. Fritz commented as an example in an avoidance area it would count as a substantial change and would not be eligible for an administrative approval. Mr. Franco asked if that was a requirement anywhere or is it just in an avoidance area. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —APRIL 9, 2013 11 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES — ZTA- 2013 -1 Wireless Phase I - SUBMIT TO BOS Mr. Fritz replied that it may be a Tier II or a Tier III depending on the nature of the application as Section F wraps all of those different types together, but depends on how the previous one was done. Mr. Franco supported trying to streamline, especially Route 20, where they had spent a lot of time on. The fact that it is a rural historic district has not stopped the Commission from supporting the tower location there. Again, this had to meet the criteria of meeting the visibility aspect of it. However, he would certainly see that as a benefit to streamlining. The other important comment made in the letter they received is to provide some language in there or at least some understanding that a Tier III does not mean that they should not have it. Tier III means that they need to give closer scrutiny to the proposal, but they should not simply say it is a Tier III and it does not fit in the Tier II so they should just not allow it on principle. They have done that in the past. At least some members of the Commission have simply voted against all Tier III's saying they were not Tier II's. Mr. Lafferty invited further comments. Sitting here with his I Pad after reading and thinking about putting up these antennas he felt it was like the tragedies of the commons where they have a common area and the sheep are feeding in it. Suddenly somebody puts another sheep in there, one person benefits from that, and the rest of the group suffers. What they are doing is changing our landscape by putting up all of these antennas for basically the telephone company's profit. He would like to see them having to give something back to County. If it means like hooking up the schools or something like that instead of the County just giving it all away. Again, he is a big user of the internet. So he sits here and wants good connections in the room, on the downtown mall, and at his house. However, it is always the county giving up something such as the visual impact. Mr. Loach hoped like other technologies it will be a self limiting type of thing as technology gets better that the size gets smaller and the things that they have been worried about as far as the visual disturbance will become less and less of an issue. He still did not like the big Christmas tree. Mr. Randolph said there was a lot in here that is really good in terms of expediting the process for the applicant in terms of the technology evolution they are having. The process previously has a lot of controls. They have a good working relationship between the Wireless community and the Community Development Office as well as the Planning Commission. He was not yet persuaded that means they need to suspend everything in terms of the Entrance Corridors. He thought when they come back to this they should really have more of a focused discussion about whether that is appropriate or not. She thanked Ms. Long for bringing it up. It is a good question for us to look at. He understands given the design that is here where it would be logical to make that next step; however, he was also concerned about maybe in the future they will not have as eager, committed and well versed of series of companies providing wireless services here and the successors might not be quite as reputable and dependable. Therefore, things might not occur the way they would like them to occur in the Entrance Corridor. He thought it was a good question and he looked forward to a robust discussion about that when they get back together again. Certainly everything that is in here is really ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —APRIL 9, 2013 12 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES — ZTA- 2013 -1 Wireless Phase I - SUBMIT TO BOS sensible and is consistent with the federal requirements now for us on the local level. Therefore, he was enthusiastic about it. Mr. Lafferty asked what action the Commission needs to take on this or does our suggestion just go to the Board. Mr. Kamptner replied that staff is looking for a recommendation for the Planning Commission to take to the Board of Supervisors. Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to recommend approval of ZTA- 2013 -00001 Wireless Phase I. Mr. Kamptner clarified the one typo pointed out on page 8 that Mr. Dotson raised about the height of the monopole by right correcting that it would be 10' by- right. The motion was approved by a vote of 6:0. Mr. Lafferty noted that a recommendation for approval would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors on ZTA- 2013 -00001 Wireless Phase I, which would be heard on a date to be determined. Return to PC actions memo ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —APRIL 9, 2013 13 DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES — ZTA - 2013 -1 Wireless Phase I - SUBMIT TO BOS