Architectural Review Board Meeting   7/18/2022

We may need one.

Yeah, we're expecting Frank Hancock.

Hey, Frank, how's it going?

Good.

Hello, everybody.

So it is one o'clock.

I'm calling the July 18th, 2022 meeting of the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board to order.

This meeting is being held pursuant to and in compliance with ordinance number 20-A-16, an ordinance to ensure the continuity of government during the COVID-19 disaster.

The quorum is present.

Architectural Review Board members present electronically are Frank Hancock,

The opportunities for the public to access and participate in the electronic meeting are posted on the Albemarle County website at the Albemarle County calendar.

The public has real-time audio-visual access to this meeting over Zoom and real-time audio access over telephone, both as provided in the lawfully posted meeting notice.

This meeting is being recorded and will be made available on the county's website.

This online meeting is a public record and subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

All speakers, when it is your turn to speak, please first state your name for the record.

Everyone who is participating today, it is good practice to mute your microphone until it is your turn to speak.

Applicants who are making presentations note that your presentation is limited to a total of 15 minutes, which you can divide among your team members.

Carolyn will let us know when the 15 minutes are up.

Yes.

I would like to disclose that I rent property from the Scrooby family who's in the first item on the agenda and so I'll be recusing myself from that discussion.

All right, thanks.

There are no consent agenda items today.

There is one regular review item today.

It is ARV 2022-58 through B Verizon.

I am attempting to share my screen.

IT has improved my computer, so hopefully I won't freeze today.

Give me a second and let's see if we can get this started.

Great.

Okay.

This is a request for a special use permit for a new monopole style cell tower and a related special exception request.

There are three separate actions for the ARB today.

One is an action related to the ground equipment.

Two, a recommendation on the visibility of the monopole.

And three, a recommendation on the special exception request.

The proposed location of the monopole is the property at Tax Map 55, Parcel 14.

That parcel straddles the interstate, but the monopole would be located just south of I-64 and approximately 800 feet east of Greenwood Station Road.

The proposal is to install a 140 foot tall monopole approximately 30 feet and 8 inches from the I-64 right of way.

The pole would be in a 20 by 20 fenced compound, and that would be in a 40 by 40 lease area.

There would be assorted ground equipment, and the equipment would be enclosed by a 10-foot-tall board-on-board fence.

There would be three arrays attached to the monopole, and that includes six antenna near the top of the pole.

A balloon test was held on June 15th of this year to help determine visibility of the monopole, and this slide is a rough markup with a dark blue highlighting representing the distance along the I-64 entrance corridor from which the balloon was visible.

This is a view from the interstate traveling westbound.

The balloon was visible well above the trees without a wooded backdrop, and it was visible for approximately 3,370 feet in this direction.

This is the applicant's photo simulation of the monopole from that vantage point, and it confirms that a significant portion of the monopole would be visible above the trees without a wooded backdrop.

This is the applicant's photo simulation of the monopole as it would be viewed traveling eastbound on the interstate.

The balloon, again, was visible in this direction, was visible for approximately 1100 feet, and the balloon test confirmed that the upper portion of the monopole would be visible well above the trees, again, without a backdrop.

This is a photo from the site near the proposed monopole location, and it's looking out towards the interstate.

The fence that is visible in the foreground of the photo marks the property line, and most of the vegetation is on the other side of the fence, although there are a few trees located along the property line.

The interstate is visible in the photo just beyond the vegetation.

When moving along the interstate,

The vegetation creates a fairly dense screen in the summertime.

The wooden fence that is proposed would help screen the ground equipment and would not be inappropriate in the rural surroundings.

So the ground equipment is expected to be sufficiently screened from here.

Let me make one little adjustment so I can see a little bit better here.

Okay.

The special exception request is to allow a greater distance between the back of the antenna and the face of the monopole.

And just to paraphrase what the ordinance is saying, the ordinance states that the closest point of the back of the antenna can't be more than 12 inches from the face of the pole, and the farthest point can't be more than 18 inches.

In this image, the orange circle shows 18 inches from the face of the pole to the back of the antenna.

The analysis in the staff report did not explain that the 18 inches is not consistent in the proposal.

So there's really a range of distance in this proposed layout.

For example, the red line that is more towards the bottom of the diagram, that red line shows a distance of over two feet from the back of the antenna to the face of the pole.

