Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200300069 Presentation Special Use Permit 2003-11-18 Albemarle County Planning Commission Partial Set of November 18, 2003 Minutes SP-03-69 University Village-Nextel The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Chairman; Rodney Thomas, Vice-Chairman; Bill Edgerton; Jared Loewenstein; William Finley and Pete Craddock. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Mark Graham, Director of Engineering; Stephen Waller, Senior Planner and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Rieley called the regular meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. SP-03-69 University Village — Nextel (Sign #56) - Request for special use permit to allow 12 flush-mounted antennas, a radio cabinet and ice bridge to be located on the roof of an existing University Village building in accordance with Section 17.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for microwave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers in the R-10 Zoning District. The property, described as Tax Map 60B2, Parcel 1, is zoned R-10, Residential and is located at 500 Crestwood Road, within the University Village Development, approximately .5 miles from the intersection of Crestwood and Rt. 601 (Old Ivy Road), in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density in Development Area 7. (Stephen Waller) Mr. Waller summarized the staff report. The applicant's proposal is for the installation of a personal wireless service facility, which would include an array of twelve 4-foot long, 6-1/2 inch wide, 8-inch deep antennas, on an existing building at the University Village Retirement Condominiums. The antennas would be installed in three separate (3) sectors containing four antennas each. The first two arrays would be flush-mounted on the building's elevator penthouse. The third array would be attached with mounting pipes that would allow them to extend approximately 9 feet above a television booster room at the top of the building. Supporting equipment would be contained within a 7-foot tall equipment shelter that would also be located on the building's roof. Staff has reviewed this request and finds that the applicant's request indicates that all of the proposal antennas would be flush-mounted. However, there is that one sector that is actually shown on the applicant's plans that would not be flush-mounted to the facility and would be allowed to extend above the roof line if approved. Staff recognizes also that there are other sectors of antennas within arrays that have been installed by other service providers through the building permitting process that also extend above the roof line on another section of the building. Photographs of those sectors are provided to basically demonstrate what the visibility of the proposed antennas would be if approved. Staff also recognizes that there is one existing sector on this portion of the building that already extends above the building, which is also identified in the applicant's plans. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. Those conditions include the ones that were recommended by the Architectural Review Board's Design Planner, which would help mitigate any adverse visual impacts that may arise as the result of the location of these antennas on the roof. Also, staff has included a condition that would require all future arrays of antennas that would be attached to this building for any of the future phases that have been approved through the rezoning process for this facility to be flush-mounted with future requests. This is the first special use permit request for this facility because the other antennas, which belong to three other personal wireless service facilities, was allowed by right with building permits. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 18, 2003 1 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES— DRAFT SP-03-69 UNIVERSITY VILLAGE-NEXTEL Mr. Rieley asked why this request would be different. Mr. Waller stated that the ordinance allows up to three arrays on a building by right and when you go to the forth array or beyond it requires a special use permit. Mr. Rieley stated that this array was the only one on this structure where the antennas stick up above the roof. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Waller stated that this would actually be the second array on this portion of the building where the antennas would stick up above the roof. He pointed out that the existing array was shown in black on the drawing. Mr. Rieley stated that the existing array does not stick up as much. He pointed out that the array is as tall, but the roof is taller too. Mr. Waller agreed that the roofline was taller. Mr. Rieley asked if that array was permitted by right. Mr. Waller stated that it was actually allowed through a building permit, which he found out from the information that he received from the Assistant Zoning Administrator. He pointed out that only a building permit was required because it was done so many years. He stated that a building permit was issued and they built the facilities, but they never got a certificate of occupancy for the array. Therefore, there has been a certain amount of time that has passed and they have been up there. Mr. Rieley stated that the ones that were matching were not put in legally. Mr. Waller stated that he did not think that they were given this level of detail with the building permits when they were installed. Mr. Cilimberg asked how long ago the antennas were installed that were located on the same tower. Mr. Waller stated that because the building permits have already been purged, he could not figure out which antennas belonged to which company. There are some antennas on the other portion of the building that were also done with building permits and the building permits are no longer in our building permit files. Therefore, there is no way to tell exactly where each company's arrays are located. That is why staff added the condition that in the future the tower reports, which are required on July 1st of each year, should identify each array and which company owns it. