Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVA200000019 Review Comments 2000-07-18 STAFF PERSON: John Shepherd PUBLIC HEARING: July 18, 2000 STAFF REPORT VA-2000-19 OWNER/APPLICANT: Alltel Communications, applicant / Richard and Antonia Berman, owner TAX MAP/PARCEL: 72 / 19B (384 Miller School Road) ZONING: RA, Rural Areas, and EC, Entrance Corridor ACREAGE: Lease area of 1 ,200 square feet within a 17.065 acre parcel LOCATION: The property is located in the Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Miller School Road and Interstate 64. TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests relief from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a 75 foot front setback from a thoroughfare public road. A variance of 65 feet is requested to allow a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 90 foot wooden pole and accessory equipment. The pole is proposed 10 feet from the right of way of 164. [In addition to the underlying zoning district setbacks, Section 4.10.3.1 requires that a tower be setback a distance equal to its height. Although the Board of Zoning appeals can reduce the minimum primary structure setbacks required under Section 10.4, the additional setback required based on the height of the tower under Section 4.10.3.1 must be reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commission. Should the PC fail to approve that reduction, the applicant could then choose to request a variance from that section. It will be reviewed as part of the special permit application. This is not before the BZA presently.] • RELEVANT HISTORY: None PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: This 17.065 acre parcel is presently used for agricultural purposes and is under land use taxation. The parcel meets all requirements of the zoning ordinance. There is nothing about the size, shape or topography of this parcel to qualify it for a variance. (The property adjoins 19C which is a 3.3 acre parcel containing a barn and a dwelling. These parcels are both owned by the applicant.) There is no hardship as defined by the Code of Virginia. Siting a tower ten feet from 164 will be a convenience for the applicant. The Board of Supervisors has recognized that siting towers is very difficult under current regulations. At their direction and with assistance from consultants, staff has worked to draft the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy. The Planning Commission has considered this draft at work sessions, has conducted a public hearing on the policy and has offered recommendations. A revised document incorporating those recommendations will be presented for approval to the Planning Commission on July 18, 2000. Once the Commission has completed its review of the policy, they will pass it on to the Board of Variance Report, VA 2000-19 2 July 18, 2000 Supervisors. The public hearing for adoption has not been scheduled at this time, but is imminent. If the manual is adopted as it is currently written, this type of tower would be a Tier II tower (out of three tiers) and would require Planning Commission approval, but not a special permit from the Board of Supervisors. The proposed policy enables the Planning Commission to approve modifications of setbacks to locate wireless communication facilities. This request would not require any action of the Board of Zoning Appeals. This acreage receives use value taxation for agricultural and forestal uses. With these uses and the availability of by-right residential uses, there is neither hardship approaching confiscation nor any unreasonable restriction of uses. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: Hardship The applicant comments that the variance is necessary: Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The placement of the tower is carefully selected so the tower can provide adequate coverage while still being concealed among the trees. Movement of the facility to accommodate the setback requirements would put the facility over the hill and on to terrain which could not accommodate the tower. The proposed site allows for adequate coverage and little visibility while remaining faithful to the objectives of the setback ordinance. As stated, staff acknowledges that siting towers in Albemarle County under our current ordinance is difficult. However, staff cannot identify any hardship as described under the Code of Virginia relating to granting a variance. Reasonable use already exists on the property 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: Such hardship is not shared generally among other properties in the vicinity. The hardship is created as the result of finding a site which is able to accommodate the facility and which balances adequate telecommunications coverage and low visibility. Such considerations are not applicable to most other uses, but are unique to telecommunications facilities. The proposed facility satisfies those conditions while preventing undue crowding and minimizing safety concerns. Staff agrees that tower siting has its own unique hardships, however, the hardship is one of the use—telecommunications towers—not of the parcel. There is no hardship related to the land that could be unique. This parcel has plenty of area available for a I:IDEPTIBwlding&Zoning\Staff Reports\VA2000-19 Berman Tower.doc • Variance Report, VA 2000-iv 3 July 18, 2000 variety of uses without a variance. All rural area properties must abide by the setbacks of section 10.4. 