HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP199600004 Staff Report Special Use Permit 1996-12-11 i p
•
STAFF PERSON: WILLIAM D. FRITZ
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: December 11, 1996
SP 96-04 SPRINT CELLULAR(AVON SITE)
This item was originally reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 7, 1996. At this meeting
the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial of the application,The applicant then
requested indefinite deferral of the application to allow time to work with the County on a tower
siting policy.The County has created a Tower Task Force which is working on issues of tower
siting. On a date not yet determined,the final product of the Task Force will be presented to the
Board of Supervisors for review and action. Based on service needs the Avon tower site is
intended to meet,and the progress of the Task Force to date,the applicant feels they cannot wait
for the conclusion of the Task Force's work and has requested the consideration of this tower site
move forward.
Staff typically provides to the Board of Supervisors the same report presented to the Planning
Commission. In this case at the advise of the County Attorney,staff has modified the staff report
since the Planning Commission meeting. At the time the original staff report was prepared staff
had limited familiarity with the 1996 Telecommunications Act which was signed into law in
February 1996. This revised staff report is intended to provide analysis that insures the provisions
of the 1996 Telecommunications Act have been appropriately addressed. Staff does not believe
these revisions have resulted in any substantive changes that would have changed the conclusions
of the Planning Commission.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 100 foot monopole(80 foot tower with
a total structure height including lighting rod of 100 feet)with a support building to improve
communications in the southern urban area by increasing the capacity of the cellular system. The
applicant provided to the Planning Commission an Engineering Study(Attachment I)which addresses
various issues. [Please note that this study includes discussion of a site on 29 South which is referred to
as the Hickory Site. This site is not before the Board at this time.]
Petition: Petition to allow a 100 foot tower and a support building on a portion of a 9.536 acre parcel
zoned R-1, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 91,Parcel 1 is located on the east side of Avon
Street(Rt. 742), north of Cale Elementary School, on property developed with a water storage tank in the
Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is within the Urban Area,Neighborhood 4, and is
designated for medium density residential.
Character of the Area: This site is developed with an existing Albemarle County Service Authority
water tank. Cale Elementary School is located approximately 500 feet to the south.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section
31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends denial.
Planning and Zoning History: This site is developed with a water tank approved in 1987. No other
history is available.
Comprehensive Plan,: This site is recommended for residential use, however as stated previously it is
occupied by a water tank. Therefore, residential development of this site is not lik" ly. The adjacent
property to the south is zoned LI, Light Industry,which further reduces the likelihood of residential
development of this site. A stated design standard of the Comprehensive Plan is "design public utility
1
•
corridors to fit the topography. Corridors should be shared by utilities when possible. Distribution lines
should be placed underground." The intent of this statement is to consolidate locations. The
Comprehensive Plan contains no specific recommendations for the placement of cellular communication
facilities. Use of this site for a tower in combination with the water tank may be considered as consistent
with the utility standards of the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address the issues of this request in three sections:
1. Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II)of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. [copy attached]
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted
hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the
Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The proposed tower location is approximately 600 feet from the nearest dwelling. These dwellings are
located in Mill Creek. The Lakeside Apartments are located approximately 1,000 feet distant to the
north. Based on balloon tests(balloons were floated at the proposed tower height)the tower will be
visible from several locations, including Lakeside and Mill Creek, on Avon Street, I-64 and the Willow
Creek Development located near the Route 20/Route 53 intersection. Lighting of the tower is unlikely as
the tower is under 200 feet in height and staff has included a condition limiting lighting unless required
by the FAA or other federal agencies. The tower will not directly limit the use of any adjacent property.
The visibility of the tower from residential property may be considered a determinant. However, staff is
not able to determine if the detriment is substantial.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
This tower will be a stand alone tower facility located adjacent to another utility use. Towers are not
encouraged by staff in areas designated for residential use. Staff has reviewed the applications for
towers since 1980 and has determined that only one request, SP 94-26, is located in an area which may
be considered as being designated a residential area. That application was for the monopole located at
Camp Holiday Trails. Staff review of the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site of that tower was on
the border of the areas recommended for Residential and Rural Areas. The Camp Holiday Trails site was
also located adjacent to an Entrance Corridor,I-64 and served that corridor. (Staff recommended denial
of that special use permit due largely to the comments of the ARB.) The use of the water tank site,
which is also designated for residential use, does not in the opinion of staff set a precedent for the use of
residential land for towers as the water tank has changed the character of this site to a non-residential
nature. However, staff does note this request would introduce a new tower to an area of nearby
residential development where no towers exist.
The ARB has reviewed this request and does not support this application based on the comments
contained in the staff report to the ARB (Attachment C)and a general concern as to the lack of a
comprehensive plan to address tower location in the County(Attachment D). The ARB staff report does
2
. ,
state that staff could support the request if the tower's height could be reduced to conform to the existing
tree line in height. The 100 foot tower height exceeds the existing tree line.
Staff has requested a long range plan of the future need for tower sites as part of the Tower Task Force
review and staff has compiled a map showing search areas identified by the cellular providers. [This map
is not included as an attachment to this report due to its size. Staff will provide the map at the Board
meeting.] These search areas are not to be considered the only search areas and no time frame is
associated with the map.
Staff has attached the purpose and intent of the EC district as stated in Section 30.6. Based on the
comments of the ARB, staff opinion is that this tower does represent a change in the character of the
Entrance Corridor District because, at its proposed height of 100 feet,the tower is an anomaly within the
character and scale of that portion of the Route 742 Entrance Corridor.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance.,
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6
with particular reference to Sections 1.4., 1.4.4, and 1.5 (Attachment E). All of these provisions address,
in one form or another,the provision of public services. The use of cellular telephones clearly provides a
public service as evidenced by the expanded and rapid increase in use. Sprint Cellular(now known as
360 Communications Company of Charlottesville) is a public utility as identified by the State. Based on
the provision of a public service, staff opinion is that this request is in harmony with the purpose and
intent of these sections of the ordinance. Section 1.4.3 states as an intent of the Ordinance, "To facilitate
the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community". The provision of this facility does
increase convenience for users of cellular phone technology. However, based on the comments of the
ARB,this facility does not provide for a attractive community and approval of this request may be
considered inconsistent with this stated intent of the ordinance and the purpose and intent of the EC
District as stated in Section 30.6.
with the uses permitted by right in the district.,
The proposed tower will not restrict the current uses,other by-right uses available on this site or by-right
uses on any other property.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance.,
Section 5.1.12 of the ordinance contains regulations governing tower facilities and appropriate conditions
are proposed to ensure compliance with this provision of the ordinance.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The provision of increased communication facilities may be considered consistent with the public health
and safety and general welfare by providing increased communication services in the event of
emergencies and increasing overall general communication services. The Telecommunications Act
addresses issues of environmental affects with the following language,"No state or local government or
instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement construction, and modification of personal wireless
service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that
such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions". In order to
operate this facility the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions.
This requirement will adequately protect the public health and safety.
3
Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
Section 4.10.3. 1 states:
"The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to barns, silos, farm buildings, agricultural
museums designed to appear as traditional farm buildings,residential chimneys, spires, flag
poles,monuments or transmission towers and cables; smokestack,water tank, radio or television
antenna or tower,provided that except as otherwise permitted by the commission in a specific
case, no structure shall be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the
structure; and,provided further that such structure shall not exceed one hundred(100)feet in
height in a residential district. This height limitation shall not apply to any of the above
designated structures now or hereafter located on existing public utility easements".
By the requirements of this provision the proposed tower would need to be located a minimum of 100
feet from the edge of the property. The proposed tower is located approximately 82 feet from the
property
Staff opinion is that this provision is designed to prevent undue crowding of the land and to prevent
safety hazards should a tower fall. Historically,towers reviewed by the County are approved subject to a
condition requiring approval of a tower designed to collapse in the lease area in the event of structural
failure(such a condition is proposed by staff for this request). This condition protects the public safety.
Relocation of the tower is not an option in this case as it would interfere with future use of the site by the
Albemarle County Service Authority(Attachment F).
Staff has historically supported requests for modification to allow towers to be located closer to the
property line than the height of the tower when no option to relocate exists. In previous applications
denial of the modification request would require relocation of the tower to areas of critical slopes or to
areas which would require a substantially taller tower. In this case relocation would interfere with future
use of the site for the provision of a public utility. Therefore, staff is able to support a reduction in the
setback requirement.
