Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300048 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2013-10-090 A �'IRGI73LP COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 October 9, 2013 Cheryl Lynn Taylor 4164 Innslake Dr. Ste. B. Glen Allen, VA 23060 RE: SDP - 201300048- Durkin Property — AT &T Wireless Facility Tier H Dear Ms. Taylor: Pursuant to Albemarle County Code §5.1.40(h)(3)(b) the above referenced application has been found to be incomplete and is therefore rejected. The specific reasons for rejection are provided with references to specific duly adopted ordinances, regulations or policies. Required modifications or corrections that will permit acceptance of the application are included as well. A. Reasons for resection: 1. [Section 5.1.40(a)(1)] Application form and signatures. A completed application form, signed by the parcel owner, the parcel owner's agent or the contract purchaser, and the proposed facility's owner. If the owner's agent signs the application, he shall also submit written evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. If the contract purchaser signs the application, he shall also submit the owner's written consent to the application. The property owner has not signed the application form. If the applicant is acting as agent for the property owner, such written documentation must be submitted. 2. [Section 5.1.40(a)(4b)] The plans and supporting drawings, calculations and documentation shall show: Elevation. The benchmarks and datum used for elevations. The datum shall coincide with the Virginia State Plane Coordinate System, South Zone, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), United States Survey Feet North American Vertical. Datum of 1988 (NAVD88), and the benchmarks shall be acceptable to the county engineer. The benchmark used is not indicated on the drawings. 3. [Section 5.1.40(a)(4e)] Topography. Except where the facility would be attached to an. existing structure or an existing building, the topography within two thousand (2, 000) feet of the proposed facility, in contour intervals not to exceed ten (10) feet for all lands within Albemarle County and, in contour intervals shown on United States Geological Survey topographic survey maps or the best topographic data available, for lands not within Albemarle County. Provide the required topography within 2,000 feet of the proposed facility. 4. [Section 5.1.40(a)(4 f)] Trees. The height, caliper and species of all trees where the dripline is located within fifty (50) feet of the facilio; that are relied upon to establish the proposed height or 1 screening, or both, of the monopole or tower. All trees that will be adversely impacted or removed during installation or nadintenance of the facility. shall be noted, regardless of their distances to the facility. On the plan only 2 of the trees (TR1 and TR2) have drip lines established. Asa result, any impact of the proposed construction on other trees which have driplines within a 50' radius of the tower could not be determined. Revise plan to show the drip lines of all trees that have driplines within the 50' radius. Also, provide the height of all trees where the dripline is located within 50' of the facility. Currently only trees TRl — TR18 have heights. Provide heights.for all trees-which breach the 50' radius. Also, provide the, required notes on the plan for all trees that will be adversely impacted or removed during installation of the facility. On the plan it appears that there are a couple trees (TR30 and TR39) which are located in the path of the designated access road. These trees should be properly noted as being impacted or removed. Also, the site (including the access road) is located in a heavily wooded area; however, the plan only depicts a small amount of existing trees. However upon site visit staff rioted a substantial amount of trees which will be impacted or removed from the construction of the access road. Depict and properly label these trees on the plan. [Section 5.1.40 (a)(5)] Photographs.. Photographs, where possible, or perspective drawings of the facility site and all existing facilities within two hundred (200) feet of the site, if any, and the area surrounding the site. Provide photographs (photo simulations) or perspective drawings of the facility from surrounding areas to further assist staff in determining the visual impacts of the facility on surrounding properties. Specifically from the adjacent residential .property TNT 03400- 00- 00 -07000 (4826 Rte 20 Stony Point Road). Notably during the balloon test the balloon was visible from the adjacent property's residence and portions of their driveway. Provide photo simulations from this area. B. For information only, issues to be addressed prior to approval The following are provided for information only and are not the reason for rejection of the application. The Planner for the Planning Division of the Albemarle County Department of Community Development will approve for the application referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review. Comments are preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code. 1. [Section 5.1.40(d)(2)] Screening and siting to minimize visibility. 