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. Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: Authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the character of the district. In fact, authorization of the variance is the best way to prevent detriment in that regard, because the tower is concealed by the trees and presents no safety hazards. As it is proposed, the facility has little impact because of its minimal visibility among the trees. Furthermore, even if a tower could be located on the hillside terrain, a substantially taller tower would be required, and the facility would be more visible. Staff finds that locating a tower on this particular parcel in the area noted will not change the character of the district if the surrounding trees are protected. The variance may make it easier for the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to permit a tower in an area that will insure the least possible visibility. 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Since only one of the three criteria has been met, staff recommends denial. However, should the Board find cause to approve the request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. This variance is for the facility described in this file only. Any modification will require new variance review. 2. A tree conservation plan identifying all trees that have a diameter of six (6) inches or greater (measured at six (6) inches above ground) within 75 feet of the proposed tower site shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted with the building permit application for the tower. The plan should note any trees to be removed to make space for the tower and its appurtenances including the driveway. 3. The cutting of trees within 75 feet of both the existing and the new tower shall be limited to dead trees and trees of less than six (6) inches in diameter measured at six (6) inches above ground, except those trees identified on the plans as necessary for the establishment of the towers; 4. Removal of tree limbs of the remaining trees shown on either plan is prohibited unless recommended by an arborist for the health of the tree or required by a public utility. 1:IDEPTIBudding&Zoning1Staff Reports\VA2000-19 Berman Tower doc STAFF PERSON: John Shepherd PUBLIC HEARING: July 18, 2000 STAFF REPORT VA-2000-19 OWNER/APPLICANT: Alltel Communications, applicant / Richard and Antonia Berman, owner TAX MAP/PARCEL: 72 / 19B (384 Miller School Road) ZONING: RA, Rural Areas ACREAGE: Lease area of 1 ,200 square feet within a 17.065 acre parcel LOCATION: The property is located in the Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Miller School Road and Interstate 64. TECHNICAL REQUEST AND EXPLANATION: The applicant requests a variance from Section 10.4, Area and Bulk Regulations, which requires a 75 foot front setback from Route 164. In order to install a 90 foot wooden pole and its accessory cabinets for a telecommunications facility, a front setback reduction from 75 to 10 feet is needed. [In addition to the underlying zoning district setbacks, Section 4.10.3.1 requires that a tower be setback a distance equal to its height. Although the Board of Zoning appeals can reduce the minimum primary structure setbacks required under Section 10.4, the additional setback required based on the height of the tower under Section 4.10.3.1 must be reviewed and acted upon by the Planning Commission. Should the PC fail to approve that reduction, the applicant could then choose to request a variance from that section. It will be reviewed as part of the special permit application. This is not before the BZA presently.] RELEVANT HISTORY: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFYING CONDITIONS: STAFF ANALYSIS: Variance Report, VA 2000-05 2 April 4, 2000 With these improvements, reasonable use has already been established on this parcel. (This type of tower is classified as a primary structure since it is not accessory to any existing use on the property and could be the only use on a parcel.) Under State Code section 15.2-2309, the Board of Zoning Appeals may authorize a variance from the terms of the ordinance when it is not contrary to the public interest, if owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provision will result in unnecessary hardship. Although it is not necessary for the church to have a tower on their property, staff can look at the bigger problem of siting towers. It is considered by some to be an overall hardship for County residents who want mobile phone service. Granting this variance would address that hardship and meet the County's goal of providing mobile phone service for the general public. The Wireless Telecommunications Design Manual has been through a worksession and a public hearing with the Planning Commission and is currently receiving its final formatting revisions. Once the PC reviews the final document, they will pass it on to the Board of Supervisors. The public hearing for adoption has not been scheduled at this time, but is imminent. If the manual is adopted as it is currently written, this type of tower would be a Tier II tower (out of three tiers) and would require Planning Commission approval, but not a special permit by the Board of Supervisors. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION AND STAFF COMMENT: A review of the variance criteria provided by the applicant and comments by staff follows: Hardship The applicant comments that the variance is necessary: Strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. The placement of the tower is carefully selected so the tower can provide adequate coverage while still concealed among trees. Movement of the facility to accommodate the setback requirements would put the facility over the hill and on to terrain which could not accommodate the tower. The proposed site allows for adequate coverage and little visibility while remaining faithful to the objectives of the setback ordinance. 1. The applicant has not provided evidence that the strict application of the ordinance would produce undue hardship. C:IFilesIADOCSIVA2000-19 Berman Tower doc Variance Report, VA 2000-05 3 April 4, 2000 Uniqueness of Hardship The applicant notes: Such hardship is not shared generally among other properties in the vicinity. The hardship is created as the result of finding a site which is able to accommodate the facility and which balances adequate telecommunications coverage and low visibility. Such considerations are not applicable to most other uses, but are unique to telecommunications facilities. The proposed facility satisfies those conditions while preventing undue crowding and minimizing safety concerns. Staff: 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. Impact on Character of the Area The applicant offers: Authorization of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property or to the character of the district. In fact, authorization of the variance is the best way to prevent detriment in that regard, because the tower is concealed by the trees and presents no safety hazards. As itt is proposed, the facility has little impact because of its minimal visibility among the trees. Furthermore, even if a tower could be located on the hillside terrain, a substantially taller tower would be required, and the facility would be more visible. Staff opinion follows that of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in that this `telephone pole"style tower can be located in a treed area and not affect the character of the district. C:IFilesIADOCSIVA2000-19 Berman Tower.doc Variance Report, VA 2000-05 4 April 4, 2000 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Because staff takes the position that an additional primary use is not necessary for reasonable use of the property, we can find no undue hardship and recommend denial. If the Board finds that it is necessary due to the hardship on the general public, we can support the criterion relating to hardship due to the size and shape of the parcel, and recommend approval. We recommend that approval be limited to the current application. C:IFilesIADOCS1VA2000-19 Berman Tower.doc PROPOSED 30' x 40' ATTACH FENCE FABRIC TO HEIGHT OF BRACE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE ALLTEL FACILITY TENSION WIRE WITH HOG- WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS TOP AND BOTTOM SELVAGE RIN1,200 SQ. FT. PROPOSED 8' 24"GC.C.PPROXIMATELY TENSION WIRE7 GAUGE TO BE BARBED CHAIN LINK FENCE rtEt44.gocz G SPRING SET ROD (W/WIRE) I TAUT (TYP ) �- T_�-_^!S_ 70'07'41" E_ 3"MIN. O.D. rn-T I.. ONE TENSION �2'r2 1/4"H COLUMN OR 2 1/2" 40 - -' T' ,¢` 11 GAUGE x �I• f<1RE pJP EACH p.0. POST 00' 1" BEVELED uNE POST(/s GALVANIZED GAUGE MIN.) POST i I ---- STEEL BAND 8'0- / r �- MTH-I BOLT 1 5 8"M/N. O.D.J US GAUGE iffREATTACH CLAMPS TO SE___ AND NUT • (USED TO ATTACH FABRIC ro N" ``' PROPOSED (2) - COLUMNS(6 PER POST) °' ALLTELPROPCOSED NET 7' GATES ' GROUND UNE-�o ----- a ... O 3/8"MIN. ROUND ROD WITH TURNBUCXLEr(NI n O 4.67' `--- TYPICAL SPACING p)�M '� 3,_Q• END, CORNER, LINE BRACE BETWEEN ALL LINE M 3'-6' OR GATE POST POST PROPOSED 2.63' 00 I 10' -- 10' Z nj IDIA. POLE . o N:732 PROPOSED12' CONCRETE F0077NG I TH wIOO ;n ACCESSRD - —UNE POST LINE POSTr012- FEND BRACE 10'5.35' 11.32' '� PROPOSED 4' x 8 °' II: / [ . 4' GENERATOR PAD cn ---_-- STANDARD CHAIN LINK FENCE In / I-' SCALENO 0 D'ICK A JOI�iSON `Z, I EXIST. f co o 16.67' �- 3" MIN o.D. U No. 24761 3" MIN. O.D. .,j� R/W LINE is• I ---- ..: :.::•: ......:..: �;:•::•.::•::•:. '$ �,'ZZ V' c ' r• . : .. . :-• -• :-•- I ❖.: : :. . :: ❖. : *:::❖ :.....:::: I+ ' - - . .: .... • .. ... .. . . ' . Ely — N 70'07'41" W . :........:: :::: o •• : `❖ ::: •::-:•❖ : ::: : :: I : : .. .::..... :$ ...:. .. 1 : : ...EXIST. R/W FENCE :� : • � �:'•' .. .... .. ...... • . •: ..... INTERSTATE ROUTE 64 ::::•.I • .:::: =::.:ii:.::= .1 : . : ':�4. :'•:;: I:;:;:• ::� :-: :: 2"MIN. O.O. -� 8 MIN. ROUND GROUND LINE ROD / 1 -- 14' CONCRETE FOOTING 12 DOUBLE SWING GATE " I-- 12 NO SCALE EXISTING /GROUND f 14. - a. ,41. Pi o. ! , •(I• 6" RIVER WASH GRAVEL Wt.,'ne. .�.n .iPie-i. - " - 1 1 2 DIA. WOVEN NOTE EXISTING LAYER OF TOPSOIL\—COMPACTED CONSTRUCTION TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO ,i .14 SUBGRADE TIMMONS FABRIC PLACING FABRIC & STONE. ACCESS & GRAVEL SITE DETAIL ENGINEERS * ARCHITECTS * SURVEYORS PRINCE GEORGE OFFICE NO SCALE 4411 CROSSINGS BLVD. PRINCE GEORGE, VIRGINIA 23875-1455 TELEPHONE: (804) 458-8685 FAX: (804) 751-0798 DATE: 2-8-2000 SCALE: NTS VA S DRAWN BY: KLS 2wo 119 CHECKED BY:KLS CALL. CHK.: JOB NO.: SHEET 3 OF 3 ALLTEL �► EXH1 ;ITS PRESENTEDTO . 9ZA ).o A 26,D,,,Ol 5 Q u ` — � .�, � - � � pop \ // 1,1� • o • I // I 111 ' f l a •11 _- > /" v �� • o i o/ n r - -� - pop• ?� �. \\ 1 � � CDUN`�V� AS.BCM � RLE a . a.. ,11 x Nak • n SECTION 72