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II)of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
The regulation of the placement,construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any
state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless services.
Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless
service. Staff does not believe that the special use permit process nor the denial of this application has
the effect of prohibiting the provision or personal wireless services. The applicant's Engineering Exhibit
(Attachment I)states"most of the Avon service area already has adequate signal strength." The scatter
plot prepared by the applicant's engineer indicates that cellular coverage for the Avon service area exists
for all mobile and portable cellular phones. Therefore,personal wireless services already exist in the
Avon service area. The applicant's stated need for the tower is based on its desire to improve the quality
of the service. The applicant states that in the area of the proposed tower, it has recorded the number of
blocked calls to be as high as 20 percent above maximum capacity. (Attachment I, page 6). The FCC
mandates that personal wireless companies build out their systems so that adequate service is provided.
The applicant has not provided any evidence of any FCC regulation or license requirement pertaining to
blocked calls and, in particular,any provision that blocked calls exceeding a certain percentage of the
maximum capacity of the system shall be deemed to be not providing service. Finally the applicant has
4
l t
not demonstrated that there are no other locations currently available for a tower or for co-location of
antennae to absorb telecommunications traffic at its Charlottesville and Carter's Mountain site, or for
sectorizing neighborhood facilities. Staff notes that when it met with the applicant prior to filing of this
application and in meetings as recently as November of the this year,the parties were not able to identify
any other suitable location. For the foregoing reasons, staff does not believe that denial of this
application would have the effect of prohibiting the provision of services.
SUMMARY
The hilly to mountainous terrain of Albemarle County,which results in "dead spots" in a cellular system,
has resulted in a number of requests for cellular towers. This tower request is not intended to overcome
any"dead spots" in service, but is intended to provide additional handling capacity for the system. The
area which would be served by this tower currently has adequate signal strength as identified by the
applicant's engineering report. A reduction in the tower's height would give a smaller service area for
this cell but would increase the capacity of the system. No analysis has been done to determine if
additional tower(s)would be needed if the tower height was reduced or if this tower's height could be
reduced at such time as additional cell sites are located in the area. This request is not located within a
"tower farm" as is encouraged by the County, although it does represent the clustering of utilities as the
site currently is used for water storage by the ACSA. No existing structures were identified by staff in
the area that could provide the requested coverage. The applicant has been working with emergency
service providers to accommodate their needs. This tower is located along an existing highway corridor
and serves, in part,the users of that corridor.
Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1 . The tower will provide increased cellular capacity which may be considered consistent with the
provisions of Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5;
2. The tower will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent properties.
Staff has identified the following factor which is unfavorable to this request:
1. Approval of this tower will change the character of the EC district;
2. Approval of this tower is not in harmony with the stated intent and purpose of the Zoning
Ordinance to facilitate the creation of an attractive community;
3. There is an existing reasonable use of the property.
While staff has not identified the visual impact created by the tower as a substantial detriment to the
existing nearby residential area, staff does note approval of this request will introduce a new tower to an
area of nearby residential development from which the tower will be visible.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff opinion is that the change in the character of the EC District warrants denial of this request.
Should the Board choose to approve this request, staff has provided conditions of approval. Should the
Board choose to approve the special use permit staff does support the modification of Section 4.10.3.1
and has included appropriate language for this modification.
5
A 1
In the event that the Board chooses to deny this application staff offers the following comment:
In order to comply with the provisions of the Telecommunication Act, staff requests consensus direction
from the Board regarding the basis for denial of the application and instruction to staff to return to the
Board with a written decision for the Board's consideration and action.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Tower height shall not exceed 100 feet(80 foot monopole with 20 foot antennae/lighting rod);
2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance;
3 There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting
shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground;
4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or
imply support for or approval of,the location of additional towers, antennae,etc., even if they
may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this
section;
5. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the
event of structural failure,the tower and components will remain within the lease area. A
modification of Section 4.10.3.1 has been granted to allow location of the tower closer to the
property line than the height of the tower;
6. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance
of the use of the tower for cellular communication purposes.
ATTACHMENTS:
A-Location Map
B - Tax Map
C -ARB Staff Report,action letter and minutes
D-ARB Letter to Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors
E- Sections 1.4, 1.4.4 and 1.5
F-Letter from Albemarle County Service Authority
G- Sketch Plan
H-Applicant's Information
I -Applicant's Engineering Exhibit
J - Section 30.6 of the Zoning Ordinance
K- Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act
L-Planning Commission action letter and minutes
M- Letters from public
I:\GENERAL\SHARE\FRITZ\S P9604.RPT
6
. .
,
..1, , , 1.---• As.,''• •' '' „,... : ',.,, ( ‘,„ „•
t P•''li ,... \ • '.).--t.,\ o`" l'\
„....)
,
-
, 0, i...I
I ,. ...... .
-
-.4. , -,■ 1( , I • '4', - I "166-61 „ ATTACHMENT A
•
, _
.(1'-'°=1 ,',, iu,s n ‘.--•' — j•P?•1'"L ‘- •,- °8 ,../ :.- - •
ii. • . .-. .--•- , J •4'---- ------ • •
- ... _ ... ■H.....
1 ..r
o46‘" ••.'r"/i-- ..■..., ill
'16 3,
S
li '''1'78411, 1 Voc2 A
IiIhneten, .1 ,t t to...81s,,
N
• I 117;
•,,, 1 "-, •./ iLal ,c . \ ,• pii_ ] \ '--•-s .r, 171
641 ild
' f\
F,2o101 HI,..,„..,,,, . ?IP' 1f7.4- 1
q,', 1 \1
6-7-0,' k,. '.. ,
1 . ,„,-irn I,v,,,,, 0,,,,,„„.,
-1-fl
k•
;6■4- .'- 6 i ----Wootlons k;k -ilq' / d,I °Q. 11 ''
Blom '1 . , 1 1 5 ` s'kl:-"..,'‘s, • ll 6.191 cl, „ .7_!0 picifl ••••
, \)
0 , WC)P 1 Dist I
k.,,,,,,,, ,1•■/ 1 5:1'% .,600 ■„. \
3
f I, 6ffij‘t
1 '.L11....
..11\ mil 1 Ej op
,. it%V
S.. V . . •" I 1 \ ', ‘ClIP'
r ,■
,
'
\ C4
• 4i 41ir*- lin] et.,--.1 ot' 5 631 ill'!.1 I u ii;• 1
I1615 r 3 \ 1
(7 L-16-i71 ' I-•
itil -"6 '-' ' I
At / II. 5 47
' .Z . \' • 65/ `I
§:id .i sou 1 , s .,
P' R
ci'l. .
. t. so . ' • •• (1.01 o■ ft, /4, -• ••10.d ci ■.- 1 '..•• s`--A,
\ , i' .•41 $•r,";Is' .r Eaelhern
- • I
8-------°---'''',""- • ---..--..--,— ,_1 Y •) •i , f, , A
in I , ' 6' 4_769.1 . ....3E1 • .\IM3, \ .;e3'q,
\ ,
6 01 . Ell
/ JP. i'
Slt 16 W.f.11-
Forminillon Ir!..1,111 a -.. •' " : /4i \ c.....1
i&In COY rrt ry Club oar ' .4...• 270 /• 631 ' '2, !, \
pc- ":211' . /. I, ••••)p...91---' •, ,,f
_-- • , °C11° ,.)14 r ,
., ' . •',y!., _ '; C.2.01 ' r:1
\
, 22
1:41 \ / 7 -/ al i• : . - • \,./ Ill . .
"" -N
. - 11-01 - 'No
' '▪ . ki, '
•
, \
' --, , , • - \)
" i .1 r • i • `-'11-
I 11-21 ., ->s-*4 is, • / 4 r 600 c
,
,d -fitectVI,V et el . ; '•• 6411 e"*""\.N (
A.....k
,,,...:-..,. ■ :.---- ' hi! ) -• •F 1/2 e_..-i \i
i .........--.-•. 1,--;-0- : ,, cs
_______ _________... • ; ,iii,,,..,,.,,, ,.;,' ,
..• ...... ,
I. .'''l?''.., i'' ;7! ED CHARLOTTES- f:,-„,../ ff?D\ ms.. - ,‘' ''(1 - •=1,
...... ,
64 _____ „_.. IIK:., .1‘,,,.• VILLE , i..• .„..• -_-...,...,,.
