Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA199400012 Review Comments 1994-10-11 STAFF PERSON: Amelia McCulley PUBLIC HEARING: October 11, 1994 STAFF REPORT - VA 94-12 OWNER/APPLICANT: Holiday Trails, Inc. (owner); Sprint Cellular Company (applicant) TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 75/P 47C and 47C 1 ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: approximately 71 acres in total LOCATION: Off Rt. 702 (the road to Ragged Mountain Reservoir), on the north side of Interstate 64 at Camp Holiday Trails REQUEST: The applicant requests a variance of Section 10.4 "Rural Areas Area and Bulk Regulations" in order to construct a cellular telephone communication tower. They propose to reduce the front setback from I-64 from 75 to 21 feet for the construction of a tower and to an 11 foot setback for an equipment building. These are variances of 54 and 64 feet respectively. These are distances to the property line / edge of interstate right-of-way, and not to the edge of pavement for the road. At the present time, the 180 foot proposed tower will be a monopole. Sprint will be leasing an area of 50 feet by 60 feet. They will install within a gravel fenced area the monopole, an equipment building and a generator. This area is located within a wooded area above the lake and adjacent to some outdoor recreation such as tennis courts. It will be accessed by a 12 foot wide gravel road. The cables for the tower will be buried underground along the road. Because the top of the tower will be visible from the Interstate above the trees, this proposal is subject to the entrance corridor overlay district. The type of tower structure, color and the like are under discussion as part of the review by the Architectural Review Board. We will have their comments available to this Board by the October 11th meeting date. This 75 foot front setback is a zoning district regulation for all structures. In addition, for structures which exceed 100 feet in height, they shall not be located closer in distance to any lot line than the height of the structure. This second setback of 1 foot horizontally for 1 foot in height is not before this Board. In accordance with ordinance provisions, a modification request will be considered by the Planning Commission during their review of the Special Permit for this facility. The variance before the Board is a request to reduce the Rural Areas front yard setback. Staff Report - VA-94-12 Page 2 APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION; As cellular phone usage increases, there is a need for additional tower sites. They provide better quality (remove gaps in coverage due to terrain) as well as handle more capacity of customers. The tower must be located within relative proximity to I-64 in order to achieve the coverage objective. Thus, the top part of the tower will be visible from certain portions of the interstate due to the need for the antennae to clear the tops of the trees and attain an elevation necessary to send and transmit cellular telephone signals. This will be true regardless of whether the pole is set back 75 feet from the VDOT right-of-way fence. In other words, this elevation above the trees is necessary, regardless of the setback. If it were required to meet the full 75 foot setback, because the ground drops off, the tower would have to be significantly higher. We will have photos available to illustrate the existing conditions of the property. The applicant's justification also includes the following: UNDUE HARDSHIP This site is the high point on the Holiday Trails property and the land drops off dramatically away from the I-64 right-of-way approximately 70 feet from the right-of-way making construction behind the 75 foot setback impossible. There is a drop off of about 200 feet at a slope of approximately 80 degrees. UNIQUENESS The hardship is not shared by other properties due to the difference in topography. The placement of cellular communication sites is very important. CHARACTER OF THE AREA The adjacent property owner, VDOT, has indicated its agreement to this facility and to the proximity to the I-64 right-of-way fence. There will still be more than a one-to-one fall zone to the edge of pavement. The character of the district will not be affected since the tower will be of minimal visibility from surrounding properties. Camp Holiday Trails owns most of the surrounding property. The adjoining owner, Mr. Goodwin, has indicated his agreement with this proposal. Staff Report - VA-94-12 Page 3 RELEVANT HISTORY; This property is currently subject to three special permits (SP 87-15, SP 90-15 and SP 94- 26). These are unrelated to and do not conflict with the present proposal. STAFF COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION; This use is allowed by special permit approval from the Board of Supervisors. As per policy, that review is pending the variance outcome. Special permit review requires positive findings that a specific site is appropriate for a specific use. Because this variance is specific to this use and is only relevant if the special permit is approved, staff will base the review on the condition of approval. In their review of the special permit, the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors will consider whether construction on this site which necessitates variances, is acceptable. The topography of this County presents challenges to the location of structures such as towers, particularly when they operate by clear line of sight. The nature of this facility leads to locations near major access corridors and population centers. As a result of these two factors, the sites selected are by necessity of higher elevation (or can easily achieve clear line of sight) and are on primary and secondary roads. The other factor more difficult to predict is the availability of a willing landowner to lease space. This site is on the other side of a knoll beside the interstate. This is an area of rock outcroppings along the Ragged Mountains. If the Board of Supervisors finds this to be an appropriate property for a communication tower, there are several reasons this setback is justified. These are as follows: 1. The topography of this property severely restricts development. It rises up from the state road, and beyond the lake is a significant slope. Construction at the required setback would involve substantial grading and tree removal, which could impact the lake below. 2. Construction at the required setback would further impact the area by the necessity of a taller tower to clear the trees. 3. The location of existing improvements (lake, tennis courts, buildings, etc.) eliminate much of the most level land. 4. Most of the facility will not be visible from the interstate. There will be no denuded clearing. This is subject to architectural review for aesthetic concerns. Staff Report - VA-94-12 Page 4 5. Due to the wide right-of-way and the location of the roadway, the proposed improvements will not present any safety conflict such as collisions or fall zone. Therefore, staff can recommend approval for cause: 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Construction at the required setback would lead to excessive grading and clearing, a steep access road and a much higher tower. The topography of this property and location of existing improvements dictates this location. 2. The applicant has not provided evidence that such hardship is not shared generally by other properties in the same zoning district and the same vicinity. These hardships are not shared generally by other rural areas properties which also provide the communication coverage area. Many other properties in this area are not available or would be inappropriate for this non-agricultural and non-residential structure. 3. The applicant has provided evidence that the authorization of such variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and that the character of the district will not be changed by the granting of the variance. The Virginia Department of Transportation has not objected to this proposal and staff is unaware of any substantial detriment to adjacent property. The review of the impact on the character of the district will be undertaken by the Board of Supervisors with the special permit. The location of towers in the rural areas is not uncommon. Staff is unaware of any conflict with agricultural uses on this or surrounding properties. Should the Board find cause for approval, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. This approval is subject to and valid only with approval of the special permit. This does not allow construction of additional structures, including towers, buildings or the like without amendment of this variance. In the event the special permit is denied, this variance shall be null and void.