Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200700118 Legacy Document 2007-12-11 (6)o� arm ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SDP 2007 -118 Mawyer Staff: Megan Yaniglos, Brent Nelson, Property/ Verizon Tier II PWSF Jonathan Sharp Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Hearing: February 5, 2008 N/A Owners: Violet Mawyer Applicant: Cellco Partnership D /B /A Verizon wireless Acreage: 48.83 Acres Rezone from: Not applicable (Lease Area: 3,600 square feet) Special Use Permit for: Not applicable TMP: Tax Map 98, Parcel 22 By -right use: RA, Rural Area and EC, Location: Approximately 820 feet east of the Entrance Corridor Zoning right -of -way for US 29 in a wooded area below the rid eline of Cook Mountain Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers /Conditions: No Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: N/A DA - RA - X Proposal: Request for approval of a Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in treetop personal wireless service facility Rural Area 3 with a steel monopole that would be approximately 131 feet tall (10 feet AMSL above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet), with a 12 -foot high 320 square foot shelter /equipment cabinet that will be contained within a 3,600 square foot lease area Character of Property: Forested with a Use of Surrounding Properties: Single - single family dwelling family Residential Factors Favorable: See Report Factors Unfavorable: See Report Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations: 1. Section 5.1.4 Personal Wireless Facility- Staff recommends approval of this personal wireless service facility. Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval at 10 feet above the reference tree. 2. Waiver of Section 4.2.5 — disturbance of critical slopes - approval STAFF CONTACT: PLANNING COMMISSION: AGENDA TITLE: PROPERTY OWNER: Megan Yaniglos; Brent Nelson; Jonathan Sharp February 5, 2008 SDP 07 -118: Mawyer Property/ Verizon Wireless Tier 11 Violet Mawyer APPLICANT: Cellco Partnership DB /A Verizon wireless PROPOSAL: This is a proposal to install a Tier II personal wireless service treetop facility [Attachment A]. The treetop personal wireless service facility will consist of a steel monopole that would be approximately 131 feet tall [7 feet AMSL above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet], with a 12 -foot high 320 square foot shelter /equipment cabinet that will be contained within a 3,600 square foot lease area. The property is 48.83 acres, described as Tax Map 98, Parcel 22, is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor. This application has been submitted in accordance with Section 10.2.2(17) of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in the RA Residential zoning district. This application also includes a request for a modification of Section 4.2.5 in order to allow disturbance of critical slopes for the construction of this facility. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 3. CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The proposed site is located approximately 820 feet east of the right -of -way for US 29 in a wooded area below the ridgeline of Cook Mountain [Attachment I]. The site of this facility is heavily wooded on a slope that continues upward and to the east. Access to the facility will be provided from the eastern side of US 29 by way of Thackers Lane. From Thackers Lane, a shared gravel road provides access to two existing personal wireless service facilities (Nextell and nTelos) as well as, the proposed Verizon site. The nearest off -site dwelling unit is located approximately 700 feet west of the proposed personal wireless service facility site. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: SP 1998 -007 CFW Wireless Approval granted for request to install a 85 -foot tall wooden monopole tower with associated equipment cabinet. This tower was removed when SDP2004- 099 was approved. SDP 2002 -051 Nextel Approval granted for request to install a 105 -foot tall wooden monopole tower with associated equipment cabinet. This tower is still in place and will remain after installation of the new facility. SDP 2004 -099 Ntelos Approval granted for request to install a 120 -foot tall metal monopole tower with associated equipment cabinet. This tower is still in place and will remain after installation of the new facility. N DISCUSSION: The lease area is in an open space below the Cook Mountain ridge line. However, the property is predominantly composed of areas of critical slopes. Thus, the applicant is requesting a waiver in order to allow disturbance of these slopes for the accessway to the facility and the grading related to the siting of the tower [Attachment C]. The Planning Commission will need to act on the critical slopes waiver request and make findings on the appropriateness of the proposed personal wireless facility. This staff report is organized to address each issue separately. The Commission must act on both of the items. The items to be addressed are: 1. Section 5.1.4 Personal Wireless Service Facilities [recommendation, approval] 2. Waiver of Section 4.2.5 — disturbance of critical slopes [recommendation, approval] 1. REVIEW OF REQUEST FOR PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICE FACILITY- TIER II 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. " 3 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 [Attachments D and E]. Architectural Review Board review is not required for this submittal because the parcel was not adjacent to the entrance corridor in 1990 and the proposed work is beyond 500' from the entrance corridor right -of -way. 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 131 feet above ground level (AGL) or 987 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is approximately 977 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located 20 feet east of the proposed monopole. A balloon test was conducted on November 7, 2007 [Attachments D and E]. During the site visit, staff observed a test balloon that was floated at the approximate height of the proposed monopole. Since it is difficult to measure the exact circumference of the balloon when inflated, the balloon was flown to reflect the height of the proposed monopole at the bottom of the balloon. In the attached photos, note that the tower's height would be to the bottom of the balloon and not to the top of the balloon. The balloon was visible from the entrance corridor, but minimally so. When visible, it was seen for a short distance on the US 29 entrance corridor. Surrounding trees provided a backdrop for the balloon, with the balloon visible for a short distance but not skylighted. The low level of visibility is not expected to have a negative impact on the entrance corridor or surrounding properties. The location is approximately 820 feet east of the entrance corridor. In addition, the existing hillside is wooded, and the monopole will be "Java Brown" color. The equipment shelter will be finished with aggregate stone, which blend well with the surrounding wooded area. This low level of visibility is not expected to have a negative impact on the entrance corridor. Based on the information above, it is staff's opinion that the proposed facility will be minimally visible from adjacent parcels and streets. 2 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. Portions of the parcel are located within the Mountain Overlay District. However, the proposed lease area is not located in the District and is well below the ridgeline. The proposed lease area is not delineated as a significant resource on the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan. 