•,,`' ;.F.-17111 . . xe,‘ . ,,....... .,, _._, ,
, '4 Slir'...1:7N•iell' 2.• .4.0111;:t ...".''\ —... 1/4...c , ,:..,If . ,.
i . • 0 ,,, . ,....,...-._1, 729 ,, + '•"--"' i _
ILZI ,._ CIO s ,' Ila o• /
. • •
F 181
"0 • • 5
&NI \
'4' • i 1 ?'MD * — Monlibello Di 823,
0 .4 ... ...-
1 /80
20 ‘4. \,,
808 .. 618 1/4A/ i
( --- ,s
• SU inUI 84 '\\`‘.
- *e
/
63) 17E2 .... , 1120 N. • .ryn" iml,","-` -f);;;(3/
.21 i il, /I i I ..5...." -ii- -,;,. •
,
. kkt ; ea Ash lewn,
!!?! ' co•----‘, 1E111 ,.0 TO ZION CROSS
/ iiig.5.1 4.
,,,_.?, 1/4,.?2!...ti] \ _,.3
/- CNIOI um . i
9 • 4. Pi . F l
0/ ig.-9.1 kp\
4' V
ill i..///.6:•..'"`,......
'-•-■
b23 i
> e
7.7.1.i 1, /
ri Ow 140./
' . \\
1 . ,
,§ 1081 , : '.... 1 so
0 le al? '
114%1 I I everlon '%3,), ,"-• ' 7 "
• H41 / I 3 1
' ii Co•-''",,..A.,
"6 ice
62/ ‘4
I., 1 a +.
// . a ,/
Nip V/ A
• '''-'N./
(.4). r /
. 5 ... .!
., .'
43. :> /
p .2,...91 cys- .°
. t, . ,i I
0/ ‘ .--■,,, , f
g S
Pim] :0? -- %I.' PAN'' ,
---.-,Fill , .. 1,:\
* ' e R-Ei Fi-,- . , [fp• ..........' /
/
4 .
e, r-i ,1 f-' '----. • • ,
.y 708 k , Lb,--. / ,
'0 MD.../- • \ 1 ..., . ir •
.•.,..;,.p EMI '■
.,...‘,1 .,. , ; . Cif,srct: \\ . , ,,.....„, ..,..., ...,. _._41S2/0 ,,..r...1,4_6_
• ei • •• Blenhe im
. 0
tli-g-5:1 6' if ,,,. i 3 ! '••-, .3.':.r. . „de.3 ''.'''
.
; ..`' ../p. •,, 11‘, \ (?9.E!I -__.
----... ''.• el
. 1
.L.
c.. ,t
1795 j,'
s. so
,s• is2o1
'''
) kf N • 4;••,
i '2•1 / ,t i . t...
s.r .. . . r
1.,
/620
I 1
n1 ;
Knen• , , \
llIs4 f
I (
- 1 .
, ..(\,, -
'- - ,,ri2.?] • *1;:,t4, ; . , roil„, [To
ri, , \ s P'
?- •4 (T2id ' ) 672 0/// 11
, 113--62/ ntk.voir ■■
37 '
• \ (7i. % r/...' / ( ,
(n2p1 , Piri - .
ALBEMARLE COUNTY IATTACHMENTB
' 77 ,.y
� 2 `•` � \
\''IO:g•:::•::,....,:. ) so
/I 29
13 It ./ / 24 / .1/41 , . ,1/45.1....... . / c ) ■
X . tro 0 ,/,0/c-,..,..4;4-/:q9 s______, .
1.
\1 • / + � I
��16 '.2' , \� 290•SCC
\169 \ \ 7\ . I \
X 1 � \i, z°
\ \ 4-- 7 92
II
i (- N
A / -.-r- -''.- - II
\ i.H ..., .....„ ,. t,.
19 A:.
'. \ - *.- C \---...„ ..'s'..s
.'"...1/4 ■..,N, Vsio,vss,......; .
• till‘P.15)\>// \\*".:;\ 27 .
/ i. .
�\ \ •/ / 1\ \ 71 / 266 111\
' 1 I /C`,CK/ CN�J) /'‘'
•., / \ \
\c.../.X i A_ .L., e 4, APV
/Cl/
1 21A \ /• L. ■.. N BN••.A
......L...-•-...... .. Al 1.CAIP. 44
;+■ 1 T 1 \23C
` . - ✓4-
2 I 2
1 `\ s [,r x 216 / '1
\ Sit 103-0 I \ \. •' • ■■■ ■
( 1' \ '\• 7 '.. tr7r . Q. -Z i
. \,\ \,...i.s. ) \. 7.__...f/ I
...• .l • • 1.' :5—`-. •-rn'_ 103
2C.L[ w f[CT SECTION 91
.q • ••• If at °00 "'° SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT
1TTCHMENTcI
AVON CELL SITE
SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
STAFF PERSON: Marcia Joseph
DATE: March 18, 1996
PROJECT NUMBER: ARB-F(SDP)-96-03
LOCATION: Tax Map 91, Parcel 1, Zoned R1 - Residential, Scottsville Magisterial
District. Located on the south side of Route 742, approximately 1/4 mile
north of the intersection of Route 742 and Route
STAFF REPORT: Section 34A.2.c of the Zoning Ordinance states that the ARB will be
advisory to the Commission and the Board of Supervisors in special use
permits. The applicant proposes placing a cellular tower measuring 100'
in height that will be visible from the Route 742 Entrance Corridor. The
applicant requests approval for a radio-wave transmission tower. Under
section 10.2.2.6 a special use permit is required. The ARB is requested
to provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors and the Planning
Commission for this proposed use.
The location of the tower is approximately 750' from Route 742. The
tower will be visible from Route 742.
The pole proposed is a monopole, similar to the tower erected at the
Camp Holiday Trails site.
Staff can not support this request because it will create an anomaly within
the character and scale of this portion of the Route 742 Entrance Corridor.
If the tower could be lowered to conform to the existing tree line in
height, staff could support the request. The cleared area, the building,
and the generator proposed will not be visible from the Route 742
Entrance Corridor.
Hickory Cell Certificate of Appropriateness
March 18, 1996
ATTACHMENT C
,y� Page 2
o ®�
1 I
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 McIntire Road,Room 223
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Building Code Information FAX(804)972-4126 Zoning Information
(804)296-5832 TTD(804)972-4012 (804)296-5875
March 19, 1996
Centel Cellular Company of Charlottesville
c/o M. E. Gibson, Jr.
Tremblay & Smith, LLP
P.O. Box 1585
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: ARB-F(SDP)-96-03 Avon Cell Site
Tax Map 91 Parcel 1
Dear Mr. Gibson:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above-noted item at its
meeting on Monday, March 18, 1996. The Board voted (4:1) to accept the staff report and
recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they can not support the request unless the tower
is lowered to conform to the existing tree line in height.
The ARB also requested that the applicant submit an overall comprehensive plan for a period
to correspond with the County's twenty year Comprehensive Plan. This plan should give a
general location of the proposed towers.
If you have questions concerning any of the above, please call me.
Sincerely,
Marcia Joseph
Design Planner
cc: Bill Fritz
Timmons
IATTACHMENT C)
Page 3
MOTION: Mr. Runkle moved that the request be approved with the
conditions recommended by staff.
SECONDED: Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which was unanimously
(5: 0) approved.
V. Certificate of Appropriateness
A. ARB-F(SDP)-96-03 Avon Cell Site
Contact Person: M.E. Gibson, Jr.
Staff stated that the applicant had brought some pictures in for
the Board's view. In addition, pictures of the existing tower on
I-64 were displayed. She stated that the applicant had flown a
balloon and presented pictures taken from various locations.
"AVON CELL SITE
SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
STAFF PERSON: Marcia Joseph
DATE: March 18, 1996
PROJECT NUMBER: ARB-F(SDP) -96-03
LOCATION: Tax Map 91, Parcel 1, Zoned R1 - Residential,
Scottsville Magisterial District. Located on the
south side of Route 742 , approximately 1/4 mile
north of the intersection of Route 742 and Route
20.