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it was very probable that some of these antennas that exist were installed before any of these provisions existed in our ordinance. Mr. Waller pointed out that some of the antennas date back as far as 1992. He pointed out that there were two arrays on one end of the building. Mr. Cilimberg stated that they would be addressing this because it was the fourth array. Mr. Rieley asked if the policy requires in a situation like this to have the antennas flush-mounted against the building. Mr. Waller stated that if it was by right under the Tier One Wireless Policy requirements that are currently in the ordinance, then the antennas would be required to be flush-mounted. He stated that because some of the antennas date back to the mid- and early-nineties there were ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION— NOVEMBER 18, 2003 2 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES— DRAFT SP-03-69 UNIVERSITY VILLAGE-NEXTEL requirements for flush-mounting because at that time the antennas were allowed to be attached on the existing structure just with the building permits. Mr. Cilimberg stated that this request was before the Commission now because it was coming through a special use permit that does not require that it be flush-mounted. If the array was to be by right, which means it would be one of the first three arrays and it was not exceeding the top of the building, then it would have to be flush-mounted to stay by right. If they wanted the array to be installed other than flush-mounted, and then it would require a special use permit. Mr. Waller pointed out that in this case that it would be considered under Tier Three because it would not fall under Tier One or Two. Mr. Rieley stated that if the guidelines were by right for flush-mounted, then clearly that was the target and the desirable condition, which was fortified even more by the recommended condition that anything from now on be flush-mounted. The question is why don't we insist that these be flush-mounted. Mr. Waller stated that staffs recommended condition was to give the applicant the option to be flush-mounted or not to be allowed to be any taller than the antennas that are existing. Mr. Rieley stated that since this was a special use permit, he felt that they could require that they be flush-mounted. Mr. Cilimberg stated that was correct, but that staffs recommendation came from the ARB recommendation. Mr. Rieley asked if there were any further questions for Mr. Waller. There being none, he opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Valerie Long, Attorney for Nextel Partners, stated that there were several representatives here this evening from Nextel Partners that included Ms. Roland Eubank, the site acquisition specialist, and Ms. Mandy Pruett, the project manager for this site. She stated that they had reviewed the recommended conditions of approval and were agreeable to them. As Mr. Waller described, this is a co-location on an existing structure, which under the County's wireless policy is described as an opportunity site. He is correct that two of the three antenna arrays would be flush-mounted to the building and the third would be mounted on what is called a t.v. booster array. You can see from the highlighted antennas, which are not flush-mounted, that they are attached to the t.v. booster that is shorter than the elevator penthouse that drives the need for those to be mounted slightly higher. They would not be any higher than any of the existing panel antennas and therefore would be equal to that height or lower. As the staff notes in their report, the existing antennas that are there already have very limited visibility from the Entrance Corridor and from adjacent properties. It is expected that that the Nextel Partner's antennas that are proposed would similarly have limited visibility given their small size and scale relative to the size of the building. The Design Planner's comments state, "That the size of the proposed antennas and the equipment cabinet and their distance from the Entrance Corridor is such that the visibility of those items are not expected to be significant and are not expected to have a negative impact on the Entrance Corridor if treated appropriate." Her conditions which have been included in to the staffs recommended conditions are that the antenna panels that are flush-mounted should be painted to match the color of the buildings against which they are mounted. The panels that are not flush-mounted should be painted in a color that is appropriate to minimize their visibility, which would be coordinated with the Design Planner. Nextel Partners is agreeable to that since they think that is a reasonable approach and they are happy to do that. Similarly the equipment cabinet would be painted to match the color of the other structures on the roof and help it blend in a little bit. As you may have seen in some of the correspondence that she sent with Mr. Waller that the equipment cabinet that is shown on the plans colored in purple is actually taller than it will actually be. They have been working with the property owner and they have asked us to use a ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 18, 2003 3 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES— DRAFT SP-03-69 UNIVERSITY VILLAGE-NEXTEL slightly shorter cabinet that Nextel has agreed to do. So that cabinet is actually shown as 10 feet tall, but the actual cabinet would be 7 feet tall that will be reflected on the final set of plans. Obviously, this existing structure given its height is a six-story building and its location on top of a hill provides an optimal location for a wireless facility. That is the reason why other carriers have also looked to it. The signals obviously travel farther the higher they are in the air with the antenna panels up above buildings, other structures and trees which block the signal. This site is very effective for a wireless facility and it enables Nextel to extend their service much farther and eliminate the need for other treetop towers or other types of structures. It is part of a carefully designed network of wireless facilities throughout the Charlottesville community for Nextel Partners. In response to some of Mr. Rieley's questions regarding the flush-mounting issue, she pointed out that she could certainly understand his position. She stated that certainly the flush- mounting thing is the ultimate goal and even if this was not the third section antenna, to have a by right antenna they would be required to flush-mount the antennas. They felt that based on staffs comments, the engineers designed the facility as part of this network and the Design Planner and staff did not feel that the existing antennas at their current height were excessively visible or really very visible at all from the Entrance Corridor. They did not think that an additional set of antennas arrays, again treated appropriate with an appropriate color to help them blend in would result in an adverse impact on the community. The Commission certainly retains the discretion to allow some variance because they were talking about a difference in a few feet. The antenna panels were only four feet long on a building that was 60 to 70 feet tall. She felt that this site works very well for a facility