HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200600083 Legacy Document 2006-09-12o� arm
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SDP 06 -083: Alltel —
Staff: David Pennock, Margaret Maliszewski
Christian Aid Mission (Adams)
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
September 16, 2006
N/A
Owners: John Adams
Applicant: Alltel Communications of Virginia
Acreage: 140 Acres
Rezone from: Not applicable
(Lease Area: 0.01 Acres)
Special Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: Tax Map 59, Parcel 20
By -right use: RA, Rural Areas and EC,
Location: At the terminus of Verdant Lawn
Entrance Corridor Zoning
Lane (private) near its intersection with Ivy
Road (Rte. #250)
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller
Proffers /Conditions: No
Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: N/A
DA - X RA -
Proposal: Proposal to install a Tier II
Comp. Plan Designation: Open Space in
personal wireless service treetop facility
Urban Area Neighborhood 5
with 107 -foot tall steel monopole tower
Character of Property: Undeveloped field
Use of Surrounding Properties: Single -
and forest including an existing Tier -II facility
family Residential and Agriculture
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Because the access has already been
1. From vantage points on several adjacent
established, no clearing or significant
streets and properties, the proposed
grading is necessary for installation of the
height of 670.5 feet rises above the
facility.
treetops with no wooded backdrop,
2. The lease area for the ground equipment
causing the balloon to be skylighted.
and monopole is not located on critical
slopes or other significant features
identified in the Open Space Plan.
3. ARB has approved the location based on
lack of visibility from the Route 250
Entrance Corridor.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has recommended that this facility located 10 feet above the
tallest tree within 25 feet would have adverse impacts on adjacent and nearby resources.
However, if this facility was limited to 7 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet the impacts
would be mitigated to an extent that staff could support this proposal.
STAFF CONTACT:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
AGENDA TITLE:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
David E. Pennock, AICP; Margaret Maliszewski
September 19, 2006
SDP 06 -083: Alltel — Christian Aid Mission (Adams)
John Adams
Alltel Communications of Virginia
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal to install a Tier II personal wireless service treetop facility (Attachment A).
The proposed facility consists of a 107 -foot tall steel monopole, painted matte brown with an
approximate top elevation of 670.5 feet, measured above sea level (ASL). The proposed
monopole will be 10 feet higher than the identified reference tree located 22 feet west of the
lease area. The monopole will be equipped with an array featuring three (3) flush - mounted panel
antennas, approximately 6 feet long by 11 inches wide. Supporting ground equipment will be
contained within two (2), 65 inch tall cabinets at the base of the tower, which will also be painted
matte brown.
The lease area for the proposed facility is located on property described as Tax Map 59, Parcel
20, which contains approximately 140 acres and is zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance
Corridor (Attachment B). The site is located at the terminus of Verdant Lawn Lane (private)near
its intersection with Ivy Road (Rte. #250), in the Scottsville Magisterial District.
This application has been submitted in accordance with Section 10.2.1(22) of the Zoning
Ordinance, which allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in the Rural Areas.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Open Space in Urban Area Neighborhood 5.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The site of this proposed facility is halfway up a long slope in a moderately wooded area 70 feet
from an existing tower. Both the existing facility and the proposed tower site obtain access from
a drive within a 20 -foot wide easement extending beyond the end of Verdant Lawn Lane
(private). Verdant Lawn Lane is on the north side of Ivy Road (Route 250), 0.6 miles east of the
existing West Leigh Subdivision. Ivy Road is an entrance corridor.
The parcel includes a residence with outbuildings and other farm structures. All properties
adjacent to the subject parcel are zoned Rural Areas (RA). The nearest dwellings to this site are
1000 feet away off Kearsage Circle on the south side of Ivy Road.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP 00 -052 Triton PCS Approval granted for request to install a 91 -foot tall wooden monopole
tower with associated equipment cabinet. This tower is still in place and will remain after
installation of the new facility.
SP 03 -016 Triton PCS Modification to previously approved SP in order to change to new ground
equipment.
2
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 3.1 provides the following definitions that are relevant to this proposal:
Tier II 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.
Section 5.1.40(d), "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 D).
The Architectural Review Board has reviewed this request for compliance with the County's
design guidelines for the entrance corridor and recommended approval.
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) and 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.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities 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.