STAFF REPORT: Section 34A.2 .c of the Zoning Ordinance states
that the ARB will be advisory to the Commission
and the Board of Supervisors in special use
permits. The applicant proposes placing a
cellular tower measuring 100 ' in height that will
be visible from the Route 742 Entrance Corridor.
The applicant requests approval for a radio-wave
transmission tower. Under section 10. 2 . 2 . 6 a
special use permit is required. The ARB is
requested to provide a recommendation to the Board
of Supervisors and the Planning Commission for
this proposed use.
The location of the tower is approximately 750 '
March 18, 1996
Minutes of Albemarle County Architectural Review Board
8
IATTACHMENTCI
Page 4
from Route 742 . The tower will be visible from
Route 742 .
The pole proposed is a monopole, similar to the
tower erected at the Camp Holiday Trails site.
Staff cannot support this request because it will
create an anomaly within the character and scale
of this portion of the Route 742 Entrance,
Corridor.
If the tower could be lowered to conform to the
existing tree line in height, staff could support
the request. The cleared area, the building, and
the generator proposed will not be visible from
the Route 742 Entrance Corridor. "
Staff pointed out that the Board was being asked to make a
recommendation in an advisory role to the Board of Supervisors.
SPEAKERS FOR REQUEST:
M.E. Gibson, Attorney for Sprint Centel, spoke for the request.
He explained that the increase in applications for towers was due
to the increase of the business in the sales of portable phones.
Additional facilities are needed to provide adequate coverage and
capacity.
Ms. Miller asked what happened with the notion of a master plan
for developing towers instead of a case by case approach. She
stated that it was a major concern and would be helpful as the
County reviews this, to understand the overall impact.
Mr. Gibson presented an aerial photo of the Carter' s Mountain
site.
SPEAKERS AGAINST REQUEST:
David Van Roijen and Montgomery Woods spoke against the request.
Mr. Lindstrom asked for Bill Fritz 's comments on this since he
was the Planner handling this request.
Bill Fritz, Senior Planner, spoke concerning the proposed towers.
Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that each site was an individual issue,
but that the general issue was that they had been promised a
study since the first tower request. He stated that as the
community grows there will be more and more towers. He felt that
March 18, 1996
Minutes of Albemarle County Architectural Review Board
9
• ATTACHMENT C
Page 5
there ought to be a plan.
MOTION: Mr. Lindstrom moved that the ARB accept staff's
recommendation against the proposed tower and recommend to the
Board of Supervisors that they cannot support the request unless
the tower is lowered to conform to the existing tree line in
height. He further added to that reason, that -it be made very
clear that the applicant must submit an overall picture or plan,
not just for 3 years but based upon expected growth rates at
least for the 20-year period of the comprehensive plan on what
the anticipated need was for towers in Albemarle County given the
current technology.
SECONDED: Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
The motion was passed (4 : 1) .
Mr. Beverly - Aye
Mr. Michel - Aye
Mr. Runkle - No
Mr. Lindstrom - Aye
Ms. Miller - Aye
Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting at 3 : 14 p.m.
B. ARB-F(SDP) -96-04 Hickory Cell Site
Contact Person: M.E. Gibson, Jr.
Staff presented photos of the site for the ARB' s review. This
tower stays 180 feet.
"HICKORY CELL SITE
SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
STAFF PERSON: Marcia Joseph
DATE: March 18, 1996
PROJECT NUMBER: ARB-F(SDP) -96-04
LOCATION: Tax Map 88, Parcel 30C, Zoned RA - Rural Areas,
Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Located on
the west side of Route 29S, approximately two
miles north of the intersection of Route 29N and
Route 708.
STAFF REPORT: Section 34A. 2 .c of the Zoning Ordinance states
March 18, 1996
Minutes of Albemarle County Architectural Review Board
10
6,4"'% ATTACHMENT D
1 NA
44,,E
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Zoning, Room 223
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5875 FAX (804) 972-4035
TDD (804) 972-4012
April 29, 1996
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County Planning Commission
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: Mobile Telephone Communication Towers
Ladies and Gentleman:
On March 18, 1996 the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the
proposals for two new tower sites for the Sprint (now 360) Company. The proposed tower
locations are on Route 742 (Avon Ext.) and Route 29S. The ARB did not support either request.
The ARB expressed concern that there has been no master plan proposed illustrating the
general location and number of towers that may be desired. Without a master plan to guide the
placement of these structures, the ARB felt it was futile to keep acting on the towers. The ARB
urged the applicant to provide the information, and requested that the Planning Commission and
the Board of Supervisors urge the applicant to do the same.
Please feel free to contact any member of the Architectural Review Board or Marcia Joseph
(Design Planner 296-5875), to discuss this issue.
Sincerely,
Members of the Architectural Review Board
// `
raµ-- r Dia a Ed on Miller Ru of h A. Beverl Ste Runkle •
g Beverly
Chairman . • Vice Chairman
• 111
(4/144.2" I
Tim Michel C. Timothy Lindstrom
•
•
PURPOSE OSE: Atio n f ATTACHMENT E —,
, • ■ ■
This ordinance, insofar as is practicable, is intended to be in accord
with and to implement the Comprehensive flan of Albemarle County
adopted pursuant to the provisions of Title 15. 1 , Chapter 11 , Article
!r , Code of Virginia, 1050, as amended, and has the purposes and intent:
set forth in Title 15. 1 , Chapter. 11 , Article B.
As set forth in section 15. 1-427 of the Code, this ordinance is
intended to improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of
citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia, and to plan for the future
development of cow-amities to the end that transportation systems be
carefully planned; that new community centers be developed with
adequate highway, utility, health, educational and recreational
facilities ; that: the needs of agriculture, industry and business he
recognized in future growth; that residential areas be provided with
healthy surroundings for family life; that agricultural and forestal
land be preserved; and that the growth of the cornnun i1.y be consonant
with the efficient and economical use of public funds: (Added 0-9-02)
Therefore be it ordained by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia , for the purposes of promoting the health, safety,
convenience and general welfare of the public and of planning for the
future development of the community, that the zoning ordinance' of
Albemarle County, together with the official. zoning map adopted by
reference and declared to be a part of this ordinance, is designed:
protection,
l !r !r
To facilitate the provision of adequate pot ice and fire sewerage,
civil defense, transportation, water, ,
,
• disaster evacuation, pl.tr�l;round�� ,
flood protection, schools, parks,
forests . recreat.iona.
facilities, airports and other public requirements;
1 . 5 RELATION '10 ENVTRONIIEN'l'
This ordinance is designed to treat lands which are similarly situated
and environmentally similar in I ike manner with reasonable cons idera-
I ion for the existing use and character of properties, the Comprehen-
sive flan, the suitability of property for various uses, the trends of
growth or change, the current and future land and water requirements
of the community for various purposes as determined by• population and
economic studies and other studies, the transport at ion requirements of
the community, a requirements the equirements for airports, housing, schools,
I
parks, playground:;, recreation areas and other public: services; for
the conservation of natural resources; and preservation of flood
plains, the preservation of agricultural and forestal land, the con-
servation of properties and their values and the encouragement of the
must appropriate use of land throughout the county. (Amended I I - 1 - 00)
'ATTACHMENT F)A LBE V ARLE COU\TY bb„,, •
P.O. Box 1009 168 SPOTNAP RD. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22yo2 • (ouzo Y//-'1011 r/V (0v4) Y/Y-VOY0
RELIED
May 6, 1996
MAY 0 7 1996 •
Mr. William D. Fritz, Senior Planner Planning Dept.
County of Albemarle
Planning& Community Development
. 401 McIntire Road
• Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Re: SP-96-04- Sprint Cellular(360°Communications)
Dear Mr. Fritz:
We have reviewed your comments concerning the location of the cellular tower on a
,: leased portion of our property on Avon Street. The site in question has a current use of a water
storage facility and a reserved site for installation of another tank and appurtenant water lines.
• , The location proposed was selected so as not to interfere with our planned future use
Relocation is not an option within the confines of the graded lot.
If you have any questions concerning the above, feel free to call.
Sincerely,
'PP
• •
Paul A. Shoop, P.E.
