HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200500134 Staff Report 2006-02-09STAFF PERSON: STEVEN TUGWELL, PLANNER
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 31, 2006
SDP 05 -134 HUDSON (ALLTEL) - TIER II PWF
PROPERTY OWNER: Douglas D. & Sterling M. Hudson
APPLICANT: Tremblay & Smith (Peter J. Caramanis)
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal to install a Tier II personal wireless service facility (Attachment A). The facility
would consist of an 87 -foot tall steel, treetop monopole equipped with an array containing three
(3) flush - mounted panel antennas. These antennas would measure approximately 4 feet long by
11 inches wide, and be painted matte brown to match the monopole. Supporting ground
equipment would include two (2) cabinets, also painted matte brown, both standing 5 feet 6
inches in height. The four - hundred (400) square foot lease area for the proposed facility is
located on property described as Tax Map 76 - Parcel 21A, and is zoned RA, Rural Areas and
EC, Entrance Corridor (Attachment B). The site is located at the north end of Teel Lane (State
Route 1106), approximately 0. 15 miles from the intersection of Interstate 64 and U.S. Route 29,
in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Open Space in Urban Area 5.
This application has been submitted in accordance with Section 10. 1.22 of the Zoning Ordinance,
which allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in the Rural Areas.
Character of the Area:
The site of this proposed facility is a lightly wooded location approximately 800 feet southeast of
Interstate 64, approximately 16 feet below the road surface of the Interstate 64 east exit ramp.
Access to the facility would be provided from the north end of Teel Lane, and then onto a twenty
(20) foot ingress /egress easement beginning on the proposed facility property. The adjacent
parcel to the southwest is zoned Planned Residential Development (PRD). The Southern Railway
Company railroad lies adjacent to the south of the proposed site. The remainder of surrounding
property is right -of -way for Interstate 64. The nearest dwelling to this site is the Kirby residence,
which is approximately 500 feet away to the west, and is identified as Tax Map 76- Parcel 21.
The Sherwood Farms residential developments is located across the railway, south of the
proposed facility. The 76.8 foot tall oak reference tree that is being used as the basis for the
requested monopole height is located within 25 feet of the proposed facility site, and has a
surveyed top elevation of 521 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).
Planning and Zoning History:
Staff has not discovered any Planning and Zoning related history on the subject property.
1
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 3.1 provides the following definitions that are relevant to this proposal:
Tier H personal wireless service facility: A personal wireless service facility that is a treetop
facility not located within an avoidance area.
Treetop facility: A personal wireless service facility consisting of a self - supporting monopole
having a single shaft of wood, metal or concrete no more than ten (10) feet taller than the crown
of the tallest tree within twenty -five (25) feet of the monopole, measured above sea level (ASL),
and includes associated antennas, mounting structures, an equipment cabinet and other essential
personal wireless service equipment.
Avoidance area: An area having significant resources where the siting of personal wireless service
facilities could result in adverse impacts as follows: (i) any ridge area where a personal wireless
service facility would be skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural and forestal district; (iii) a
parcel within a historic district; (iv) any location in which the proposed personal wireless service
facility and three (3) or more existing or approved personal wireless service facilities would be
within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two
hundred (200) feet; or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any state scenic highway
or by -way.
Report Outline:
This application requires two actions by the Planning Commission.
1. The Commission must act on a modification to reduce the setback for the proposed
tower. This will be a modification of Section 5.1.40b2
2. The Commission must act on the wireless application in accord with Section 5.1.40. If
the Commission does not approve the modification of setback, the wireless application
does not meet the requirements of the ordinance.
Modification of Setback:
Section 5.1.40b.2. of the zoning ordinance states:
"The a eng� t may authorize a facility to be located closer in distance than the height of the tower or
other mounting structure to any lot line if the applicant obtains an easement or other recordable
document showing agreement between the lot owners, acceptable to the county attorney
addressing dg evelopment on the part of the abutting parcel sharing the common lot line that is
within the facility's fall zone ".
The proposed tower is 87 feet tall. This requires the tower to be setback from the property line a
minimum of 87 feet or the applicant must obtain an easement from the adjacent property,
Southern Railway Company. The tower is setback approximately 28 feet and the applicant has
not obtained an easement from Southern Railway Company. The applicant has submitted a
written request to modify section 5.1.40b. of the Zoning Ordinance, and has submitted an
engineer's certificate supporting the request (Attachment Q.