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 degree of visibility is not expected to have a negative impact on the entrance corridor and does not require review from the Architectural Review Board. Therefore, staff feels the visibility of the monopole will not adversely impact the resources of the entrance corridor or historic districts. The applicant has submitted an arborist report [Attachment G] and a tree conservation plan, with measures limiting the impacts to existing trees remain will be submitted prior to application for the building permit. 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 are two other facilities located on the parcel within 200 feet of 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 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). 5 As mentioned previously in this report, the proposed monopole would have a height of approximately 987 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is approximately 977 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The proposed monopole will be (10) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty -five (25) feet. 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 steel monopole. The proposed color for the tower is a brown paint (Java Brown) to match existing surroundings. The proposed equipment cabinet will be a combination of brown metal siding (SW #6090 Java Brown) and aggregate stone finish [Attachment F]. Because the proposed facility will be located in a remote area, the applicant is proposing the installation of a chain link security fence. The site is screened by existing vegetation on all sides and is not visible from any adjacent residences. Therefore, the chain link fence should not be detrimental to the character of the area. 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 will be located inside the monopole. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) 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 Co 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. 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. 2. CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER The proposed facility will require the disturbance of critical slopes. A modification to allow critical slopes disturbance is necessary before the plat can be approved by the Planning Commission. The request for a modification has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the critical slopes regulations. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth - disturbing activity on critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5(b) allows the Planning Commission to waive this restriction. The applicant has submitted a request and justification for the waiver [Attachment C], and staff has analyzed this request to address the provisions of the Ordinance. The critical slopes in the area of this request do not appear to be man -made [Attachment H]. Staff has reviewed this waiver request with consideration for the concerns that are set forth in Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled "Critical Slopes." These concerns have been addressed directly through the analysis provided herein, which is presented in two parts, based on the Section of the Ordinance each pertains to. Section 4.2.5(a) Review of the request by Current Development Engineering staff: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: A new tower has been proposed on Tax Map 98 Parcel 22. Access to the tower will also require improvements to 80 feet of a 12 foot wide gravel access road. These improvements will require disturbance of adjacent areas of critical slopes. Currently, the critical slopes are wooded. Areas Total site 48.9 acres approximately Critical slopes 38 acres 78% of site Critical slopes disturbed 0.04 acres 0.1 % of critical slopes Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18 -4.2 is discussed: Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2: "movement of soil and rock" Proper construction and stabilization will prevent any movement of soil or rock. 7 "excessive stormwater runoff' Any increase in stormwater runoff does not appear to be excessive. "siltation" Proper erosion control measures will ensure siltation control. "loss of aesthetic resource" The area surrounding the disturbance is completely wooded. "septic effluent" The proposed tower has no proposed plumbing or septic system. Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: The disturbed critical slopes are not exempt. Based on the above review, Engineering recommends approval to the critical slope waiver. Review of the request by Current Development Planning staff: Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2: Section 4.2. S establishes the review process and criteria for granting a waiver of Section 4.2.3. The preceding comments by staff address the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a). Staff has included the provisions of Section 4.2.5(b) here, along with staff comment on the various provisions. The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding that: 1. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives proposed by the developer would satisfy the purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; or (Added 11- 15 -89) The applicant has proposed the site of this personal wireless facility so that the tower is not skylighted, and is screened from the entrance corridor. In order for the placement of this facility to allow a backdrop of trees, disturbance of critical slopes is necessary. Since this is a personal wireless service facility proposal, and it is a small area of disturbance, strict application of the requirement of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter. 2. Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the requirements of section 4.2 would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. Such modification or waiver shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties, or be contrary to sound engineering practices; or (Added 11- 15 -89) Denial of this waiver would not prohibit or restrict the use of the property. 3. Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by strict application of section 4.2. (Added 11- 15 -89) Granting the waiver would not serve a public purpose of greater import. RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has proposed the site of this personal wireless facility so that the tower is not skylighted, and is screened from the entrance corridor. In order for the placement of this facility to allow a backdrop of trees, disturbance of critical slopes is necessary. The personal wireless facility policy encourages the siting of facilities so that they are not skylighted, and well screened. The amount of disturbance is minimal since the access to the site is existing and the lease area is only 3,600 square feet. Therefore, staff recommends approval to the Commission of a waiver of Section 4.2.3. 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 are not located on significant features identified in the Open Space Master Plan. 2. The monopole is located so that it is not skylighted, and has a significant back drop of existing trees. Factors unfavorable to this request include: 1. The disturbance of critical slopes is necessary for the construction of the facility. 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 photos from US 29 F. Photo of proposed aggregate finish for equipment shelter G. Arborist Report H. Critical Slopes Map I. Approximate Site Location Map X