The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutARB200800114 Staff Report 2008-09-05ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project #: Name ARB- 2008 -114: Johnson (Verizon Wireless) Tier III Review Type Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan and Special Use Permit Parcel Identification Tax Map 88, Parcel 23E Location 2102 Mooreland Lane: Located on the northwest side of Route 29 South, approximately 3000' north of the intersection with Red Hill Road (Route 708). Zoned Rural Areas (RA), Entrance Corridor (EC) Owner Johnson, Walter Tucker or Vanessa Copeland Applicant Stephen Waller, AICP Magisterial District Samuel Miller Proposal To install a telecommunications facility consisting of a 100.5' tall metal monopole, flush - mounted antennas and related ground equipment. ARB Meeting Date September 15, 2008 Staff Contact Brent Nelson SITE/PROJECT HISTORY The Architectural Review Board has not reviewed any previous proposals for this parcel. Current Development has received a Special Use Permit application (SP 2008 -41) for this proposal. The SP requirement is due to the proposal's location in the Hardware Agricultural/Forestal District. The Planning Commission review of the SP is scheduled for November 4, 2008. CONTEXT This proposal is situated on a 32 acre parcel located on the northwest side of Route 29 South, approximately 3000' north of the intersection with Red Hill Road (Route 708). The lease area is located approximately 650' northwest of the Route 29 South EC, at an elevation approximately 85' above the Corridor. Access to the lease area is provided by an existing residential driveway. The surrounding area is rural in character with large parcels, open agricultural fields, mixed hardwood forest and single family homes. PROJECT DETAILS The applicant proposes to establish a telecommunications facility consisting of the following items in a 50' x 50' lease area: • Metal monopole with a top height of 100.5' above ground level (815.5 AMSL), painted SW #6090 Java Brown. • Three flush - mounted panel antennas, painted SW #6090 Java Brown, each measuring 72.22" x 6.06" x 4.13 ", installed with a maximum of 12" between face of pole and face of antenna. The top ARB 9/15/2008 Johnson, Verizon — Page 1 elevation of each antenna is the same as the top elevation of the monopole. The ground elevation of the pole is 715 AMSL. Cables are proposed to be installed inside the pole. Ground equipment is to be located in a prefabricated equipment shelter measuring 12' (wide) x 30' (long) x 10.58' (tall). Concrete piers support the shelter. A 1" diameter lightning rod is proposed to extend no more than 2' above the top of the monopole. • A wooden screening fence is proposed around the equipment in the lease area. Other pertinent information: • Access to the site is proposed from an existing residential driveway intersecting with Mooreland Lane. • The pole would be located approximately 650' northwest of Route 29. • A 12" dead pine, in the lease area, is the only tree designated for removal in this proposal. • Three Eastern White Pine trees, 1 -1/2" in caliper at planting, are proposed approximately 30' north of the equipment shelter. These trees are provided at the owner's request to mitigate views of the proposal from the residence. • The proposed pole height is 10' above the top of the reference tree, which is a 12" Pine with a top elevation of 8055 AMSL (100.5' AGL). The reference tree ( 4296) is located within 16.3' of the proposed pole location (measured from base to dripline). VISIBILITY Staff attended a balloon test for this proposal on August 29, 2008. In an effort to avoid tree branches directly above the proposed tower location, the balloon was launched from a location approximately 33.6' northeast of the location of the proposed tower (see Sheet BT -1 for location). The balloon was raised to the same height as the proposed pole, 10' above the reference tree. To determine the extent of visibility of the proposal, staff traveled north and south on Route 29. The balloon was visible and sky -lit from locations north and south of the project area. Staff was able to sufficiently assess impacts of the proposal from the approximation of the pole location. As a comparison, the balloon was lowered so that it approximated the pole at only 7' above the reference tree. At both elevations the balloon was sky -lit; however, there was a material difference in the visibility when the balloon was reduced in height from 10' above the reference tree to 7' above the reference tree (see attachment). The equipment shelter and yard are not expected to be visible from the Corridor. ANALYSIS based on Civil Drawings T -1, T -2, C -1, C -lA, C -113, C -2, C -2A, C -213, C -3, C -4, A -1, L -1, L -2, BT -1, all with a latest revision date of 9/3/08. Issue: Pole Height Comments: At the balloon test, the balloon was flown at 10' above the height of the reference tree and at 7' above the height of the reference tree. There was a material distance in the visibility when the balloon was reduced in height from 10' to 7' above the treetop. Recommendations: Reduce the height of the proposed monopole to not exceed 7' above the top of the reference tree. Issue: Concrete Piers/Proposed Grading/Impacts on Existing Trees to Remain Comments: Sheet C2A Grading Plan shows proposed grading in the lease area; however, the dripline of existing trees to remain is not shown on the drawing. The proposed grading appears to fall within the drip line of trees # 288 (a 16" Oak, 47' tall, 761' AMSL), #290 (a 20" Pine, 63' tall, 779' AMSL), #294 (a 16" Pine, 76' tall, 792' AMSL), #300 (a 14" Pine, 90' tall, 804' AMSL), #302 (a 8" Pine, 75' tall, 790' ARB 9/15/2008 Johnson, Verizon — Page 2 AMSQ, #310 (a 12" Pine, 36' tall, 777' AMSQ, and #312 (20" Pine, 71' tall, 785' AMSQ. The applicant is proposing a gravel surface inside the equipment yard with a wooden fence and gate. Adverse impacts from the gravel surface and fencing on the existing trees to remain are expected to be negligible. Possible impacts on the trees from the concrete piers supporting the equipment shelter, and the proposed grading are not clear from the information provided in this application. It appears that 5 of the 6 piers are located within the dripline of trees designated to remain. Verification is needed from a certified arborist that the proposed site grading, 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 indicated that a tree conservation plan, with measures limiting impacts on existing trees to remain, will be submitted prior to the application for the building permit. The tree conservation plan will need to be reviewed and approved before the Certificate of Appropriateness can be issued. Recommendations: Revise Sheet 2A Grading Plan by adding the dripline of existing trees designated to remain. Identify the trees for caliper size and type. Provide verification from a certified arborist that the proposed site grading, and grading and/or digging required to install the concrete piers will not be detrimental to the health of any trees designated to remain. Provide a tree conservation plan with measures proposed that would limit impacts of this proposal on all existing trees designated to remain. Include any additional recommendations from the arborist for maintaining the health of the trees on the drawings. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion: 1. Visibility of the proposed monopole at 10' and 7' above the reference tree. 2. The impacts of proposed site grading and the installation of concrete piers on the trees designated to remain. Staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions: 1. Reduce the height of the proposed monopole to not exceed 7' above the top of the reference tree. 2. Revise Sheet 2A Grading Plan by adding the dripline of existing trees designated to remain. Identify the trees for caliper size and type. Provide verification from a certified arborist that the proposed site grading, and grading and /or digging required to install the concrete piers will not be detrimental to the health of any trees designated to remain. Provide a tree conservation plan with measures proposed that would limit impacts of this proposal on all existing trees designated to remain. Include any additional recommendations from the arborist for maintaining the health of the trees on the drawings. ARB 9/15/2008 Johnson, Verizon — Page 3