2
Section 5.1 a allows the Planning Commission to waive or modify any section of 5.1 upon finding
that such requirement would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the
public health, safety, or welfare; or that a modified regulation would satisfy the purposes of this
chapter to at least an equivalent degree as the specified requirement.
Modifying the requirement of section 5.1.40b. would forward the purposes of this chapter due to
the minimal impact created by the monopole setback setback 28 feet from the property line, in
conjunction with the additional distance to the railway. Staff does not believe that a monopole at
the proposed location would negatively impact public health, safety, or welfare, if there was a fall
event. Staff is of the opinion that a modified regulation of section 5.1.40b. would satisfy the
purposes of this chapter to at least an equivalent degree as the specified requirement because the
proposed facility is designed to collapse within the fall zone, and well outside of the railway. In
consideration that the proposed facility would not be a detriment to the health, safety, or welfare,
staff recommends approval of this modification.
Section 5.1.40(d), entitled "Tier II facilities" states:
"Each Tier II facility may be established upon commission approval of an application satisfying
the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and demonstrating that the facility will be installed and
operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter, criteria (1) through (8)
below, and satisfying all conditions of the architectural review board. The commission shall act
on each application within the time periods established in section 32.4.2.6. The commission shall
approve each application, without conditions, once it determines that all of these requirements
have been satisfied. If the commission denies an application, it shall identify which requirements
were not satisfied and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement."
The applicant has submitted an application that satisfies the requirements set forth in Section
5.1.40(a) and performed a balloon test at the location of the proposed facility (Attachment E). At
it's January 17, 2006 meeting, the Architectural Review Board reviewed this request for
compliance with the County's design guidelines for the entrance corridor and moved for approval
of a Certificate of Appropriateness with staff recommendations (Attachment D).
Section 5.1.40(d)(1): The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) and subsection
5.1.40(c)(2) through (9).
Staff has determined that the proposed facility's location complies with all of the exemptions of
Section 5.1.40(b). The proposed equipment meets all relevant design, mounting and size criteria
that are set forth in Section 5.1.40(c)(2) and (3). The remainder of subsection (c) provides
requirements that are subject to enforcement if the facility is approved.
2. Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adeauate olmortunities for screening and the
facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless
of their distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river
or a national park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the
facility also shall be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the
facility would be located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space
easement, the facility shall be sited to so that it is not visible from any resources
specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement.
3
The proposed facility includes a monopole that would have a height of approximately 531 feet
above mean sea level (AMSL). The proposed tower site is not immediately surrounded by a
dense blanket of trees and vegetation. However, a significant number of trees and vegetation are
present west /northwest of the site, which made the balloons virtually undetectable from U.S.
Route 29. During a field visit, staff observed that a bouquet of red, heart shaped balloons floated
at the height of the proposed monopole was slightly visible from the exit ramp onto Interstate 64
East (Attachment E). Staff believes the location in which the balloons were observed may not
represent the top of the proposed monopole height, due to windy weather conditions on the day
the test was conducted. Staff believes later observations more closely reflect the proposed tower
height (when it was not windy). During the subsequent observation, balloons were visible from
the exit ramp and from a location along Interstate 64. However, when this site was viewed from
other locations outside of the property, including points along U.S. Route 29 and Teel Lane, the
balloons were not visible.
This site is not located on property that is subject to a conservation easement.
Based on the information above, it is staff's opinion that the site for this proposed facility provides
adequate screening of the facility, though the balloons were visible from points along Interstate 64
and the exit ramp leading onto Interstate 64 East. Staff recognizes that the balloon test was
performed in winter, and anticipate's a substantial presence of tree canopy at other times of the
calendar year.
3. Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely pact resources identified in the
county's open space plan.
Staff recognizes the high degree of historic interests and resources in the broader area, but has
identified no specific historic resources within the vicinity of the proposed facility, nor any
negative visual impacts the facility would create as a consequence of approval. Because the
ground at this site is level and access has already been established, no clearing or significant
grading is necessary for installation of the facility. The balloon test indicates that the monopole
would only appear as a minor feature among the treetops and would have limited visibility from
most locations outside of the boundaries of the subject parcel. This is mainly a result of the
presence of dense forest on west /northwest border of the proposed facility site. Therefore, it is
staff's opinion that this facility would not impose any significant visual impacts upon any
important open space resources.
