Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200700082 Legacy Document 2007-12-04 (3)o� arm ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SDP 07 -082: Patterson Staff: Gerald Gatobu, Margaret Maliszewski ( Verizon) Tier II PWSF Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Hearing: December 11, 2007 N/A Owners: Roger W. or Patricia W Patterson. Applicant: Cellco Partnership D /B /A Verizon Wireless Acreage: 13.382 Acres Rezone from: Not applicable (Lease Area: 3,600 square feet) Special Use Permit for: Not applicable TMP: Tax Map 71, Parcel 37J By -right use: RA, Rural Areas and EC, Location: Patterson Mill Lane (State Route Entrance Corridor Zoning 824) approximately one mile south of intersection with route 250 (just south of the Crozet exit 107 off Interstate 64) Magisterial District: White Hall Proffers /Conditions: No Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: N/A DA - X RA - Proposal: To install a Tier II personal Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in wireless service treetop facility: the Rural Area 3 proposed facility consists of a 91- foot tall monopole measured above ground level (AGL), painted brown, with an approximate top elevation of 765.0 feet, measured above mean sea level (AMSL). Character of Property: Pasture/ agricultural Use of Surrounding Properties: Single - field and forested land; The site also contains family Residential and Agriculture one existing personal wireless facility. Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: See Report See Report RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this facility at (7) seven feet above the tallest tree. The height approved by the Planning 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 10 feet above the tallest tree. STAFF CONTACT: PLANNING COMMISSION: AGENDA TITLE: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: Gerald Gatobu; Margaret Maliszewski December 11, 2007 SDP 07 -082: Patterson ( Verizon) Tier II PWSF Roger W. or Patricia W Patterson. Cellco Partnership DB /A Verizon Wireless PROPOSAL: This is a proposal to install a Tier II personal wireless service treetop facility (Attachment A). The proposed facility consists of a 91 -foot tall steel monopole, painted with Sherwin Williams Java Brown, which is a matte enamel color that has been previously approved as an appropriate color for Tier II facilities at other sites in Albemarle County. The top elevation of the monopole is 765 feet, measured above mean sea level (AMSL). The proposed monopole will be 10 feet higher than the identified reference tree located 29 feet southwest of the lease area. The monopole will be equipped with three (3) flush - mounted antennas, a two (2) foot long lightning rod, and coaxial cables that will be run within the monopole's interior. Supporting ground equipment will be contained within a prefabricated equipment shelter measuring 12'x30.42'xl0.58' (W x L x H) at the base of the tower. This shelter will be surrounded by a six foot tall screening fence which will also be painted matte brown. The lease area for the proposed facility is located on property described as Tax Map 71, Parcel 37J, which is approximately 13.382 acres and is zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor (Attachment B). The site is located on Patterson Mill Lane (State Route 824) approximately one mile south of intersection with Route 250 (just south of the Crozet exit 107 off Interstate 64) 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 Rural Area in Rural Area 3. CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The proposed site is located on a hillside approximately 120 feet south of the I -64 right -of -way within a wooded area that runs parallel with I -64. There is an Alltel Facility located approximately 80 feet north of the proposed Verizon site. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: SP200000027 ALL TEL/Yancey Mills- On September 13, 2000 the Board of Supervisors approved with conditions the proposed construction of a 90 -foot tall monopole telecommunications tower with three (3) flush - mounted panel antennas. N 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 11 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 has performed a balloon test at the location of the proposed facility (Attachment Q. The Architectural Review Board reviewed this request for compliance with the County's design guidelines for the entrance corridor and recommended approval with conditions (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) 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. 3 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 765 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is approximately 755 feet above mean sea level AMSL and is located within 25 of feet of the proposed monopole. A balloon test was conducted on September 12, 2007. The balloon was flown at a height of 10 feet above the reference tree. The balloon was not visible from Route 250. The balloon was minimally visible from the Interstate 64 Entrance Corridor. When it was visible, it was seen through trees and it was not sky lit. It was visible for a very short period of time when traveling along Interstate 64 eastbound. The red color of the balloon made it more noticeable than a brown pole would be. The pole, in the location and at the height of the balloon that was flown, is not expected to have an impact on the EC. The existing pole on site is considerably more visible than the balloon that was flown. However, even the existing pole is only visible for a very short period of time. Based on the information above, it is staff's opinion that the proposed facility will be minimally visible from adjacent parcels and streets. 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 Open Space Plan Map. The installation of this tower within the 3600 square foot lease area will not require the removal of any existing trees. 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 I -64 (an Entrance Corridor). The degree of visibility is not expected to have a negative impact on the Entrance Corridor based on these findings. The Architectural Review Board has approved the location with conditions (Attachment D). 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 one other existing personal wireless service facility located 80 feet north of the lease site. 2 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 maximum base dimension of 30 inches and a maximum dimension of 18 inches at the top. 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 would have a height of approximately 765 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is approximately 755 above mean sea level (AMSL) or 81 feet above ground level (AGL). The proposed monopole will be (10) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty -five (25) feet (measured at the dripline). The height approved by the Planning 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 10 feet above the tallest tree. Based on the balloon test mentioned above, staff determined that there would be little or no material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the proposed height (10) feet, rather than at a height of 7 feet taller than the tallest tree. 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 screening fence is a brown paint that has been previously used and approved in Albemarle County. A note on the construction plans identifies the proposed brown color of the antennas and ground equipment for this facility as Sherwin Williams Matte "Java 5 Brown" #6090. 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)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 47 U.S. C. 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. 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. 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. 2. The Architectural Review Board has approved the location based on lack of visibility from the I -64 Entrance Corridor. Factors unfavorable to this request include: None. Co RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this facility at (7) seven feet above the tallest tree. The height approved by the Planning 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 10 feet above the tallest tree. 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. Balloon photos at proposed location D. ARB action E. Arborist Report 7