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)... A balloon test was performed on September 25, 2013. During the balloon test staff traveled Rte 20 —Stony Point Road, Rte 640—Gilbert Station, Rte 640—Turkey Sag Road, and visited surrounding and adjacent properties. At a few vantage points it appeared that the facility would be slcylighted. (see AttachmentA). The County's wireless policy discourages facilities that are slcy lit; however, the foreground of this site is densely wooded, so the lack of backdrop is minimized. Additionally, at most sites it was significantly camouflaged by trees, elevation changes and the winding nature of Rte 20_Stony Point Road; however, the balloon was visible from the adjacent property's residence and portions of their driveway TMP 03400- 00- 00- 0700O3 4826 Rte 20 Stony Point Road (adjacent property). Staff is concerned that this may cause an adverse visual impact on the adjacent residential property. Upon submittal of required/ requested photographs (photo 2 simulations) or perspective drawings of the facility from surrounding areas staff will be better able to determine the visual impacts of the facility on surrounding property. If upon submittal of the required simulation photos it is determined that the visibility of the tower will cause adverse impacts to the neighboring property, is the applicant amenable to reduce the height of the tower from .10' above the reference tree to 7' above the reference tree to reduce visual, impacts and - provide more screening for neighboring residential properties? 2. [Section 5.1.40(c)(3)] Antennas and associated equipment. Sheet A -2, note #7 states the proposed antennas are less than 1,152 square inches in area but does not indicate. the antenna dimensions. Revise the drawing to include the dimensions. 3. [Comment] The elevation depicted on sheet A -2 labels "existing 7' high security fence and sheet A -0 labels "existing 50'x5O'x8' security fence'; however, no portion of this facility is existing, nor does a fence currently exist. Revise the elevations to correctly label these items as "proposed ". 4. [Comment] Sheets E & S -2 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan appears to show no proposed grading for the tower pad — verify this is true or revise to show proposed contours. 5. [Comment] The height of the tower should be consistent throughout the plan. Sheets A -0, A -OA, A -1, E &S -2 labeled it as 131.5' ; however, on sheet A -2 it labels both 131:6' (Top of tower) and 131.5' (proposed monopole). Please clarify. 6. [Comment] Sheet A -0 provides a note which depicts the proposed AT &T Tower setback as 110% however, the tower is 131' tall, for a true 1 to 1 setback it should be revised to be the height of the facility from every point of the facility to include the generator /ground equipment. Revise. 7. [Section 5.1.40(c)(4)] Tree Conservation Plan.. 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 speck 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. [Section 5.1.40(c)(5)] Tree Conservation Plan. 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 f om any location off of the parcel. The agent »nay impose reasonable conditions to assure that the purposes of this paragraph are achieved ,Provide a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist which meets the requirements of 5.1.4(c)(4) and 5.1.4(c)(5). Also, pursuant to Section 32.7.9.4(b)(2) assure that this document is also signed by the applicant. Also, sheet A- 1_Compound Plan contains a tree inventory and the location of those trees; however, after a recent site visit it appears that the property has a large quantity of trees which will be affected by the development, specifically within the area of the proposed "20' access and utility easement" which are not shown on the plan. Revise the plan to depict and account for all trees to be removed and or preserved. Also, on the plan clearly label which trees are to be removed. C. Preliminary Comments from SRC reviewers Engineering — Max Greene 1. Plan appears to show over 10,000 square feet of proposed land disturbance and requires a WPO plan, Application and fee. The WPO plan will be approved prior to final site plan approval per chapter 17 of the County of Albemarle Ordinance. Architectural Review Board (ARB) — Margaret Maliszewski 1. An ARB application has been received and the item is scheduled for the October 21, 2013 ARB meeting. Comments will be provided after the meeting. Fire and Rescue = Robbie Gilmer - No objections Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer -No objections E911— Andrew Slack - Approved VDOT— Troy Austin -The existing entrance shown on the site plan is adequate as a Low Volume Commercial Entrance. - No objections ACSA — Alex Morrison -No objections. . Once items in Section A above are submitted, the application can be deemed complete and review of the application can continue. It is advisable that items listed in Section B and C above are addressed with the submittal as they will need to be addressed prior to approval of the plan. When this project is submitted assure that a response letter addressing all of the above comments is provided with the revised plan. If you have any questions or require additional information I can be reached at cperez@albemarle.org or 296 -5832 ext 3443. Sincerely Christopher P. Perez, Senior Plamier Planning Services Attachment A: The balloon test File: SDP 2013 -00048 4