4. Section 5.1.40(d)(4): The facility shall not be located so that it and three (3) or more
existing or approved personal wireless service facilities would be within an area comprised
of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet.
There are no existing personal wireless service facilities located within a two - hundred (200) foot
radius of the proposed facility. The nearest personal wireless service facility is located
approximately 3,000 feet to the northwest, adjacent to Interstate 64.
5. Section 5.1.40(d)(5): The maximum base diameter of the monopole shall be thirty (30)
inches and the maximum diameter at the top of the monopole shall be eighteen 18)
inches.
Notes on the construction plans for this facility propose a monopole that will have base and top
M
width dimensions that comply with the maximum width requirements for treetop monopoles
serving Tier II facilities.
6. Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The ton of the monopole. measured in elevation above mean sea
level, shall not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall
not be more than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty -five 25) feet of
the monopole, and shall include any base, foundation or rg ading that raises the pole above
the pre- existing natural ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the
commission may be up to ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the commission that there is not a material difference in
the visibility of the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7 ) feet
taller than the tallest tree; and there is not a material difference in adverse impacts to
resources identified in the county's open space plan caused by the monopole at the
proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree. The
applicant may appeal the commissioner's denial of a modification to the board of
supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12).
The proposed monopole would be 10 feet AMSL taller than a nearby 76.8 foot tall oak tree,
identified as number 52 on the applicant's construction plans, and located within 25 feet of the
proposed pole location. It is staff's opinion that the cumulative effects of localized trees and
vegetation, coupled with the presence of backdrop, create no material difference between a
monopole seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree, and the proposed monopole ten (10) feet taller
than the tallest tree within 25 feet.
7. Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color:
each metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to blend into the
surrounding trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to
the monopole shall be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The r° ound
equipment, the ground equipment cabinet, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that
closely matches that of the monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the
concrete pad need not be of such a color if they are enclosed within or behind an approved
structure, fagade or fencing that: hat_(i) is a color that closely matches that of the monopole;
(ii) is consistent with the character of the area; and (iii) makes the ground equipment and
concrete pad invisible at any time of year from M other parcel or a public or private
street.
The applicant is proposing the installation of a facility with a steel monopole. In accordance with
Section 5.1.40(a)(4)(d) the applicant has provided a sample paint chip and a note on the
construction plans identifying the proposed flat dark brown color of the antennas, ground
equipment and pad for this facility as Adirondak - Number SW2020, manufactured by Sherwin
Williams.
Section 5.1.40(d)(8): Each wood monopole shall be constructed so that all cables, wiring
and similar attachments that run vertically from the ground equipment to the antennas are
5
placed on the pole to face the interior of the property and away from public view, as
determined by the agent. Metal monopoles shall be constructed so that vertical cables,
wiring and similar attachments are contained within the monopole's structure.
Schematic drawings provided in the construction plan packet indicate that the contractor shall
coordinate location of antenna mounts and coaxial cable support. The applicant shall be
responsible for indicating that the monopole will be constructed so that vertical cables, wiring and
similar attachments are contained within the monopole's structure.
9. 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.
The Telecommunications Act addresses concerns for environmental effects 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 Commissions' regulations concerning such emissions." In order to operate the proposed
facility, the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. These
requirements will adequately protect the public health and safety.
No additional information has been provided to demonstrate the availability, or lack thereof, of
any other alternative sites on other properties to serve the areas that would be covered by the
proposed facility at the current site. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the denial of this
application would not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
communication services.
SUMMARY:
Based on the design of the proposed facility and the cumulative observation of the balloon tests,
staff has identified no significant, unfavorable visual or environmental impacts that would result
from the approval of this request as currently proposed. Therefore, staff recommends approval of
this request as proposed.
In the event that the Planning Commission chooses to deny this application staff offers the
following comment:
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission is
required to provide the applicant with a statement regarding the basis for denial and all items that
will have to be addressed to satisfy each requirement.
ATTACHMENTS:
C
A - Application, plans and other information
B - Tax and aerial location maps
C - Applicant's request for modification of the fall zone easement and engineer's certificate
D - Architectural Review Board approval letter
E- Staff s balloon test photos
7