Rockville Planning Commission
Minutes

 Mayor and Council Chambers
Meeting No. 21-06
November 15, 2006, 7:00 p.m.

The City of Rockville Planning Commission convened in regular session in the Mayor and Council Chambers at 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 15, 2006. 
 

Commissioners Hill disclosed his child’s attendance at the elementary school in this district.  Commissioners Britton and Ostell disclosed their children’s attendance at Julius West Middle School.  There were no objections from the audience.

RECOMMENDATION TO BOARD OF APPEALS

Special Exception SPX2005-00364, Omnipoint Communications CAP Operations, LLC (T-Mobile)

The applicant is proposing to construct a wireless communication facility in the form of a 50-foot tall monopole in the R-60 Zone at Julius West Middle School at 651 Great Falls Road.

Mr. Chasten presented the staff report.  Mr. Chasten presented the background, site description, site use and proposal. 

Mr. Chasten that that the school site is located in the west side of Great Falls Road, approximately 100 feet west of its intersection with Maryland Avenue.  The property is currently home to Julius West Middle School, which was constructed in 1961.  The school is located on approximately 22 acres and is accessed via Great Falls Road.  The site is bounded to the north and east by residential land uses, to the south and southwest by Interstate Highway 270.
The applicant, T-Mobile, wishes to erect a 50-foot tall monopole with antennas affixed at specific locations to receive and transmit cellular telephone signals that will provide greater telephone coverage to T-Mobile customers living and/or those traveling through the site area.  The applicant proposes to install a nine panel antennas affixed to a triangular platform support, mounted at or near the top of the pole.  In an effort to reduce the visual and physical presence of the monopole on surrounding properties, the applicant reduced the height of the proposed monopole from its initial proposal of 70 feet to 50 feet. 

The antenna array to be installed by the applicant would be located at or near equal to the height of the existing trees, currently located in the northwest area of the site.  As proposed, the applicant would be the first carrier to locate and operate from the planned telecommunications facility.  The nine antennas that will be installed on the pole will each measure 54 inches in height, 12 inches in width and 4 inches in depth.  The applicant has affirmed in the information if the pole is designed to accommodate no less than a total of three cellular telephone carriers.

Mr. Chasten noted that the monopole and accompanying ground-mounted equipment compound would be located in the far (rear) northwest corner of the school site.  While the applicant has proposed that the equipment enclosure be secured by an eight foot tall chain link fence, staff recommended as a condition of approval that vinyl slats be interwoven into the chain links of the fence to insure the ground-mounted equipment would be fully screened, and not readily visible to general public.  The vinyl slats would be a sufficient opacity to shield the ground-mounted equipment from the view of the public.   

Commissioner Medearis inquired whether reducing the height of the monopole would increase the RF emission increase. 

The City’s telecommunications consultant, Robert Hunnicutt, (Columbia Telecommunications Corporation) stated that the RF emissions do not increase, but the radiation does increase. 

The Commission further discussed concerns regarding the access road to the monopole, anticipated visits to the site for maintenance of the monopole, and alternative sites to locate the monopole.

Mr. Hunnicutt explained the coverage objective for this site, and described other sites that the applicant had considered. 

Further topics of discussion were:  1) a condition of approval for a light on the pole, 2) health affects from the monopole, impact on the historic homes in the area, and the regulated distance of the monopole from the nearest residential homes. 

Ed Donohue, Attorney presented the application and spoke about other the other sites they considered in the City. 

Nadir Khan, Senior RF Engineer for T-Mobile discussed the gap in coverage in this area. 

Mr. Oakleigh Thorne, Thorne Consultants, Inc. discussed the property value impact report.  He stated that through this study in zip codes 20850 (east side of I-270) and 20854 (west side of I-270) to determine the relationship of residential prices in the subject’s market area to home prices in their study group.  To date, they have not found any loss in property value due to monopoles located in those areas. 

Further questions were raised regarding the access road, considering Tower Oaks area for the monopole before going before the Board of Appeals, capacity problems in the area and frequencies, and dropped calls.