So the arrangement of antennas as proposed in this diagram

would increase the overall width of the top of the facility.

We have recommended approval of a consistent 18-inch standoff previously in other applications.

We said that the difference between that 12 inches and the 18 inches at the top of the pole would not be readily distinguishable from the street.

However, this proposal is different in that it would increase the overall width at the top of the pole from approximately six and a half feet to about eight feet.

So the recommendation in the stack report is

Still our recommendation, but want to be clear that the consistent 18-inch standoff is not what's being proposed.

So again, there's three actions to take today.

So we have three recommendations listed in the staff report.

One, because the ground equipment isn't expected to be visible and the wooden fence isn't expected to appear out of place in the surroundings, we recommend approval of the certificate of appropriateness for the ground equipment and base station.

Two, because the balloon, when it was visible from the entrance corridor,

was well above the trees and was visible for distances along the I-64 entrance corridor, we recommend that the ARB forward a recommendation stating that the visibility of the monopole will not be sufficiently minimized.

And three, we recommend forwarding recommendation on the special exception request that a consistent 18-inch standoff will not create significant additional negative visual impact as viewed from the I-64 entrance corridor.

All right, thanks a lot, Margaret.

Yes, thanks, Margaret.

What's being proposed?

I don't know what the exact maximum distance proposed is.

I did not have discussions about it, but I believe the layout is what's proposed.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, thanks.

Thank you, Chris, and thank you, Margaret, for the presentation.

Margaret, you indicated that the proposed fence was appropriate for screening.

I think it's more typical to have the wooden screening fence and the equipment painted that Java brown color.

I can't think of a specific example where there was also plants added, but there probably may have been some.

All right.

Thank you very much for that perspective.

I don't have any questions myself.

Hi, good afternoon.

I'm Lori Schweller, attorney with Williams Mullen, representing Verizon Wireless.

Also with me today is Nate Holland, who is with GDN Consultants and is the project manager for this project.

I have a presentation for you, which I'll

Cher,

I just want to provide a little bit of context for our request today.

As Margaret explained, this is the location of the proposed personal wireless service facility on Mr. Scrooby's property, tax map parcel 5514.

And you can see that it's on a larger parcel.

This is primarily used for grazing, and so he wanted to keep it in the corner so that he could continue to use the property for agricultural purposes.

This property to the left here is also Mr. Scrooby's, and that was the location of the site a couple of years ago when we came to the ARB for approval at that time.

And that location is about 740 feet.

The new location, 740 feet east.

of the prior location, which the ARB did find sufficiently minimized visibility from the entrance corridor.

So I just want to explain why we are requesting this new recommendation of approval.

So the ground elevation at the new site is about 33 feet lower than at the original site, which does require a taller monopole.

So back in 2020 and 2021,

When we did the balloon test that the ARB reviewed at that time, there was overwhelming opposition from Septenary Winery based on the visibility from the tasting room and from the vineyards generally.

And wine club members statewide wrote in to community development with opposition about 150 emails in opposition.

There was a recommendation of denial from the Ag Forestal Committee on economic grounds based on the aesthetics in relation to the entrance at Septenary Winery.

There was vehement opposition from Mirador Farm farther to the west based on visibility from there.

The ARB recommended approval because the proposed poll was not visible.

but it was not very, very visible from I-64.

And then we had support from approximately 35 residents in the area who were needing better service, communication services.

So again, this is that location that we originally proposed and the view from Septenary Winery, you can see this is in the winter,

look like that.

That's the photo sim showing you how that monopole would have looked at the entrance with the leaves off the trees.

And this was the view just for context, again, from the Septenary Winery tasting room.

You can see the pole there with the backdrop of the mountain from the tasting room.

And so

Again, the view from I-64, however, was minimized.

The pole was shorter and it was in a higher location to keep it shorter and hidden in the trees.

So following that series of balloon tests and meetings with a lot of public opposition, Verizon continued to work on this site, which is very important.

You can see the site location here in the center

connects sites in Crozet and at the intersection of I-64 and 250 and then further west on I-64.

It's a very important area that needs better service, not only for Greenwood residents, but also for service along I-64 corridor.

So Nate Holland worked very closely with the neighbors to try to find a location that would be more suitable

And like I said, we needed to increase the height because the height moving east above mean sea level ground elevation went down about 33 feet.

So we raised the height of the pole so that it would still be able to provide service to the south over the trees.