Director of Engineering
PAS/lbt
F4- 6 , 72- (10 3s*
,�r
""-n
/ (Aw "W� — ATTACHMENT G
oxo,L
/'w %4 ' 2 ■
/ 239
■
j
/
W W W 3 3
2 0 N h h M
% ',b1 r- CO r-w
m • N b h u
x x In v, x
/io/Y -I J J J J
HT
•, s6r •-.-,i a N4 r </
o< / I;4.
ask;
?fig ----- a� 4.
0 r ¢qg 4
il °r
' r
/< S 8 °; -r. 'moo•\.°s
ff; ��, k � / e goo c°4-'
r�xb z,o 11 /
2,v.
,\mss O & O. �� •.\ //
sr m� o �y. \
,\ p /, jOO ` 1 4 P�`° e /
\ Yv.
/
2 W /
k d / 1 RWge,/
I ty ,\ `, f tip/ �
W' v
(
•
%• •rat, Q-"c"'‘ i /
•
/; \, m ;'/•w
� / �_
ti/9`La y, $,. z
a my 3•/ �'4 , ///,/ W
/ m
1.
9 /
/ ha i /1//1/ c
z
ei EL, I I'
4
1• 1T`/��Cl/ / /
'1 ep'"0 Q ej /
/1.„/ •1 4'?; // //
. z Ada /'\ /` 2 / / /
o` .'
// /
s/ z\ ,x /' ' / /
r /
\ 80 / /
\ /
/' /
sr d /
c
tJ / y.
/ O \
b '7'\•
/' .,, ,
s \
\
f
LAW OFFICES
•
TREMBLAY & SM1T- ATTACHMENT H -
P.O.Box 15x5
•
JOHN K.TAGCGART,III CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINIA shvuz•un3
M.E.GIBsoN,JR. —. CHRISTOPHER L.McLEAN
THOMAS E.ALBRO
105.10g EAST HIGH STREET HEIDI H.PARKER
CHRISTINE THOMSON TELEPHONE(804)977.4455
Arnim')
PATRICIA D.MCGRAw FACSIMILE(804)979-1221 E,(RALD TREMBLAY
LAND T.SMITH,JR.
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
972-4035
•
March 12, 1996
William D. Fritz, Senior Planner
•
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
RE: 360° Communications Company (formerly Sprint Cellular
company) - Avon Cell Site
SP -96-04
Dear Bill:
This letter is written in response to your request for a
narrative site justification statement for this project and I am
providing you with the following information:
1. Tower. The tower will be an 80' unlit monopole, with a
total structure height including lightning rod of 100 ' . I am
attaching a copy of an engineering drawing depicting the monopole.
2. Coverage objective. There are three objectives for this
site:
(a) Coverage - to improve portable coverage on the south
side of Charlottesville along both Route 29 and 1-64 between the
downtown Charlottesville and Carter's Mountain cell sites.
(b) Frequency planning - Carter's Mountain has 38 voice
channels. Due to its location, it is one of the busiest sites in
the system and carries a great deal of traffic. It is becoming
difficult to add more frequencies (voice channels) without creating
so-called frequency reuse interference and bad phone service.
(c) Disaster recovery/offloading - To prevent massive
blockage during a disaster, 360° Communications needs a new site
(Avon) to offload the main core sites of Carter's Mountain and
downtown Charlottesville.
63 di, 15.34 SO4 W 979 1:'l1 TREMBLAY
ATTACHMENT H
TREMBLAY&SMITH,LLP Page 2
Page 2
Fritz
March 12, 1996
I will have available at the public hearings scatter plots
depicting the base coverage.
3 . Lpadina. The tower will have up to 3 whip transmit
antennas 15' in length, 6 panel receive antennas 5 ' in length and
a lightning rod extending 3 ' above the highest point of the whip
antennas.
•
Please let me know if you require additional information.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
7r::)"°'L
M. E. Gibson, Jr.
MEG/sp
CC: Marcia Joseph
Clifford I. Shaffer
Larry Bickings
Heidi H. Parker
28\5\Atb\Fr1tz.043
ATTACHMENT I —
DENNY & ASSOCIATES,•.C.. •
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON, DC
ENGINEERING EXHIBIT
PREPARED ON BEHALF OF
360° COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY
IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATIONS
SP-96-03 (HICKORY SITE) AND
SP-96-04 (AVON SITE)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY,VIRGINIA
ENGINEERING STATEMENT
INTRODUCTION
Alan R.Rosner, being first duly sworn, says that he is a senior engineer with
Denny & Associates, P.C., consulting engineers with offices in Washington, D.C.; that
he is a professional engineer registered in the District of Columbia and other
jurisdictions; that his qualifications are a matter of record with the Federal
Communications Commission; and that he is familiar with communications systems of
the type described herein. This statement has been prepared for 360° Communications
Company (hereinafter, 360° Communications), proponent for the construction of two
new cellular base stations' facilities in Albemarle County, Virginia. These sites are
referred to herein as the Hickory and Avon sites. This statement addresses the
necessity of these sites for specific reasons of a scientific and engineering nature.'
BACKGROUND
Cellular telephones operate in the 869-to-894 megahertz portion of the ultra-
high frequency (UHF) band. Communications in the UHF band principally occur over
a line-of-sight path between the transmitter and receiver. Radio signals are
transmitted from antennas located on 360° Communications's tower at relatively low
This analysis is based on specifications for the proposed and existing facilities
provided to the undersigned by 360° Communications Company.
DENNY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON, DC ATTACHMENT
Engineering Statement Page 2
Albemarle County, Virginia
power levels of 100 watts per channel. Mobile cellular telephones, which send signals
from vehicles to the cellular site receivers, transmit with 3 watts of power, and portable
or hand-held phone units transmit with only 0.6 watt of power. Add-on antenna
products which claim to increase the range of portable hand-held phones are not
capable of increasing the phones output power to that of mobile units.
Typical coverage areas for cellular base station facilities vary greatly but
generally range from 2 to 10 miles. Two of the greatest factors affecting UHF signal
propagation are diffraction and foliage. Diffraction describes the redirection of radio
waves caused by obstructions in the path between a transmitter and a receiver. These
obstructions can be natural terrain features as well as man-made structures.
Diffraction decreases or attenuates the strength of a signal. In extreme cases,
attenuation due to diffraction can reduce signal strength below a usable level. Foliage
also attenuates UHF signal strength. In comparison to an unobstructed line-of-sight
path which would present a predictable attenuation, signal attenuation at UHF
frequencies due to foliage can be over 1,000 times greater than expected over an ideal
path. Stated differently, UHF signal strength may be 1,000 times greater with an
unobstructed line-of-sight signal path than it would be when the path is obstructed by
heavy foliage. Diffraction and foliage losses present a particular challenge to reliable
cellular transmission because of the low transmitter power levels used in the cellular
service. These UHF propagation limitations are not a factor for the comparatively low
frequency(0.5-30 megahertz) transmissions of AM radio stations, which broadcast with
power levels up to 50,000 watts, and high frequency (HF) amateur radio stations, which
operate at power levels up to 1,500 watts.
For the reasons given above, UHF transmitting and receiving antennas
should be mounted at minimum heights which are as far above ground level as
DENNY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON, DC (ATTACHMENT II
Engineering Statement Page 3
Albemarle County, Virginia
necessary to achieve a line-of-sight path. As a practical matter, the mobile or portable
cellular telephone antenna height is limited to a few feet, so the only variable left to
adjust in achieving the desired line-of-sight path is the cellular base station antenna
height. 360°Communications has specified overall antenna height to clear the existing
tree line, allow for future vegetative growth, and to provide as much as possible a
line-of-sight path to the intended service area.
To effectively design cellular systems, engineers utilize computer modeling
techniques to estimate coverage. Propagation studies or scatter plots of the type
included in Figure 1 and Figures 3 through 6 of this exhibit, are one type of computer
modeling used by cellular telephone companies and communications engineers to
predict cellular telephone coverage. These studies are based on propagation models
which take into account the most predominant factors relating to coverage for a
particular site including location, terrain, climate and, to some degree, vegetation. The
use of highly specialized propagation models is a common and accepted practice of
engineers in the design of complex communications systems. The predictability and
reliability of these propagation models are typically very high. Propagation, or the
traveling of a wave through any medium, is affected by so many factors that signal
strength is expressed as a function of statistical probabilities. These probabilities are
typically expressed relative to variances in the signal strength over time and location.
