Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201200017 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2012-08-16*—&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Brent Nelson, Planning Review From: Phil Custer, Engineering Review Date: 16 August 2012 Subject: Llandaff Property Cell Tower (SP201200017) The applicant has significantly revised the application since the last submittal and is now proposing to use the existing driveway as the primary accessway to the tower site. According to the County's topography, the existing driveway crosses two areas of critical slopes as the driveway approaches the house. These patches of critical slopes are likely misrepresenting the actual condition in the field; I suspect the driveway is less than 25% but the slopes surrounding it are greater than 25 %. The applicant is not proposing any disturbance to the existing driveway other than adding another 2" of gravel. Considering these factors, I would recommend that we consider the "disturbance" exempt through 18- 4.2.6.c. I ran this by the Zoning Department and they have no objection to this determination. In addition, the Zoning Department also determined that the 2" of additional gravel on the driveway within the floodplain is not considered enough of a "substantial improvement" to require an SP for fill in the floodplain. file: E2_sp_PBC_Llandaff Property.doc *-&A County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Brent Nelson, Planning Review From: Phil Custer, Engineering Review Date: 10 July 2012 Subject: Llandaff Property Cell Tower Critical Slope Waiver Request (SP201200017) The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed. The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: Most of the critical slopes exist on the south side of the property just above the floodplain for the Hardware River. A second band of critical slopes exists within a small valley of an intermittent stream close to the eastern boundary of the property. The proposed disturbance results from the construction of a 1400ft long, 12ft wide gravel travelway from the existing entrance to the cell tower site through these groups of critical slopes. The proposed travelway is four times longer than the new road that would be needed if access was provided from existing driveway south of the house. No critical slope disturbance would be necessary with this route. The required road grades would be gentler and less grading would be needed to establish a 12ft wide drive. Areas Acres Total site 19.8 acres approximately Critical slopes 4.11 20.70/, of site Critical slopes disturbed 0.24 15.89% of critical slopes Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: This disturbance is not exempt because reasonable access from the existing driveway is available. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2: ,'movement of soil and rock" All disturbances over 10,000sf require that an Erosion and Sediment Control plan is submitted to the county for approval. The applicant has shown silt fence for only the disturbances within the critical slope areas on sheets C -5, C -6, and C -7. However, the silt fence is proposed across existing contour lines and for areas greater than 1/4 acre for every 100ft of silt fence, both of which are violations of design standards set forth by the state in the Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. "excessive stormwater runoff' Stormwater runoff will increase with the addition of the gravel areas. The applicant is attempting to maintain sheet flow across the road, but this is difficult to do in the field given the steep existing and proposed slopes. "siltation" All disturbances over 10,000sf require that an Erosion and Sediment Control plan is submitted to the county for approval. The applicant has shown silt fence for only the disturbances within the critical slope areas on sheets C -5, C -6, and C -7. However, the silt fence is proposed across existing contour lines and for areas greater than 1/4 acre for every 100ft of silt fence, both of which are violations of Albemarle County Community Development Engineering Review comments Page 2 of 2 design standards set forth by the state in the Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook. "loss of aesthetic resource" Engineering review will defer to the Planner's evaluation of these slopes to determine whether their disturbance would be a loss of an aesthetic resource. "septic effluent" The applicant has stated that no septic facilities are needed with the tower system. However, identifying the location of the existing septic field is important in evaluating this standard. Conclusion Engineering review believes the current proposal has not addressed the erosion and sedimentation factors of 4.2.5(a)(3). The possible erosion and sediment control measures that could be proposed by the applicant within an ESC plan will be ineffective given the steep slopes and total upstream area draining across the constructed travelway. Additionally, the proposal seems to ignore the existing stream buffer on the east side of the site. Disturbance to stream buffers are restricted by the Water Protection Ordinance. The county engineer has the discretion to only allow disturbances in the outer 50ft of the stream buffer if it is determined to be "necessary infrastructure" for reasonable use of the lot. In this case, stream buffer disturbance to construct a road to a cell tower is beyond a reasonable use of the lot especially considering the cell tower can still be constructed in the same location without any buffer disturbance; the county engineer will not authorize the disturbance of this stream buffer. The only option for applicant regarding the stream buffer disturbance issue is to request an exemption from the Water Protection Ordinance thru 17 -308, which should be done along with the review of the SP. Engineering staff will not recommend approval of this exception request. Lastly, on sheet C -7, the plan indicates that fill is necessary to construct the access travelway across the 393 contour which is located within the floodplain of the Hardware River. Fill within the floodplain cannot be approved by the county without a Special