and the site is a loaded site since there are a lot of antenna panels there now. She respectfully requested that they recommend approval of the permit with the conditions recommended by the staff, which Nextel Partners was agreeable to. Mr. Rieley asked if there were any questions for Ms. Long or the technical staff. Since there were none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion and possible action. Mr. Thomas pointed out that you could not miss that building because it could be seen from everywhere as far as Ivy. Mr. Rieley stated that was his concern. He stated that they had to be careful to just take the ARB's view of this because the ARB's charge is to look at these things only from the Entrance Corridor. He noted that this building was really visible from lots and lots of places. He noted that you could see the antennas sticking up above the roof now and they were closer in scale to the top of the roof than the ones that are proposed. He asked if the pictures contained photo simulations. Mr. Waller stated that they were photographs of the existing building. Mr. Rieley agreed with Ms. Long that this was an ideal location for these antennas. He stated that he did not have any problems with any of them except the ones that are on the lower building sticking up above. Since the guideline was for flush-mounted panels and the condition was that for any in the future to also be flush-mounted panels, he would suggest that they consider approving this with the condition that all the panels be flush-mounted. He stated that they would have to find a spot like the other ones that are flush-mounted. Mr. Thomas asked if they would work. Mr. Edgerton asked if he was suggesting taking down the ones that were already there. Mr. Rieley stated that he was not, but only suggesting this as it relates to this application. He pointed out that looking out the window at the architecture school you look right at this building and it was really visible. He felt that because of the height of this building, he felt that it made them very visible. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION— NOVEMBER 18, 2003 4 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES— DRAFT SP-03-69 UNIVERSITY VILLAGE-NEXTEL Mr. Edgerton asked if he was suggesting that they approve this with the condition that they can go ahead and put up the new antennas, but they have to be flush-mounted. Mr. Rieley stated that because of the extreme location of this building that they should have to adhere to the same standards that they were suggesting for the future anyway. He stated that it was a fairly explicit plan. He asked if there was a problem with the Commission approving this with that condition. He stated that he did not want the applicants to have to come back. Mr. Waller stated that from a RF standpoint they would have to have their engineer take a look at it. He noted that from our side, they were mainly looking at it based on the visual impact any ways. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff would have to make sure that the conditions recommended to the Board of Supervisors reflect what if you decide to make them all flush-mounted what you have indicated here. He noted that staff could work on that between now and the Board meeting. Mr. Waller stated that basically what that would do was just eliminate condition # 2 and then add sector A with Sectors B and C in Section 3 where it talks about how Section B and C would have sectors B and C to be flush-mounted. It would basically eliminate condition # 2 and bring sector A down with sectors A and C. Mr. Cilimberg stated that since condition # 1 refers to a specific plan that shows these that are not flush-mounted that they might need to address that condition too. He stated that staff could take care of that. Mr. Rieley stated that he would feel more comfortable with this if all these were the same. Mr. Finley asked if the main reason he was proposing that was to be consistent. Mr. Rieley stated that the main reason is that he thought that it was going to be highly visible, but that he also felt that it was important to be consistent. He felt that flush mounting was clearly the preferred way since it was required for by right antennas. Mr. Kamptner stated that the concern was not only concerned about the flush mounting, but also they were concerned about the height of those four antennas. Mr. Rieley agreed with Mr. Kamptner and added that the antennas not extend above the height of the building, which he was assuming that it had to be flush and it could not be either out or up. He pointed out that they would be like the others. Mr. Edgerton asked for some clarification from the applicant in what happens when you make an antenna flush-mounted versus freestanding. He stated that he did not understand the technology about what they were asking. He asked what the difference was in having an antenna freestanding with 360 degrees exposures versus being up against the wall. What happens with those four antennas? Ms. Long stated that if this was the antenna panel, really only the section that faces the panel that is facing outward is where the signal goes. If the antenna was mounted against the building, the signal would not come from the backside. Mr. Edgerton stated that the only advantage was the height. Ms. Long stated that the advantage was the height most certainly. Again, because the portion of the roof structure that this array of antennas would be mounted on is much shorter, the t.v. booster room is much shorter than the elevator penthouse. To flush-mount the panel antennas against the t.v. booster room, they would be at a much lower level. The t.v. booster room does ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 18, 2003 5 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES— DRAFT SP-03-69 UNIVERSITY VILLAGE-NEXTEL not extend very far above the top of the roofline. So to flush-mount those antennas there is very little separation and it would be difficult for the full span of all four feet of the panel antennas to extend and have visibility for the signal to extend out. They could certainly have their engineers look at that, but certainly the extra few feet in height that was obtained by mounting the antennas as the applicant has proposed makes a tremendous amount of difference in the quality of the signal. The lower you get the more difficult it is and in fact that the t.v. booster room is significantly lower and shorter than the elevator penthouse makes that much more difference. The concept of flush mounting in it or in isolation is not problematic, but the facts specific to the location of where that antenna array would actually be mounted makes it much more challenging. Mr. Edgerton stated