Generally, the farther the location from the transmitter, the greater the degree of signal
variance, and the less accurate the prediction. Since computer studies like those
provided by 360° Communications cannot account for all of the factors affecting
propagation, they should be viewed only with the purpose they are intended: as an
engineering guide for site selection and coverage determination.
DENNY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON, DC I II
Engineering Statement Page 4
Albemarle County, Virginia
While propagation studies are extremely useful tools for predicting potential
coverage, actual measurement data provide much more reliable information on where
coverage needs to be improved and provide engineering validity to customer complaints
about service. Since signal propagation is based on statistical probabilities,
measurement data must account for these statistical factors. In a mobile environment,
the dominant statistical factor is location and second to location is time. Proper field
strength measurements are made with a calibrated system, often computerized, which
enumerates the mean field strength of numerous locations over a short distance
segment. It is inadequate to go to a single location and make a measurement or
demonstrate that a call can be placed since this fails to account for variations in time
and location.
Sometimes modifications to cellular systems are necessary to meet increased
customer demand. Few options exist for a cellular provider needing to increase channel
capacity. Generally the simplest option is to increase the number of channels at the
cellular base station sites which serve the affected area to the maximum. However,
cellular licensees only have a finite number of channels that they may use within their
service area. In the instant case, the number is 38 voice channels. This corresponds
to a maximum of 38 simultaneous telephone conversations at each site. To provide
service over their entire licensed service area, given the limited number of channels,
cellular providers must reuse frequencies. Careful spectrum planning and engineering
insure that sites sharing the same frequencies or adjacent frequencies are separated
by a sufficient distance to prevent mutual interference. These engineering factors
limit the maximum number of channels that can be used at each base station location.
The second option for increasing base station capacity is to cell split or
sectorize. Cell splitting is the division of a nondirectional site with a circular coverage
DENNY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON, DC IATTACHMENT Il
Engineering Statement Page 5
Albemarle County, Virginia
area into several pie-shaped sectors using directional antennas. This permits a more
efficient reuse of frequencies and allows tower locations to be separated by shorter
distances. However, cell splitting only has limited benefits and often requires that
many of the sites within the system be sectorized before these efficiencies can be
realized fully.
The last means of increasing cellular system capacity is to implement an
additional limited coverage site in the affected area thereby freeing up traffic at the
overloaded sites. In most cases, all three of these options are implemented to provide
the most reliable service and to meet customer demand.
PROPOSED HICKORY SITE
The proposed Hickory site is located on the west side of U.S. Route 29 at
geographic coordinates 37° 59' 36.5" North Latitude, 78° 35' 18.9" West Longitude.2
The transmitting antennas will be mounted on a 150-foot monopole supporting
structure to be erected at the site.
Construction of the Hickory facility is necessitated by the lack of reliable
coverage along U.S. Route 29. This is supported by the predicted coverage study of
Figure 1 which shows predicted coverage from the existing 360° Communications's sites
in the vicinity of the Hickory site. Further support is detailed in the depiction of
measurement data in Figure 2 which validates the coverage prediction and customer
complaints. Figure 3 depicts the predicted coverage for the 150-foot tower proposed for
construction at the Hickory site. Use of a lower tower height at the Hickory site will
have a detrimental impact on the ability of the site to improve coverage along U.S.
2 Geographic coordinates are referenced to the 1983 North American Datum (NAD83).
•
DENNY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON, DC (ATTACHMENT
Engineering Statement Page 6
Albemarle County, Virginia
Route 29. This is depicted in the predicted coverage study of Figure 4 which estimates
the coverage for a tower height of 100 feet above ground level (AGL). Furthermore,
reducing the proposed tower height at the Hickory site will very likely necessitate the
need for additional towers along U.S. Route 29.
PROPOSED AVON SITE
The proposed Avon site is located to the west of State Route 20, at geographic
coordinates 37° 59' 52.3" North Latitude, 78° 29' 52.9" West Longitude.3 The
transmitting antennas will be mounted on a 80-foot monopole supporting structure to
be erected at the site.
Construction of the Avon site is necessitated by excessive cellular traffic
demands on the 360° Communications system. The coverage issues described relative
to the Hickory site are not germane to the proposed Avon service area. In contrast to
the Hickory site, most of the Avon service area already has adequate signal strength.
The problem in the vicinity of the Avon site is the very high likelihood that a new or
handed-off call from another site will not go through due to the unavailability of a voice
channel to support the call. The Mobile Telephone Switching Office (MTSO), which
controls the creation, completion and switching of cellular traffic, has the capability of
monitoring the number of failed calls, commonly referred to as blocked calls. In the
area of the proposed Avon site, 360° Communications has recorded the number of
blocked calls to be as high as 20 percent above their maximum capacity.
360° Communications engineers their cellular system to have a blocked call percentage
lower than two percent.
3 Geographic coordinates are referenced to the 1983 North American Datum (NAD83).
` DENNY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON, DC (ATTACHMENT
Engineering Statement Page 7
Albemarle County, Virginia
360° Communications has made every effort to increase capacity without
adding sites. Of the options discussed earlier for increasing capacity,
360° Communications increased the number of channels at the Carters Mountain and
downtown Charlottesville sites to 38. This is 360° Communications theoretical
maximum before they begin to give and receive interference to other sites in their
system. Secondly, 360° Communications has planned to sectorize both the Carters
Mountain site and the downtown Charlottesville site. Since sectorized facilities are
typically closer together with smaller service areas, the proposed Avon site is also
instrumental in 360° Communications's plans for sectorizing the neighboring facilities.
This site at a tower height of 80 feet AGL is predicted to provide adequate coverage to
free up traffic at the overloaded downtown Charlottesville and Carters Mountain sites.
While it is true that closer placement of cellular towers generally permits
towers of reduced height, the height cannot be so low as to obstruct the antenna from
the area of service. Reducing the height reduces the service area and the effectiveness
of the new site to absorb traffic from the adjacent, overloaded sites and only
necessitating additional sites.
Figure 5 is a study showing the predicted coverage achieved from the Avon
site by employing the proposed tower height of 80 feet AGL. The study clearly shows
that the Avon site will be able to absorb cellular traffic from parts of U.S. Interstate
64 and State Route 20. Figure 6 shows the predicted coverage with the tower height
reduced below the tree line to 60 feet AGL. Clearly, reducing the height to 60 feet
negatively impacts the effectiveness along U.S. Interstate 64 and greatly limits the
ability of the site to absorb cellular traffic from those areas.
DENNY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON, DC [ iTACHMENT I I
Engineering Statement Page 8
Albemarle County, Virginia
STATE OF THE ART
It is all too often asserted that new technologies will soon make cellular
telephones obsolete. Some of these technologies include Personal Communications
Services (PCS), Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR), and satellite telephones.
PCS and ESMR are similar to cellular in that they employ towers to provide service to
their licensed coverage area. Satellite based systems generally propose to use
numerous low earth orbit satellites (LEOS) to provide global coverage. All of the newly
proposed satellite systems will employ dual mode phones. This means that the phones
will first attempt to use a terrestrial based connection like cellular, PCS or ESMR
before connecting to the satellite. Satellite based systems are extremely ambitious
projects which have not been fully developed or deployed. The satellite based operation
of these systems adds increased cost to the purchase and operation of a satellite phone.
In contrast, cellular is an existing mature system which currently is serving the public
need and necessity at a reasonable cost.
The U.S. Congress recently recognized this public service by assuring that
one type of wireless service is not discriminated over another. Specifically, Section
332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I) of the recently passed Telecommunications Act of 1996 states that:
The regulation of the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities by any
State or local government or instrumentality thereof-- (I)
shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit
or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal
wireless services.
PCS facilities are being entirely built based on portable phones instead of
mobile. There is a clear consumer preference for portable phones over mobile phones
• DENNY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
WASHINGTON, DC 'ATTACHMENT If
Engineering Statement Page 9
Albemarle County, Virginia
in all of the wireless services. Therefore, declaring that mobile phones are sufficient for
cellular systems would clearly impede cellular's ability to compete with new wireless
services.