Jules Cohen, Consulting Engineer for T-Mobile answered questions from the Commission regarding RF emission exposure and whether the exposure from RF is accumulative. 

The following citizens testified in opposition to the application: 

1.  Jialu Zhang
2.  Nadir Zumi
3.  Baris Yener
4.  Peter Lovell
5.  Louise Lovell
6.  Mary Tyler Vitol
7.  Eileen Sherr
8.  Bernie Meyer
9.  Eileen Meyer
10. Bruce Perry
11. Carlos Duarte
12. Teddy Ko
13. Helen Hillstrom 
14. Jeremy Tucker
15. Sue Alterman 
16. Marian Hull
18. Bridget Newton
19.  Patricia Woodward
20.  Jessica Esquivel

The concerns and issues raised included the following:  1) potential adverse health risks that the proposed wireless communication facility could have on community residents and neighboring property owners; 2) the imposing visual impact the monopole would have on neighboring properties; 3) the planned facility is an inappropriate commercial/industrial use within a residential community, and specifically on a public school property; 4) applicant failed to adequately consider alternative site locations for the facility; 5) information provided by the applicant was not deemed to be adequate nor comprehensive in its analysis of the proposed land use and its impacts on the community; 6) facility should be located within public Md. State Highway Administration (SHA) right-of-way; 7) the proposed facility would pose a nuisance and/or danger to children playing on the school ball fields in close proximity to the facility; 8) the facility could become a magnet or target for vandalism; and 9) the proposed wireless communication facility could adversely impact the property values of neighboring homes in the site area.

Mr. Donohue discussed the health affects.  He said Montgomery County is doing a reforestation project and would help screen the pole.  There are also alternate sites and he would get back to staff regarding 2600 Tower Oaks and Bank of America sties.   

The Commission concluded its review and moved into the discussion phase of its meeting.  Commissioner Britton noted that the applicant should have provided additional information on alternative sites on which the facility could be located.  It was noted that the site’s ball fields are heavily used throughout the year and, thus, the proposed facility could pose a safety concern when the fields are in use.  Commissioner Johnson questioned the suitability of the use and its impacts on the character of the site area.  Commissioner Hill also noted that he would have liked additional information on alternative sites on which the facility could be located.  Commissioner Ostell noted that the applicant had not fully made the case that the “location selected is necessary for the public convenience” and that such services could not be provided on an alternative property within the subject site area. 

Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Britton to recommend denial of Special Exception SPX2005-00364, Omnipoint Communications CAP Operations, LLC (T-Mobile) to the Board of Appeals based on the following:  1) in rendering its decision, the Commission found that the applicant had not sufficiently made a case to justify the granting of the requested special exception in accordance with the required findings of Section 25-338(2).(d)&(e) and 25-374(c) of the Zoning Ordinance.  It was consensus of the Commission that the applicant had not adequately shown that the proposed land use would not be detrimental to the use of adjacent properties or people living in the neighborhood, or that the character of the site area would not be adversely impacted by the proposed site facility.  The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.  Commissioners Holtz and Wiener where not present for the meeting.

Commissioner Hill noted that he concurs with the motion only on a narrower finding regarding lack of good faith and exhausted effort to find alternative sites of minimal visual impact.  Three sites were recommended to the applicant:  I270 and Falls Road, Bank of America building, and the site mentioned off Seven Locks Road.  Commissioner Hill noted that he did not agree with much of the other findings stated. 
 
COMMISSION ITEMS

Chief of Planning Report

Mr. Wasilak stated that the Planning Commission’s next meeting would be on December 6, 2006.  A joint session with the Planning Commission and the Mayor and Council is scheduled for December 13, 2006.  The session is to discuss issues regarding the Twinbrook Neighborhood Plan and its Design Guidelines. 

Mr. Wasilak reported that the moratorium was approved.  He explained the process and deadline dates for filing new applications. 

FYI

Commissioner Hill pointed out an article from an issue of “Planning Commissioners Journal” regarding cul-de-sacs and that they may be more dangerous to drivers and pedestrians than many planners and residents believe. 

ADJOURN

After further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 10:33 pm.