HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200700092 Legacy Document 2007-11-12o� arm
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SDP 2007 - 00092:
Staff Gerald Gatobu, Brent Nelson
Longbranch Road / Cervenka Property
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
November 20, 2007
N/A
Owners: Charles F. or Brenda Lee Cervenka.
Applicant: Cellco Partnership /Verizon
Wireless
Acreage: 3.064 Acres
Rezone from: Not applicable
(Lease Area: 0.083 Acres)
Special Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: Tax Map 93, Parcel 47N
By -right use: RA, Rural Areas and EC,
Location: 2605 Thomas Jefferson Parkway
Entrance Corridor Zoning
[State Route 53], 115 feet South of the right -
of -way.
Magisterial District: Scottsville
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 4
proposed facility consists of a 104.5 -
foot tall monopole measured above
ground level (AGL), painted brown, with
an approximate top elevation of 504.0
feet, measured above mean sea level
(AMSL).
Character of Property: Flat, wooded area
Use of Surrounding Properties: Single -
off a gravel road that leads to a residence.
family Residential
Factors Favorable: See report.
Factors Unfavorable: 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: Gerald Gatobu; Brent Nelson
PLANNING COMMISSION: November 20th, 2007
AGENDA TITLE: SDP 07 -092: Longbranch Road / Cervenka Property
PROPERTY OWNER: Charles F or Brenda Lee Cervenka
APPLICANT: Cellco Partnership D/B /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 104.5 -foot tall monopole measured above ground level (AGL)
with an approximate top elevation of 504.0 feet measured above mean sea level (AMSL). The
proposed monopole will be 10 feet higher than the identified reference tree located 12.9 feet
from the tower site. The monopole will be painted brown and equipped with an array featuring
three (3) flush - mounted panel antennas, approximately 72.44 "x 6.06 "x 4.13 ". Supporting ground
equipment will be contained within a prefabricated equipment shelter measuring 12' x 30.42' x
10.58' [WxLxH].
The lease area for the proposed facility is located on property described as Tax Map 93, Parcel
47N, which is approximately 3.064 acres and is zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance
Corridor. The site is located at 2605 Thomas Jefferson Highway [State Route 53] approximately
115 feet south of the right -of -way.
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 RA, Rural Areas zoning
district.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area in Rural Area 4.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The site of this proposed facility is relatively flat. The proposed tower site obtains access from an
existing private gravel driveway that starts on the south side of [State Route 53] Thomas
Jefferson Highway and turns east into a wooded area in front of the an existing dwelling. The
nearest off -site dwelling is approximately 480 feet northwest of the proposed tower site.
Jefferson Highway [Rte. 53] is an entrance corridor. There is a residence on the property. All
properties adjacent to the subject parcel are zoned RA, Rural Areas.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
This 3.064 acre property was created by a plat prepared by Residential Surveying Services
(Robert W Coleman) in 2004 and recorded at the clerk's office on June 4th 2004.
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 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 has performed a balloon test at the location of the proposed facility (Attachment
Q. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) 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 conforms with the exemptions allowed
by 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 104.5 feet
above ground level (AGL) or 504 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the
reference tree is approximately 494 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located 12.9 feet
from the proposed monopole. A balloon test was conducted on September 27, 2007. When
visible, the balloon was seen for a very short distance between breaks in foliage near the tops of
trees. The trees did not provide a backdrop for the balloon, so when it was visible, it was sky -
lighted. Although likely to be more visible during winter months, the density of existing tree
trunks, the "Java Brown" color of the monopole, antennas, fencing, and the brown
color /aggregate stone finish of the equipment shelter will continue to limit views of the facility.
This low level of visibility is not expected to have a negative impact on the Route 53 entrance
corridor (Attachment Q
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 tower (personal wireless service facility) will not be visible from Monticello. Kat
Imhoff and Mike Merriam from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation were notified of the proposed
balloon test (Attachment D). An email response from Kat Imhoff confirmed that Mike Merriam
could not see the balloon from the public observation point, therefore, the tower would not be
visible to visitors at Monticello. The proposed personal wireless service facility will not impose
any adverse impacts upon open space resources. Staff believes there is no significant loss of
resources related to the installation of the tower.
The application plan proposes the removal of three (3) existing trees; a 10" Oak will be removed
to allow for the access drive, a 9" Maple and 14" Oak will be removed to allow for the monopole
and equipment shelter. Verification is needed from a certified arborist that removal of the 3
existing trees and the grading and/or digging required to install the concrete piers would not be
detrimental to the health of the trees designated as remaining. The applicant has submitted an
arborist report (Attachment F). A tree conservation plan, with measures limiting the impacts to
existing trees remain will be submitted prior to application for the building permit. The tree
conservation plan will need to be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board.
2
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 53 (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 tower with conditions
(Attachment E). 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 no existing personal wireless service facility located within an area comprised of a circle
centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet.
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 site plan for this facility propose a monopole diameter not to exceed 30 inches at
the base or 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 104.5 feet above ground level or 504 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The
height of the reference tree is approximately 494 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). 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.
5
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 steel monopole. The proposed
color for the tower and for the support cabinets is a brown paint, Sherwin Williams Java Brown
#6090. This color has been applied to previously approved personal wireless service facilities'
monopoles. The prefabricated shelter to be installed at the facility has siding that is a natural
brown color and aggregate stone finish. All equipment associated with the facility will be
screened within the fence.
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.
A note on the site plan indicates that vertical cables, wiring and similar attachments must be
contained within the monopole's structure. All coaxial cables and service lines running vertically
from the transmitting equipment to the antennas will be located inside the monopole.
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.
Co
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The Architectural Review Board has approved the location based on minimal visibility
from the Thomas Jefferson Highway [Route 53] Entrance Corridor.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. From very few vantage points on the adjacent streets [Route 53] the proposed height
rises well above the treetops with no wooded backdrop, causing the balloon to be
skylighted.
2. Three (3) trees are to be removed.
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.
7
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Balloon photos at proposed location
D. E -mail Correspondence with Kat Imhoff (Thomas Jefferson Foundation)
E. ARB action
F. Arborist Report