Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201300003 Staff Report 2013-02-05 1 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP 201300003 Orrock Property- Verizon Tier III PWSF Staff: Brent Nelson, Planner Planning Commission Public Hearing: April 23, 2013 Board of Supervisors Hearing: June 5, 2013 Owners: Jeannette S.Orrock Applicant: Stephen Waller, GDN Sites; Lori H. Schweller, LeClairRyan Acreage: 15.61 acres (Lease Area: 1,600 square feet) Rezone from: Not applicable Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2(48) Special Use Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District. TMP: Tax Map 92 Parcel 5A Location: 1240 Thomas Jefferson Parkway By-right use: RA, Rural Areas Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers/Conditions: No Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X Proposal: A ninety-seven (97) foot Verizon treetop monopole and associated ground equipment Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural Area 4. Character of Property: A moderately small, rural property on the north side of Route 53 that is almost entirely wooded and with one single-family home. Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural Areas- single family residential Factors Favorable: 1. The monopole is located so that only the top section of the monopole containing the antennas is expected to be visible. 2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval based on minimal visibility from Route 53, the Entrance Corridor. Factors Unfavorable: 1. The proposal is located within the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. 2. The proposal is located within the Route 53 Entrance Corridor. 3. The property is adjacent to three open-space easement properties and within the vicinity of other easement properties held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations: 1. Section 10.2.2 (48) and Section 5.1.4 Personal W ireless Facility- Tier III tower at ten (10) feet above the tallest tree. Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval at the height of ten (10) feet above the reference tree. 2 STAFF CONTACT: Brent Nelson, Planner PLANNING COMMISSION: April 23, 2013 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: June 5, 2013 AGENDA TITLE: SP201300003: Orrock Property- Verizon Tier III PROPERTY OWNER: Jeannette S.Orrock APPLICANT: Verizon PROPOSAL: This is a proposal to install a Tier III personal wireless service treetop facility (Attachment A). The facility will contain a steel monopole that would be approximately 97 feet tall (10 feet AMSL above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet), with associated ground equipment contained within a 1,600 square foot lease area. The property is 15.61 acres, described as Tax Map 92, Parcel 5A, located in the Scottsville Magisterial District and zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor (Attachment B). The property is also located within the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 4. CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The proposed facility is to be located on a 15.61 acre parcel located on the north side of Route 53, just east of Monticello. The facility is to be situated approximately 820 ft. north of Route 53 in a wooded section of the parcel. There are two existing PWSFs within close proximity. An AT&T facility is located approximately 80 feet to the northeast on the same parcel. A Verizon facility is located 160 west on the adjacent parcel. The general character of the area is rural. The site is included within the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District, a National Register district. The property is adjacent to three open-space easement properties and within the vicinity of other easement properties held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: SP200000077: Request to construct an 80 ft. Tier III PWSF, approved. SP200300036: Request to install additional ground equipment, approved. DISCUSSION: ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as follows: Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property? 3 The property is located in the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. The Architectural Review Board staff person determined that the proposed location is expected to sufficiently minimize the visibility of the monopole from the Route 53 Entrance Corridor and historic sites in the vicinity (Attachment C). The property is adjacent to three open-space easement properties and within the vicinity of other easement properties held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. The Stewardship Specialist for the Foundation has reviewed the proposal and has indentified no issues with regard to this proposal. It is staff’s opinion that the proposal will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent properties. The facility is located in a wooded area with ample vegetation (Attachment D). The monopole will only be visible just above the treetops and from a limited number of locations and at a significant distance. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? It is staff’s opinion that the character of the zoning district will not change with this use. Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set forth in Sections 1.4.4 and 1.4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the Rural Areas chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). This request is consistent with both sections. Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? No significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties in the RA, Rural Area district are anticipated. The proposed personal wireless service facility will not restrict any nearby by- right uses within the Rural Areas district. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit are appropriate in the location requested. In this case, the proposed facility will give Verizon the ability to offer another choice of personal wireless service communication by providing a full range of voice and data services in addition to the required E911 call services. This can be seen as contributing to the public health, safety and welfare on a regional level. Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance The county’s specific design criteria for Tier III facilities as set forth in section 5.1.40 (e) are addressed as follows. Section 5.1.40 (e) Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter, initiated upon an application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and section 31.2.4, and it shall be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the following: 1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9) and subsection 5.1.40 (d)(2),(3),(6) and (7), unless modified by the board of supervisors during special use permit review. 2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit. 4 Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.6.1 special use permits have been met. Compliance with Section 5.1.40(e) of the Zoning Ordinance: The County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in Section 5.1.40(e)(1) and 5.1.40(e)(2) are addressed as follows: [Ordinance sections are in italics] Subsection 5.1.40(b) (1-5): Exemption from regulations otherwise applicable: Except as otherwise exempted in this paragraph, each facility shall be subject to all applicable regulations in this chapter. The proposed wireless facility will meet required Rural Areas setbacks in addition to all other area and bulk regulations and minimum yard requirements. The proposed 97 foot tall monopole is located approximately 75 feet from the nearest parcel line. The applicant has submitted a fall zone easement on the adjacent property to the southwest (TMP 92, Parcel 5) which shares the same ownership as the subject parcel under review. That deed of easement and plat are currently under review by the County Attorney. Attached site drawings, antennae and equipment specifications have been provided to demonstrate that personal wireless service facilities (PWSF) regulations and any relevant site plan requirements set forth in Section 32 of the zoning ordinance have been addressed. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(2): The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: (i) guy wires shall not be permitted; (ii) outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by section 4.17 of this chapter; (iii) any equipment cabinet not located within the existing structure shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the county’s landscape planner; (iv) a whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the existing structure; (v) a grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of facility or the structure; and (vi) within one month after the completion of the installation of the facility, the applicant shall provide a statement to the agent certifying that the height of all components of the facility complies with this regulation. The proposed monopole does not require the installation of guy wires, nor will it be fitted with any whip antennas. The proposed grounding rod complies with the size requirements. Outdoor light fixtures will be shielded. All proposed lighting is for temporary maintenance and security use only. All associated ground equipment will be shielded from all lot lines by existing vegetation and terrain. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(3): Equipment shall be attached to the exterior of a structure only as follows: (i) the total number of arrays of antennas attached to the existing structure shall not exceed three (3), and each antenna proposed to be attached under the pending application shall not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand one hundred fifty two (1152) square inches; (ii) no antenna shall project from the structure beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall any point on the face of an antenna project more than twelve (12) inches from the existing structure; and (iii) each antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the existing structure. For purposes of this section, all types of antennas and dishes regardless of their use shall be counted toward the limit of three arrays. 