CONCLUSIONS
360° Communications is proposing to improve the reliability and
availability of cellular service along U.S. Route 29, U.S. Interstate 64 and State
Route 20 in Albemarle County, Virginia. 360° Communications has used reasonable
engineering judgment to select the proposed Hickory and Avon site locations and has
proposed tower heights minimally necessary to achieve the stated objectives.
Alan R. Rosner, P.E.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of May, 1996.
Donna Holzwart
Notary Public, District of Columbia
My commission expires November 14, 1998
• - I ATTACHMENT J
■ ■
30.6 ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT - EC (Added 10-3-90)
30.6.1 INTENT
The entrance corridor overlay district is intended to implement the
comprehensive plan goal of protecting the county's natural, scenic and
historic, architectural and cultural resources including preservation
of natural and scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose; to
ensure a quality of development compatible with these resources
through architectural control of development; to stabilize and improve
property values; to protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to
tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic
benefits accruing to the county from tourism; to support and stimulate
complimentary development appropriate to the prominence afforded
properties deemed to be of historic, architectural or cultural signifi-
cance, all of the foregoing being deemed to advance and promote the
public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the county and
visitors thereto.
30.6.2 APPLICATION
The entrance corridor overlay district (hereafter referred to as EC)
is created to conserve elements of the county's scenic beauty and to
preserve and protect corridors:
-Along arterial streets or highways (as designated pursuant to Title
33.1 of the Code, including section 33.1-41.1 of that title) found by
the board of supervisors to be significant routes of tourist access
to the county; or
-To historic landmarks as established by the Virginia Landmarks
Commission together with any other buildings or structures within the
county having an important historic, architectural or cultural
interest and any historic areas within the county as defined by
section 15.1-430(b) of the Code of Virginia; or
-To designated historic landmarks, buildings, structures or districts
in any contiguous locality.
EC overlay districts may be applied over any basic zoning district
and/or other overlay district. EC overlay districts are hereby
establishedi` (Added 11-14-90; Amended 9-9-92)
a. To the full depth of all parcels of land in existence on the
adoption date of section 30.6 of this ordinance which are contig-
uous to the rights-of-way of the following EC streets in Albe-
marle County; or
-198. 1- (Supp. #68, 9-9-92)
— 1ATTACHMENT K —
I . , r,
a 0, V u b [ n�U 0, .�' 8 »�0, y•U...,. 14 0, 4...
aa' a L.d O y ..b. O ?i.$d O C OW.
c .C O �'C n o d C E „ a �.,- z c u` L c� C , E-� �•C .»� '- I'`� sue•
'C be v v4a bc �.00.Qv ` E
��� ,� aL. `vim I. to d �3 'v•q� sv�°ncY�+ v dP �"c`'-)E z ' e-0 a- • 'a,:}8�1P
C 4*,,, d C.' v v c a." C . tl V 3 , •� 1c y � ..1', r Q D3 0-t �.•v `+•~ Y.
ao0n'~•cC� o g ~•-- n uc a .o >+~'ti a,-Cn 4c0ittbr g`,.ba ~ 'v.CnG'L.
TS
--0'.y �1Y �' • ° tlY •y �� W b•` •O �� �� �y ^'�� ...45‘...-t n n q� ��
V n `s .92 YYYIII
u O 'tt tl b o; c -C b b 0) -9t ,� L v `�.'� b [ C n:. Ic.O O
Y•.., Y b b b v o, 0• ao 'r o g' 4� 0•o �•b t! Q•... O.
y ,, �oc�-o � n ` dv uo d `° ao.cti4b �nbZ c ,.. `-.o � % �;° O ..* v � v u
pY.+'� tl0 ... � O u� v .� b � a ~ C +� O-C••u- 0 p40E u g` C
o bz" t' . c c a.'n• $ gcobuar. .1. .0 ibeE'~ O- 13' o' o
nom;. g yu ub.tl,.., v c.~ O 3.2-,a- V - C", C v.� v - Q'?+ C p. b L. pa
c Y•r C 0 .74 L.;� h 3 0 3 •„~`a;2 -0: 04 :-In °-(2. C C tloC E 4••r nv 3'n a...V„'4 a 'X•.. � 4 h
%�4., v.r'b O s... J n ... a w •.. v b v "6
03VE' . bn X 8, c c'bc I bd b'n r.urc •'~ a �° 5
.. tp,,,�!° �;o0 ana 0.2-- E oq .yn•.g d3yct�v$In• ,C`. � g �,gC30 . §.- ` `� 1 _se
'o.pYnv.~ C L.4 '- rea v .. E. `-�.gv bY. •� `. Yc4: n .o .� v ° 8c�
a ... ,.. ..,-40 ,30 . 4. 4.% .... s, `' z.r .0 . ... . ..n 4 c .." " � ., O P, ,. °p �r . U ,.. c O
o ay.r C'". 0 Cv ` IN3c tzi.4C -[ c bk• .�b a Y 0 er v E ,. < V '�'� b
b yO �, I c '� o� v ...-
.9..,astl�•r [.og5�o� -0' o ` - --tt a e � O•w ° •b3'e00 3cn0.z %°0 M• V.0. a pa,
Cv E �v•�.ob [Yn}�.OZ ° y b y�.V V VA 0.t! 4.a.t�f a E ow,b'a �2 ti. 03 Z C _
P.3 0 E 0 a c u u 0, v •s'� O Y ,� 0 0,•n oY, tl 0-'a' 4 C Y,Y h.
v a�-C a v 0 V
~ vSs•» o, avv0� � .. v.,.. v v» -r b ().kyb4'.o't1-� 0' Ca ° a.0.° ucc,'iti. [ 463 061 u
Q•a aY ,�0-... p. YC 'r.•u Y Y..�Y -0 00 0, hJ. gY 4r43 0-ro.� � nvbn °.�
0� ?,a0 .. ya ",`^„... ,�.V.0 t,`i�O d:.+. [ b � � O O . Ord U
C O ,. �+ 0 CGy eo ... -L. o tl C•OY ., ,Y .u. g
E ?,� c0, b0.rb?' E .2% c.2 -•' °,C u tau ~ vv•- E ° yv acv > V '' �-
c-r•°t�•.. `v .. b'`0V obp, t oa, L' v-� c �ts, ~° 4� � �' ...0....$ L. c0 '�``�'�ro •-, c 0164 u
-.0...Y o u n o•.. Es 8.. r, z .o r n u.0 O�$t" v.c n �' � � n n .~ o �c 0I` � %., c
..0.,c„v Q•u••~+ 0 0 v Y.o a J b b a „to es-,.. 0 v
o b.r n ?;o o c 4., E q � '.. h mac+, o °�°.
Y�n . -c 3�3.v �•° 4C.co,. C1 ... aich 0 � 3-. o C �,
C Y a y O C•~ O c-i
vo 0 '` 1/4_o?'[o`v' -Y a a a 3Y C 3 Q. o o�.y v ° .c
V C`Yy ° o, 30 ,1y 1 • o,t' to . v o uo, L-
b 2
Cv° E �-pC� 4C:; cc i°3o, � 4n �S 4•`.� e po
ea.,.....a b C•,�p.5. d C p .-E.o.=,.� o-d�0 W Pi'
GS L. c, q J y h E Q.
,-+i " aoo L v
!� v y
v °o•. �, C a L y a-0 .y Y�V ai b
Y .C •.'. L L , 0 C a.Y v es v ••Ov•v a ,. ° 1?,O a O, o.
CE:.y� ... y`~
0 .0 " •r V•.�..v y V y a [ v 0 0, Vv J a °•°: i' V
�°.••r a •" C C C 0,`•. 0p Oj •V .1- C •}�.• 01 V .. V c .- Z."........ ° .�S
do L. a•V O v v ..C' C t ...,C cull ° a 1- 0 %) .'. c�y C•`.•.•y 0".--0 h..• Ly'.•.'�. E V O V b
[ Cv °a " O' eEYV 0 {... I 0u`. y`'� .. E vo, ual v ° - V ° ttu-g. z be
O t. O p .t•- �. v C v ^+ .N v y v v Y`1" ��`, tl'a [
o ya,° [ °' u C u ?,.y4 Vj d b y '� v u.i0, y -C .'�. 0 y�•s 4 0.. ., [ a .