So the balloon test we most recently had, to which Margaret referred in her presentation to you,

found that views from Septenary Winery were completely minimized.

And so there's no issue of visibility from Septenary Winery.

Views from Mirador here farther to the west were greatly minimized.

The poll can just be seen, excuse me, the poll cannot be seen at all, but the antennas are just over the treetops, which is in line with county policy.

Unfortunately, however,

The trade-off is that along I-64, which is an entrance corridor, the views are more visible.

And Margaret gave you a good review of those.

You can see going towards Charlottesville there, you can see over the trees, leaving Charlottesville greatly increased over the trees.

And so I just wanted to give you that context to explain the reasons for that change.

From your perspective, you might wonder why did you choose a location more visible from an entrance corridor?

I do have more slides from both balloon tests and other information that could be helpful if you have questions about that.

But that's my presentation.

All right, thanks a lot.

Yes, thank you for your presentation.

So it should, this is Nate Holland.

I'm checking with my engineer.

Normally it should be 18 inches to the back of the antenna.

So I think the drawing is a little skewed.

So I'm asking him to revise that.

Okay.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, I don't have any questions either.

Yes, I have one.

Nancy, please unmute yourself.

You'll have three minutes to speak.

State your name and address if you're affiliated with a group or organization.

Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, my name is Nancy Schlichting.

I represent Hope Burkhardt and Mirador Farm.

I am, which is located in very close proximity to this proposed tower.

First, I just wanted to point out that thus far, we have spoken to quite a few people who were very vocal in the last application.

and they did not know about the balloon test and they are just now learning about that Verizon has submitted this new application.

So in a couple of the other committee meetings, I just want to note that there may not have been as much locality as I believe there is out there and we're going to be submitting that to Mr. Fretz.

I think it's important for this committee to know that this particular location

While it may seem that it's the only logical solution, that just assumes that a cell phone tower needs to be placed in Greenwood.

We do not agree that this is the only viable location that can assist Verizon in increasing its coverage, and we doubt that the coverage and capacity is actually even needed.

But we believe that the entrance corridor is very important to this committee.

We believe it's very important to Charlottesville.

and we believe that the extreme visibility of this cell phone tower along I-64 would detract not only from the corridor but from Greenwood Historical District itself.

ARV will now go into discussion.

Thanks, Chris.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's unfortunate the view heading west, I think is just, you know, in direct opposition to what we're trying to do on the entrance corridor.

At this point, I think, I mean, I'm in agreement with staff's comments really on all three items.

Um, you know, I think just looking at this location heading east, I think is acceptable that kind of level, you know, with the monopole in relation to the existing trees, I think that's kind of the character we're looking for.

So, um,

Thanks a lot, Dave.

Thank you, Chris.

I think, like Frank, I'm in agreement with the staff's assessment.

I think, you know, our county ordinance has done a good job, I think, of screening and incorporating this sort of infrastructure and, you know,

Frankly, I'm a little surprised to see this application because the tower is so visible.

I don't know that I've seen others that have been presented with this level of visibility.

We've certainly appreciated our industry partners and their representatives working within the ordinance.

All right, thanks a lot.

I'm in agreement with my fellow board members and with staff's recommendations on all three.

Yes.

All right.

I'm happy to move to forward the recommendations outlined in the staff report to the agent without amendment.

Mr. Hancock?

Aye.

There is one work session today.

It is on the entrance corridor design guidelines addendum for the university segment of Route 250 West.

Margaret and Mariah, do you have

I'm sure you do have your presentation ready.

Very short presentation today.

We just have this one sheet for you.

This would cover the university section of the, or university segment of the 250 West corridor.

Margaret, we can't see your slide good.

It's not in presentation form.

Really?

Let's try it again.

Hold on.

Let me stop sharing.

Let's try it again.

Great.

OK, sorry about that.

That was totally operator error.

I apologize.

So again, just that the easternmost segment of the 250 West corridor realized that we skipped a few segments in between.

We're still working on those.

We had a couple of complicated segments and we'll come back to you with those next time.

Not immediately.

I may have something.

I'll kind of echo what I've been saying.

I think it looks really good.

The format looks really good.

Just one question or thought.

Is there anything on the south side of this segment, I guess, going into town after you cross 29 that we would want to consider?

I think that's the low stone wall you mentioned.

Just curious if there are any buildings

along this segment or that portion of the segment that are worth reviewing.