5 The proposed antennae configuration will consist of two arrays with three panel antennas. The antennas on one array will measure 94.6” x 11.2” x 4.5” while those on the other array will measure 47.4” x 16.8” x 3.5”. Each antenna shall not exceed 1,152 square inches. These antennas will be installed using “pipe-mounts” that will allow for any required amount of down- tilting without exceeding the County’s requirements for flush-mounts (12- inches maximum between the face of the monopole and the face of the antennae). All antennae will be painted to match the color of the tower. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(4): Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist. The plan shall be submitted to the agent for review and approval to assure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied. The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, and identify all existing trees to be removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and maintenance of the facility. Except for the tree removal expressly authorized by the agent, the applicant shall not remove existing trees within the lease area or within one hundred (100) feet in all directions surrounding the lease area of any part of the facility. In addition, the agent may identify additional trees or lands up to two hundred (200) feet from the lease area to be included in the plan. The installation of the proposed personal wireless service facility will require the removal of some trees and the installation of a steel platform with concrete piers for ground equipment. The removal of the trees and installation of the steel platform does not affect the visibility or screening of the tower and associated equipment. Prior to the submittal of a building permit, the applicant will provide a tree conservation plan, prepared by a certified arborist, verifying that the proposed grading and installation of the steel platform will not adversely impact the survival of trees designated to remain. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(5)The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility shall be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Dead and dying trees identified by the arborist’s report may be removed if so noted on the tree conservation plan. If tree removal is later requested that was not approved by the agent when the tree conservation plan was approved, the applicant shall submit an amended plan. The agent may approve the amended plan if the proposed tree removal will not adversely affect the visibility of the facility from any location off of the parcel. The agent may impose reasonable conditions to assure that the purposes of this paragraph are achieved. In order to ensure that there is no significant impact to any of the trees that are to remain, the conservation plan will be completed prior to the submittal of a building permit. Operation and maintenance of the facility will be conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(6): The facility shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for personal wireless service purposes is discontinued. If the agent determines at any time that surety is required to guarantee that the facility will be removed as required, the agent may require that the parcel owner or the owner of the facility submit a certified check, a bond with surety, or a letter of credit, in an amount sufficient for, and conditioned upon, the removal of the facility. The type and form of the surety guarantee shall be to the satisfaction of the agent and the county attorney. In determining whether surety should be required, the agent shall consider the following: (i) the annual report states that the tower or pole is no longer being used for personal wireless service facilities; (ii) the annual report was 6 not filed; (iii) there is a change in technology that makes it likely that tower or pole will be unnecessary in the near future; (iv) the permittee fails to comply with applicable regulations or conditions; (v) the permittee fails to timely remove another tower or pole within the county; and (vi) whenever otherwise deemed necessary by the agent. Should use of the tower site in this location become discontinued at anytime in the future, Verizon and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility within 90 days. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(7): The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the agent by no earlier than May or and no later than July 1 of each year. The report shall identify each user of the existing structure, and include a drawing, photograph or other illustration identifying which equipment is owned and/or operated by each personal wireless service provider. Multiple users on a single tower or other mounting structure may submit a single report, provided that the report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user acquiescing in the report. After the proposed PWSF has been installed, Verizon will submit an annual report updating the user status and equipment inventory of the facility in the required time period. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(8): No slopes associated with the installation of the facility and accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are employed. No slopes associated with the installation of the facility are steeper than 2:1. Subsection 5.1.40(c)(9): Any equipment cabinet not located within an existing building shall be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would protect the facility from trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. The proposal includes a 40’x 40’ lease area that will be fenced with a 6 ft. tall wooden privacy fence and gate. Staff has found that this fence will not be detrimental to the character of the area, nor the public health, safety or general welfare and would protect the facility from wildlife. 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, or adjacent to a conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited 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 97 feet above ground level (AGL) or 728 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is approximately 718 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located within 25’of the proposed monopole. 7 A balloon test was conducted on February 27, 2013 and repeated on March 8, 2013 due to adverse wind conditions (Attachment E). During the site visits, staff observed a test balloon that was floated at the approximate height of the proposed monopole. Routes 53 and 793 were traveled to determine the extent of visibility of the proposal. The balloon was also viewed from Monticello, the Kenwood Library, Ashlawn-Highland and the parking lot of the Jefferson Vineyards at Simeon. The balloon was visible from the Kenwood Library and the parking lot of the Jefferson Vineyards. From both locations the balloon was sky-lit; however, the significant distance from which it was viewed sufficiently mitigated it visual impact. The balloon was visible from Monticello and Ashlawn-Highland; however, the wooded backdrop and significant distance eliminated any negative impact. The facility was not visible from Route 793 and the narrow, curving nature of Route 53 allowed only intermittent views, often through trees. It is Staff’s opinion that at the ten foot height, the low level of visibility is not expected to have a negative impact on the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District, Virginia s, Route 53 Entrance Corridor or nearby historic properties. Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s open space plan. 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). Staff’s analysis of this request addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic resources. The proposed lease area is located within the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District in the Open Space Plan (Attachment F). However, Architectural Review Board staff found that the facilities’ limited visibility is not expected to have any adverse scenic impact. The Architectural Review Board staff has expressed no objection and has recommended approval for this site. Therefore, staff feels the visibility of the monopole will not adversely impact the resources of the entrance corridor or those listed as avoidance areas. 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). The proposed monopole would have a height of approximately 728 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is approximately 718 feet above mean sea level (AMSL); therefore, the monopole will be ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty- five (25) feet. It is staff’s opinion that there is no material difference in visibility between the ten foot height and the seven foot height for a tower in this location. Staff recommends approval at the proposed ten feet above the reference tree. 8 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, façade 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 to install a steel monopole. The proposed color for the tower and associated equipment shelter is a Sherwin Williams Java Brown #6090 to match existing surroundings. Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit. The facility complies with all conditions of approval of the special use permit (Section 32.2.4): 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. In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. The applicant has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna additions at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of personal wireless services. SUMMARY: Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal: Factors favorable to this request include: 1. The monopole is located so that only the top section of the monopole containing the antennas is expected to be visible. 9 2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval based on minimal visibility from Route 53, the Entrance Corridor. 3. There is limited visibility of the tower from nearby historic sites/district and conservation easement properties. Factors unfavorable to this request include: 1. The proposal is within the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. The impact is mitigated by the limited visibility of the site. 2. The property is adjacent to three open-space easement properties and within the vicinity of other easement properties held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. The impact is mitigated by the limited visibility of the site. 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. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this facility at ten (10) feet above the tallest tree with the conditions outlined below. Conditions of approval: 1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Simeon (Orrock Property) 1240 Thomas Jefferson Parkway, Charlottesville, VA 22902” prepared by Justin Y. Yoon latest revision date 4/2/13 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan.: a. Height b. Mounting type c. Antenna type d. Number of antenna e. Distance above reference tree f. Color g. Location of ground equipment and monopole Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: A. Site Plan B. Vicinity Map C. Architectural Review Board Staff Comments D. Site Photos E. Balloon Test F. Open Space & Critical Resource Map 10 Motion: The Planning Commission’s role in this case (SP201300003) is to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III personal wireless service facility: I move to recommend approval of SP 201300003 Orrock Property Verizon Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report. B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal wireless service facility: I move to recommend denial of SP 201300003 Orrock Property Verizon Tier III PWSF. (Planning Commission needs to give reasons for denial) OPEN SPACE CONCEPT MAP Albemarle County. Virgmw July 15, 1992 I. Seale in Miles Do,nn,ml 0( I'l-nattl and CO—Illy De-lop—,, j LEGEND MAJOR STREAM VALLEYS: Wale] sup"I Bollitlaries: .......... Willel SU11111) Impound nlenl s: Rikcl hlull,c 111dill,N: Coulm Scenic stletim, of Slate Sccrii, River,: NdUllill TI-OLIt MOUNTAINS: C litical Slopes ( > 25 FARMLANDS AND FORLSIN: CIVIC/CULTURAL FEATURES: Reumsteled Historic Iloperlic, Schools and Park': Public Recreation ,Areas: Corridors. VA B\\\it\s. it I il It It let let Scenic lfivlm;tvs: . PPotential Grcrmcav Corl�1 dors: ulllnnllwuln CRONN711 AREAS: _ :,ice.... _Yx � _ _ �,X __ _ _ _ _ __ - -. —^ - � - -1 � _ _ _ ,y� - a �s � ...3r � w - •, -- • / � r rl 1 rr 1• ., ' .j It � (�'!r'�)�f �I , {�_ "� {�I�r ,�I�' S ' r'r oy °.Sy�G,C ��yr,�� �; +r1 {• r 1�:: ''+(' �.� ,° Y r.l�'li ! k.'' ,' i , +{Ri +n , �,k' '',` '•I� - :i - ''� C _ r ��� Fg� rl. ,• �i� ,,�A, I�'p {�P, r•4 lr��i,'4e �I..:, 1�3sa} °Nj�1.°,' I 11`' .. ' - - - si �A,� �� �9# ;�'� ° ,���� J �� rr�. �° it � �°�(���i7 � '.� -y ��l h ' ••,��;� 'p6 ,� i>Ni s� °��ai + l� r ��• ��1 �I. i l +' t � f�� +� r: (!, .il'� �� ay� 1 '•+ � `,, � - _ �� 1 �' a - . .. ��.:R. ri'• :�}.. �,��4 1' ;- r f� �,�% r .4, '.i, "'tryyr- �,° - I ti - v'� d�.� ..q�• - -+ - �� � � �_ f. .r -- , -- - _ 7, r - - -- - -- Wo i'/ A& 77 _ t' r. _ :rl k " NA � � '�l_ �� ��•�, •,F•ti • - ,_ `� � hilt '� t� � � � 0 e _ � I W. V � ��;j...11�aj f11 'i J r' ��17'�� ''7i���•. y,..�'" ��� � r t ,a _ t' r. _ :rl k " NA � � '�l_ �� ��•�, •,F•ti • - ,_ `� � hilt '� t� � � � 0 e _ � mayy,, ifL" pa 0A 07 �� •� i /�� .- y,Mi' �F 'ri .1•. � • •y r - � i iir�: t T' I1 ,•� ,� J.. 3$: ,�•. � ��,�• yid.• � �r� L �t �`� . `' • IV Lj, xzo .� r ti•� {, V I1R, i<� � Y i �'IRGI1`�ZP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 MEMORANDUM TO: Brent Nelson FROM: Margaret Maliszewski RE: ARB- 2013 -16 and SP- 2013 -03: Orrock (Verizon) Simeon Tier 3 PWSF DATE: March 8, 2013 Balloon tests were conducted for the above referenced proposal on February 25 and March 8, 2013 Comments and recommendations on the proposal are provided below. Visibility: • Conditions were extremely windy during both balloon tests. • The balloon was visible from Monticello and Ashlawn- Highland without negative impact. • The balloon was visible from the Kenwood Library and the parking lot at Jefferson Vineyards. From both vantage points, the balloon rose above the trees, taller than the existing monopoles on site, and had no wooded backdrop. A shorter pole would be more appropriate as viewed from these locations. However, the distance at which the pole is viewed (approximately 1400' from Kenwood and approximately 2800' from the Jefferson Vineyards parking lot) helps mitigate impacts. • Along Route 53 the views of the pole were intermittent and often available only through the trees at roadside. The curving, narrow nature of the road helped minimize impacts from this vantage point. Recommendations: • Regarding the ground equipment: The proposed ground equipment is not expected to be visible from the Entrance Corridor. • Regarding visibility of the monopole: The proposed location is expected to sufficiently minimize the visibility of the monopole from the Rt. 53 Entrance Corridor and historic sites in the vicinity. Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources April 9, 2013 SP20130003 Verizon- Orrock Property 78 -24A J, x a a',; �` A$ crag,., . ' Legend (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) q� }T3 7823 i • J*.J q¢ A� ' 4 �d BCOMM NttMve- © r suRescue S,n, oM �� `w i ® aCEaiaiinoun TM 77, 77 -31 B ;�r $ TM: 78 P -., 73 -25 sM a s M 78 -25A wu V - 92 -3 92 -5A 92 -16 92-5• .! fir\ , 53 92-6 d. ' 7}. �r•n! 92 2 92 5 x -7 TM: 91 92 P cj! 1� 92 9 Ev gti s' -1392 1�4A t Sim eon L i Y 92 46A' o��� N 92 2B - �> 92 -2A w. 92 -2E 92 -45 730 ft G Web Geographic Data Services jr 2'6'9 r9 "1 92 =47B )296- 5832 `RG ". (434 Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources April 9, 2013