The proposed facility includes a monopole that would have a height of approximately 670.5 feet
above sea level (ASL). The height of the reference tree ( #94 on tree survey) is approximately
660.5 feet ASL and is located 22 feet west of the proposed monopole. The trees within 50 feet
of the proposed tower have an average height of 638 feet ASL. The existing Triton monopole
tower has an approximate height of 661 feet ASL. During the site visit, staff observed a test
balloon that was floated at the approximate height of the proposed monopole. The balloon was
visible from several vantage points. Visibility from Route 250 was limited to just a few spots and
was otherwise mostly screened by trees closer to the road. However, from some places on West
Leigh Way and Grassmere Circle, the balloon was much more visible (Attachment E). The site
of this facility is located at or above the elevation of these roads. Thus, other trees will not
provide an effective backdrop for this monopole at the proposed elevation. In many of these
locations, the screening of the tower is dependent on the landscaping adjacent to the road, rather
than around the tower.
Based on the information above, it is staff's opinion that the proposed facility will be visible
from adjacent parcels and streets in some locations.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county's
open space plan.
Staff's analysis of this request addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic
resources. The proposed lease area is not delineated as a significant resource on the Composite
Map for Urban Areas 5 and 6 (Attachment F). In addition, the installation of this tower within
the 400 square foot lease area will not require the removal of any existing trees, according to the
applicant. Therefore, staff believes there is no significant loss of resources related to the
installation of the tower.
The County's wireless service facilities policy encourages facilities with limited visibility,
facilities with adequate wooded backdrop, and facilities that do not adversely impact Avoidance
Areas (including Entrance Corridors and historic resources). The proposed pole is expected to be
visible for a relatively short period of time when traveling on Route 250 (an entrance corridor).
The degree of visibility is not expected to have a negative impact on the EC based on these
findings. The Architectural Review Board has approved the location with one condition
(Attachment G). Therefore, staff feels the visibility of the monopole will not adversely impact
the resources of the entrance corridor or historic districts.
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 is an existing personal wireless service facility located approximately 70 feet northeast of
the lease site for the proposed facility.
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 a base
dimension of 27 inches and top dimension of 14 inches. These dimensions comply with the
maximum width requirements for treetop monopoles serving Tier II facilities.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top 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 grading 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).
As mentioned previously in this report, the proposed monopole that would have a height of
approximately 670.5 feet above sea level (ASL). The height of the reference tree ( #94 on tree
survey) is approximately 660.5 feet ASL. The trees within 50 feet of the proposed tower have an
average height of 638 feet ASL. The existing Triton monopole tower has an approximate height
of 661 feet ASL. In addition, the site of this facility is located at or above the elevation of some
adjacent roads. Thus, depending on the vantage point of the viewer, other trees will not provide
an effective backdrop for this monopole at the proposed elevation. Without a wooded backdrop
for the top portion of the pole, the adverse impact of skylighting is a possibility. It is staff's
opinion that there would be a material difference in the adverse impacts at the proposed height,
compared to a height that would be seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within 25 feet.
Therefore, a modification allowing the proposed monopole at 10 feet above the reference tree
would not be appropriate in this case.
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 ground 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: (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 any other
parcel or a public or private street.
The applicant is proposing the installation of a facility with a metal monopole. The proposed
color for the tower and for the support cabinets is a brown paint that has been used previously in
Albemarle County. A note on the construction plans identifies the proposed flat dark brown
color of the antennas, ground equipment, and antennae for this facility as Adirondak - Number
5
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 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 vertical wires
extending from the ground equipment to the antennas shall be contained within the monopole
structure.
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(I1) 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.
The applicant has indicated that two alternative sites in this area have previously been reviewed
for similar facilities. In one of the cases, the concept of a stealth flag pole installation was
withdrawn prior to action. In a second case, the installation was approved, but construction was
not possible due to technical problems. Finally, the existing tower on this site was approved at a
lower elevation, and is still in use. 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:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. Because the access has already been established, no clearing or significant grading is
necessary for installation of the facility.
2. The lease area for the ground equipment and monopole is not located on critical slopes
or other significant features identified in the Open Space Plan.
3. ARB has approved the location based on lack of visibility from the Route 250 Entrance
Corridor.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
on
From vantage points on several adjacent streets and properties, the proposed height
rises well above the treetops with no wooded backdrop, causing the balloon to be
skylighted.
Staff has recommended that this facility located 10 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet
would have adverse impacts on adjacent and nearby resources. However, if this facility was
limited to 7 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet the impacts would be mitigated to an extent
that staff could support this proposal.
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:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Applicant Justification Letter
D. Balloon photos at proposed location
E. Balloon view from selected roads in adjoining subdivision
F. Composite Map from Open Space Plan
G. ARB action
7