And then I'll just add, I do appreciate the replace the photo with the renovated building.

We're thinking of putting in a photo of the building that's on the south side next to the medical building.

Right.

Would that work for you?

The image that has the low stone wall could be amended to move a little bit to show those, the lower

My comment more is just to consider, you know, if there are things that you see maybe in that building, in the Nusant-Taro building, that would help an applicant, you know, if there's something successful or an idea from the guidelines that's demonstrated with that building.

Just to consider there, because I know when you cross 29, a lot of the north side of this is kind of railroad tracks and more distant, you know, not necessarily buildings that front the corridor.

Okay.

All right.

Thanks, Frank.

Yeah, I guess this is sort of along the lines of what Frank was mentioning.

I was just wondering, I mean, I had to look down the corridor again, and I mean, I realize that they're not exactly examples that demonstrate the principles that we'd like to have happen in this corridor, but I guess I just wonder if the three images we show are giving, providing like enough

I don't know, overall context of what actually exists there or a sense of what the character of that corridor is.

I guess I get that there aren't that many great examples in this portion.

But I feel like it's a little light right now on imagery generally for this segment.

And I did kind of want to have a conversation of just what

I think we could do to fill it out maybe if there are other examples of landscaping for instance or if there's I know in some of the previous segments we had used the language like this predates entrance corridor guidelines or something I'm not sure like the historical you know just when some of these developments happened in time relative to the guidelines but

Sure.

Yeah, I think the landscaping is a little tough.

On that north side, you've got the berm and the railroad.

We could get an image that makes that more clear.

On the south side, there aren't a whole lot of examples of standard entrance quarter guidelines frontage landscaping.

Totally.

So that's a little tough.

Well, that was what I was thinking, too.

True, the railroad is between it and the corridor.

And we will have the building in the bottom left.

I don't know if these sections will still be two pages typically.

if there would be any room for other photos.

It seems like maybe the Ednam landscape of Wallen and Planting might be a useful one to include.

White Gables fits into the sort of precedent of entries with landscaping and buildings recessed.

It would include White Gables and

I see.

I'm looking at this incorrectly with the dot.

Yeah, so the examples you just mentioned, they would appear in the other sector.

Not at all.

Yeah.

I think that maybe the interesting thing is I think the portion of Ivory Road east of the bypass is, I don't know what percentage of it, but almost all of it is foundation or UVA or soon will be.

I don't know how many sites there are.

Yes, yeah, I don't know if that, an image of that one might be worth including.

I think that shows up elsewhere in the guidelines or references, but those may be worth including.

OK. Yeah, I guess my only comment would be just to echo what Frank said.

I think that since on building would be a good addition just because it's a relatively recent ARB approved

There might be some elements, sorry to interrupt Margaret, of the town side shopping center that could draw on from materials to building form.

Maybe not the location of the parking, but there are some other things that relate back to the guidelines.

And then one just to Dade's point, Mariah, this might be a graphic clarification.

It might help if maybe you tone down the red on everything west.

I think it will help too when you see them in series that I think this one we jumped, but yeah, we can explore that.

All right, thanks a lot.

And also, I mean, these are still looking really good.

Next order of business is approval of the July 5th minutes.

Great.

All right.

Mr. Van Der Werf?

Aye.

Mr. Matsuno?

Aye.

All right.

Thanks a lot.

The next ARB meeting is scheduled for August 1, 2022.

This will be a virtual meeting.

All right.

We do have three regular review items scheduled for the August 1st date, so it would

All right.

The board will have a meeting in mid-August that will give us some final direction on that.

after that August, I think it's August 17th, something around that date.

I wanna go ahead and let everybody know.

I will probably not be at these meetings in person.

I have recently been diagnosed with breast cancer, but you can't get rid of me that easy.

And we're gonna laugh and we're gonna have fun, but I might have to be remote instead of there with you.

I'm sorry for any inconvenience this will cause for anybody that has to do my stuff for me.

But I wanna let y'all know that this is kind of what's coming in the next couple of weeks.

I hope to start chemo and then surgery and all that fun stuff.

Don't be sad for me.

It's okay.

I've had cancer before and I beat it.

Thank you for sharing, Carolyn.

All your wives and all women should have mammograms yearly.

Every year.

Absolutely.

Thank you all.

Thanks, Carolyn.

All right.

All right.

Thanks.