that if you look at drawing D-2 on page 20, it appears that it might be an opportunity to flush-mount these four antenna on the front of the existing elevator. Ms. Eubanks, with Nextel Partners, stated that there were already antennas on the front of the penthouse that are flush-mounted that belonged to another carrier. They are not shown on the drawings. She pointed out that they would go on the backside of the back view. Ms. Long pointed out that was a back view. Mr. Cilimberg asked that they look at page 19 and you can see from the top looking down where the existing antennas are currently existing on the penthouse and where two of the arrays are proposed. There are two existing arrays on two sides of the penthouse and they are proposing two more arrays on the other two sides of the penthouse. Basically the penthouse structure itself will be full of arrays with the two that exist and two of the three that they propose. They would have to find a place to put their third array. He pointed out that on page 28 it showed the existing situation. Mr. Rieley stated that he did not think they should get too involved on solving where the antennas will go. The main point is that the situation that they will be in relative to finding a location for these flush-mounted antennas is no different than the next applicant, which staff has recommended that all future ones have to be flush-mounted. He stated that from now on all of the antennas have to be flush-mounted. He noted that he was just suggesting that they start with these four as well since they already have two-thirds of them flush-mounted. Mr. Waller stated that he would like to add condition # 3 that no antenna project out from the pole beyond the minimum and it should be that no antennas that project out from the building. Mr. Finley moved to recommend approval of SP-03-069, University Village (Nextel) with the proviso that there be twelve flush-mounted antennas with the conditions in the staff report as revised. Mr. Kamptner restated that the motion was to approve SP-03-069 with the conditions as revised which included that the antennas be flush-mounted and not to allow the antennas to exceed the profile of the existing structure. Mr. Finley amended his motion as previously stated by Mr. Kamptner. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: 1. With the exception of any minor changes that would be required in order to comply with the conditions listed herein, the facility including the antennas, and equipment shelter, and all antennas shall be sized, located and built as shown on the concept plan entitled, entitled "Nextel Partners, Inc. (University Village)", dated August 8, 2003. 2. Only antennas that are flush-mounted to the existing elevator penthouse or existing roof features at a lower elevation, and the building's parapet wall shall be permitted in Sector A, Sector B and Sector C. No antennas that project out from the building beyond the minimum required by the support structure, shall be permitted, and, in no case shall the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 18, 2003 6 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES— DRAFT SP-03-69 UNIVERSITY VILLAGE-NEXTEL distance between the face of the pole and the faces of the antennas be more than 12 inches. 3. Antennas with attachments that extend above the existing roofline or any other portion of the building to which they are mounted shall be prohibited. 4. The equipment shelter shall not exceed seven (7) feet in height. 5. The equipment shelter, all antennas, and any exposed portions of their mounting devices shall be painted to match the color of the mounting walls. These requirements shall be provided on the plans. 6. The antennas shall be not exceed 48 inches in height, 6-1/2 inches in width, and 8 inches in depth. These size specifications stated herein shall be provided on the plans with schematic drawings. 7. No satellite or microwave dishes shall be permitted in this array. 8. No guy wires shall be permitted. 9. No lighting shall be permitted for this the facility, except as herein provided. Outdoor lighting shall be limited to periods of maintenance only. Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded such that all light emitted is projected below a horizontal plane running though the lowest part of the shield or shielding part of the luminaire. For the purposes of this condition, a luminaire is a complete lighting unit consisting of a lamp or lamps together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following requirements shall be met: 10. With the building permit application, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site plans for construction of the facility. During the application review, Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed. After the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the following requirements shall be met: 11. The applicant, or any subsequent owners of the building, shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator by July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each personal wireless service provider that use the facilities attached to the building, including a drawing indicating which antennas and equipment are associated with each provider. 12. All equipment and antennae from any individual personal wireless service provider shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use is discontinued. The entire facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the Zoning Administrator determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the permittee shall furnish to the Zoning Administrator a certified check, a bond with surety satisfactory to the County, or a letter of credit satisfactory to the County, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type of surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney. Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion. The motion was approved with a vote of(5:0) (Loewenstein—Absent) Mr. Rieley stated that this would go to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval and would be heard on December 3rd Old Business: Mr. Rieley asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION— NOVEMBER 18, 2003 7 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES— DRAFT SP-03-69 UNIVERSITY VILLAGE-NEXTEL New Business: Mr. Rieley asked if there was any new business. Mr. Cilimberg stated that there would not be a Planning Commission next week. He wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving. Adjournment: With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m. to the December 2, 2003 meeting. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — NOVEMBER 18, 2003 8 PARTIAL SET OF MINUTES— DRAFT SP-03-69 UNIVERSITY VILLAGE-NEXTEL