Use Permit granted by the Board of Supervisors. [18- 30.3.05.2.2.3, 18- 30.3.061 The critical slope, stream buffer, and floodplain issues detailed above can be avoided by providing access from the existing driveway south of the house. This would result in only a 350ft long travelway over much flatter terrain. The applicant briefly alludes to this fact in his request but dismisses the possibility of providing access here because of the proximity to "the dwelling site and outbuildings." I'm aware of no county requirement that access roads must be located away from dwelling sites and outbuildings so I assume this is an owner - imposed restriction. It seems that this critical slope waiver request comes down to weighing the preference of the owner in keeping the access of the tower away from his house against the clear and significant environmental impacts of the current proposal. file: EI_csw_PBC_Llandaff Property.doc Brent Nelson From: Brent Nelson Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 3:56 PM To: 'Wilmer, Jessica' Subject: SP 2012 -17, Ntelos - Llandaff Property, Site Plan, Legal Fee, Critical Slopes Waiver Importance: High Jessie, I am sending this email as a follow up to our phone conversation this morning regarding the proposal at the Llandff property. Site Plan Revision Needed: The only revision needed to the site plan concerns the shielding of the maintenance light. Revise Note 1 on Sheet C -10 Tower Elevation by adding the following note: "Each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded " . Please email the revised drawing to me by Monday, June 25tH Legal Fee Not Paid: I was reminded today that you still need to pay the legal fee for this proposal. That amount was noted in the letter you received from the County regarding the proposal. Please call me should you need help in locating the fee amount. The fee will need to be received before Friday, June 29th. Critical Slopes Waiver Request Needed: As I mentioned, the proposed access drive, as shown on the submitted drawings, requires the disturbance of existing slopes that are 25% or greater (hereby called "critical slopes). An approved critical slopes waiver is required for that disturbance. To apply for a critical slopes waiver, you will need to make a formal written request for the waiver pursuant to Chapter 18 Section 4.2.5 (a) 1: "Request. A developer or subdivider requesting a modification or waiver shall file a written request in accordance with section 32.3.10(d) of this chapter and identify and state how the request would satisfy one or more of the findings set forth in subsection 4.2.5(a)(3). If the request pertains to a modification or waiver of the prohibition of disturbing slopes of twenty -five (25) percent or greater (hereinafter, "critical slopes'), the request also shall state the reason for the modification or waiver, explaining how the modification or waiver, if granted, would address the rapid and /or large -scale movement of soil and rock, excessive stormwater run -off, siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water, loss of aesthetic resources, and, in the event of septic system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent (collectively referred to as the " p ublic health, safety, and welfare factors ") that might otherwise result from the disturbance of critical slopes. " Section 4.2.5(a)(3): "3. Findings. The commission may grant a modification or waiver if it finds that the modification or waiver would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties; would not be contrary to sound engineering practices; and at least one of the following: a. 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; b. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; c. Due to the property's unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent properties; or d. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived." Along with your written waiver request, you will also need to provide a drawing showing the location of the critical slopes and a $425 review fee. I will need the waiver request by Friday, June 291h to keep this on schedule for the July 17, 2012 Planning Commission meeting and August 1, 2012 Board of Supervisors meeting. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or concerns. Brent Brent W. Nelson Planner Planning Services Department of Community Development County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 434 - 296 -5832 x3438 Review Comments Project Name: NTELOS Wireless - Llandaft Property - Tier Date Completed: ITuesday, June 19, 2012 Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski Department/Division /Agency: ARB Reviews Based on the June 19, 2012 balloon test, the proposed facility is only expected to be minimally visible from one vantage point on the Route 20 Entrance Corridor. From Carter's Bridge, a distance of more than 2000', the balloon was visble just above the treetops and only for a very short duration. Consequently, no negative impact on the Entrance Corridor is anticipated. Review Status: No Objection Brent Nelson From: Wilmer, Jessica [wilmerj @ntelos.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:47 AM To: Brent Nelson Cc: Megan Yaniglos; Valerie Long; Lloyd, Preston Subject: SP 2012 -17, NTELOS - Llandaff Property (CV828 Carter's Bridge) Brent / Megan — Due to the unfavorable recommendation by staff on the Critical Slopes Waiver, NTELOS would like to table the request at this time. Megan provided possible deferral dates to Valerie yesterday, however, it is unlikely that we will have revised plans resubmitted to your office by Friday of this week given that we have to renegotiate the access with the underlying property owner and resurvey the property if an alternate access is viable. NTELOS hopes to meet with the underlying property owner later this week and I will give you an update on the access as soon as I know something. Thank you. Jessie Wilmer NTELOS - Network Coordinator 1150 Shenandoah Village Drive Waynesboro, VA 22980 (540) 941 -3610 (office) (540) 241 -5060 (PCS) wilmeri@ntelos.com wire sg 1+fe inspire loyalty - Become a Fan of nTelos Wireless on Facebook! a Follow nTelos Wireless on Twitter.