V• y.0 O ,i a C ,. O . J a b b. Y y 0 y a c°, DO y V,. v V ... L
.[ �b tl O 4y el C a ,�• Z-0� Q C.O'� y y•C p, .4 3 �.r O: O y •� z j.43 C V•j O L.,-
tui
c,-.0 u 0ia`�` W O q.. L' 0) v ?,a 4 0vCYZ! v d 0 L. q`tC
0 r 0 ate„ O ° CI"se E:It, ", a•.• ° a v, CO l .0 a r , q.,.•� C C 0 v co y is .:vY O v, o 4 CY V C Y d 0,_ a L .a y 0, V
O p0`YC [ 1yCC' LSE < Ct-z: E ,u. uuC Oa O , C�� ° , ,u. O ao a [ t~ y yC
-C ° „ ay.. ao, O v•.. •.. v y [ o o, o, a c W vy O
[ v -0 �, 0 00 -- E-r ao 4 v C O, v ?,aUU u0- 14i
° e,..0•,V.b a0 C b'b .0 u to a .. C 3 C ..`� " ,.oh•E a a r 0,a a-C�•: c� 00, •r W'rt. q�^+ p, C +. .. .o o C u9w9�, o °' o C.. Y ce
t. O u - 4Y.4 g E C O-, N I•v o. 0 C 0 C o o 0 �-0.0 v C 0. o °i-4tl e C t•Y C n ?, 3 tl ° a .'t! r Q b,o'� c o O `� +.•0 v pa r J• •.. a 0 0 4[ ' d - oO °� a� ao$ oa'•�. [ Y ° a Cb n .pv � b» aoY, �.., ^C
Cva.: y,:4a.tii' y0 F,C'�-rs��. o vya Cq 6aOOvO [ gtiuC ~ - a JVO
4, a v c L. 0 to; 0 c� b 4 4 F. a o.. ... v •-. [ b'~ u a-[ 4a 3•..•3 Cy'b
,.. J , o ,r.CO.0 is gVe0 . ., ,; C• a "..•b v ° ,. a3a • aib0�v b
Caa ` a ,v..' qq��c, a VjoQ < qno °•o cL. a•-. a� o of °p ° vows'~
3 'c•'c °.-, a 0 r 0 C u•.o" p �y ° . o -C u u v ti ou, [ .Y01 L
C ?,daYy°�+ .+ b�.� a0 -CCU °: ,. br Ca V 1.*
Is 'b l•a.a0.o`.�[ O t.a `�~ n. o „Y ,fig ~ 0c q, n... o.o
J� n � o0ac n °o ..�, 4< Wocq �•-- < 40.12 X04 ti» vn•.. ,.•-- , �C 3a� a V
o [ it' c p 45 L. �... a> � c 'g Er•~v� c a :a 0 y�c.- � E .c.2 ` 4C'y• .vr
Q.a.'v•..V.ta+ uyti d'0 a 3 a`. �V•ryJ Ns C o v o .,•��" 031344 av V �Y [ 0-- 0e- 4„;
c C d. . V b y V 01 O 1 O, -0 v
�. a,. q eN 40 0 v` L.4— Y 0-0 V.3 ,.� .r C
.0 0� ZM a -i 'ti tl O.•~. v y v Y O
-0 b 513.2 C:: C E b 4c C •. OCI•C Q 1. ?,�ti .... 1-- < V:. b�u� C.w� U` �` �' y
.r ' .e CS 30.= p� 00•-.11,• 3y
°pau pp a't! [ n�.� cY < c. o3� tlCLC a y'".4000- L 0.° " t,° Y1, ?, `0
,.•0 042 c OY•2 O.. <.2. E 0 4u OY 4 O 0 U y C 01,
b•..... o oiQ $ c-,... e Yom .r, .o 0 0 0.40 CT
�� ° � P 0. bo .n� r C'S b ro .mac
2
r 1./1j,J
ATTACHMENT Li
�lllt
Or�®III
L r
��FtGIN�P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
May 9,
Tremblay& Smith, LLP
do M. E. Gibson, Jr
P. O. Box 1585
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP-96-04 Sprint Cellular(Avon Site)
Tax Map 91, Parcel 1
Dear Mr. Gibson:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 7, 1996, unanimously
recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on June 12, 1996. Any new or additional information
regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least
seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
/27d4—
William D. Fritz
Senior Planner
WDF/jcf
cc: Ella Carey Jo Higgins Amelia McCulley
1
SP-96-04 Sprint Celli r(Avon Site) - Petition to allow a 10' coot tower and an a
equipment building on portion of 9.536 acre parcel zoned 1,-1, Residential. Property, —1
• • • described as Tax Map 91, parcel 1, is located on the east side of Avon Street Extended n
(Rt. 742), north of Cale Elementary School, on property developed with a water storage =
tank in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The property is within Urban Neighborhood 4
and is designated.for medium density residential use. Deferred from the March 26, m
Z
1996 Commission meeting. -I
r
Mr. Fritz called attention to a change in the staff report. He explained: "This site is
proposed for a 100-foot tower and the water tank is 47 feet in height. The tower doesn't
meet the setbacks. We were recommending that it be moved to meet those setbacks. t°
co
Based on additional information received from the Service Authority, if the tower is r•�
moved it may interfere with the future use of that site for future water tanks or lines or
other Service Authority related activities. Therefore, based on that new information we
can support the reduction in the setback with the standard condition that in the event of
a tower collapse that it fall within the leased area. That is a substantial change from the
prior position. (However), we are still recommending denial of the application, but if you
choose to approve it we can recommend approval of the modification of the setback."
Staff'was recommending denial of this request based on the finding that "the change in
the character of the EC district and the impact on dwellings in the area outweigh the
convenience provided by cellular telephones."
Mr. Gibson, again representing the applicant, asked for a deferral of the item. Mr.
Kamptner advised the Commission: "The rules of the Planning Commission provide
that no matter may be deferred at the request of the applicant unless the request is
received by the secretary no less than one week prior to the meeting at which the
matter is scheduled to be heard. You can take an independent action, but the
applicant's request is untimely at this point."
Public comment was invited. None was offered. The matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Huckle said she felt this request should also be denied until a comprehensive plan
for tower sitings has been developed.
Mr. Dotson noted a;difference in this site from the previous one is that this one is not in
a mountain protection area, but there are many more existing residences near this
location, including a school. In that respect the impact is potentially more significant
and without a master plan there is no way of knowing if there is a way to avoid those
adverse impacts.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that SP-96-04 for Sprint
Cellular (Avon Site) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial based on
those reasons stated in the staff report as follows:
1. Approval of this tower will change the character of the EC district.
2. The visual impact created by the tower may be considered a detriment to existing
dwellings in the area.
Th-' motion for dr'nial p''c d i snanimni sly.
— ATTACHMENT M
• ■
•
Dominion Crane & Rigging, Inc.
P.O. Box 7324
Charlottesville, VA 22906
March 21, 1996
William D. Fritz
County of Albemarle
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
RE: Sprint Cellular Antenna
Dear Bill:
In response to your letter dated March 20, 1996, I would like to go on record as NOT
being in favor of the proposed Sprint Cellular antenna. I am opposed because of its
excessive height and objectionable appearance.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards,
c(
W.K. Heischman, President
Dominion Crane & Rigging, Inc.
f
MAR 2 .5 1996
` 4 ATTACHMENT M — ..
•
{Page 21
'4;7 u ' y ;;..
/-91 pS-91.%mmc7on. l.l.&'i 0 1 179.,
///t.Jrm
9373 Old mountain//rountain Poad
e,monl, V. A 22937
To: Albemarle Planning Commission
From: Ida Simmons
Re: Cellular Phone Towers
I support the addition of cellular phone towers in all areas of Albemarle County.
As a newcomer who loves the rural setting, I hope we do not pave over our mountains and fields.
But the occasional tower at the top of a mountain is hardly noticed.
From our house,we cannot see another house--which we love--and we can see about three towers,
' which we don't notice at all.
I hope you will support the additional of communications towers throughout the county. The
increased communciations capabilities make our county safe.
s2 a S 6