HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201300048 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2014-01-22P",
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
January 22, 2014
Cheryl Lynn Taylor
4164 Innslake Dr. Ste. B
Glen Allen, VA 23060
RE: SDP - 201300048- Durkin Property — AT &T Wireless Facility Tier II
Dear Ms. Taylor:
Comments have been held till the SRC meeting because the applicant neglected to pay the SRC
notification fee of $200.00 prior to the SRC meeting. No further review of the plans will commence
until this fee is paid.
A. ReasoH¢ %v Far �-t ion:
��'�e2tIl4A ➢Il :y.�. QV(a �(��� Elppllcalion f n'in and s7gnomrc:s. 2 col'npleled apphcatlon for -nr slgi'led by
the paree/ oii ncr, the parcel of iwr's agent or the co"111wel. purchaser. (1/0 die pr 'oposed fi I',',ihty J'
oivner. If the oivncr's agent si -its the application, he shall also submit wrillen evidence o the
existence and scope (# '/he agency. 7f the contracl purchased- signs the application, he shall also
suhinil the ovrner's written consent to the apl)licalion.Tfic property owner has not signed the
application form. I1: the applicant is acting as agent for the property owner_. such .written
doermmntation must be submitted. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
2. (Section 5.1.40(n)(4b)j The p /this and supporting drairim'S' calculalions card docilmenlation
Shall show: L levation. The benchmarks and dahim used.fiir• eleycilions. The datian shall coincide \
with the I1ii -ini(l ,Stale Plon' Coordinate &Ntenl, South lone, IVorlh <41nericon Dalilm of 1983
(N4D83)1 Uniled ,States Surrey Feel iVorlh American Vertical Datum (# '1988 ('`(1,'1988), and the
benchmarks shall be accept. able to the county engineer. Tlie benchmark used is not indicated on
the drawings.. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
[Seeflon k'vicept where the fczcilit -v would be altached to an existing
structure or an (n-isting building, the lopol r�aphy iI.ilhirl IIro thouscmd (2, 000), f!et of the proposed
faciliiv, in contour internals not to exceed ten (10) feel fcir cdl land anithin 41be nuir le C aunty curd
in Contour inlcryals shown on United ,S'lalcs Geological Survey lopographic szuwc:y maps or the
best lopographic data tnvilable. for lands not lriihin Albemarle C'minly. Provide the required
topography within 1000 beet oi'the proposed Iacility.. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
4. [Section 5.1. 0(2)(40)1 Trees. The height, caliper and species (if'all trees i here the dripline is
located inithin fifty (50) feat cif the facility that are relied upon to establish the proposed height or
screening, or both, of the monopole or lower. 1411 trees that will be adversely impacted or
rernoved durhig installation or maintenance of the fucilily shall be holed regardless of lheir
distances to the facility.
On the plan only 2 ol' dic trees (TRI and TR2) havc drip lines established. As a resillt, any impact:
of the Proposed construction on other trees which have driplines within a 50' radius of tile tower
"'otild not be dctcrmined. Revise plan to shove the drip 1111cs of all trees that have driplines wvithin
the 50" is ditis.. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
Also, provide the height of all trees �3,hcrc the driphne is located within 50` of the l�lcilit��.
011-1-nntl _y" ollly trec", i h( `f Z 1 3 have hciLthts. Provide I for alI trees which breach the 50'
radius.. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
Als>._ provide the required not-c-, on the plan for l.11l trc(;s that � -�JH be advCI-,;,,:,iv impacted or
NIIIOw(:d (;Llrinl, inS1'1Illatl0I1 of the facility, On th:: pli-In it appe'lrs th"lt III+ rC c?!'e id [.JmPIC tre( "'s
(,'l: -30 ,,III(! 1-1t39) which are: 9r,c:.(tr_d ill the p;lth of' thc Icc;-sS road. -hhc,f, trcf, ; sluxild
be t,loi)� rl�, noted is bCLlb? iInPJ',C j✓cd of rk n]i vcdl, /`,k o- the sit(' (inciUChl -W the access roa'l) is
i( Catcd In a heavily 1td'ode I c'Rr':i; however, the polln o!!k' CIeI)iets a shall 11110 HIL o` C';l`;till" trCCS.
$loWi,' (T Upon "itc 'Visit: sttll'i llok'd a SLlbst�1i1tial an"lwint of tl', " ('5 which \i�llf be iinpactc(I of
1'C'971d)ved 1rt)nl ill4') t_OClStrtli:tlGn C.' Ih(J ro,iC {, ilnd pi'ol ")(:I" y ai )iJl lne.sF� trees oil t ](:
p l a.n . Rev 1. Comment addressed.
. �, .r �'G /(,L';'[rj? h.. ��i1:tf)�O��l % / /?�L'i, -hcrc possible. i:'1"
Silc and Ca/ I1Whill lIro 1f1111NdPCd (00) 0/ 111 ("- .1'1?. if al'li', elild die
UPC,,P SiWi'OZ1Ndi1'1S, ille s!IC.
Provide pilU?U4_'CaI ")hti tl7h(1tU `i!n2i °:E.tl(• ?]S} or o; Otc Illy ,rl;_t i�t 111 �llll'!';i1n4711i��
area`, in '1'dElt1, ! assist stail in C C;tC'i'3 ?1til;nLC the ist'I'll of The 11"Ci111 y u11 b;nl�rC ?L'1ldiil
p opc `.i'S. cl: :pc lc�llk `' "J7.? the€ i;accn t ,0 ('111/
`1 -0il\ '.soli]! , <.Ui,d l..Jai,1" dIjriwl the r ><lflo(1[ 5t. the t)Lillool, 4ti'S rd�' )i' ;ron) th'.'
1EIfalC,;_i d'rt'ol f rtw 5 tc 5. 1L.;_a4.: i +_-Id pw -6on °i ol,th-ir (W" '1; t''ilw;;
<uD:a. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
Comments to be addressed prior to approval
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 vwas performed on September 25, 2013. During the balloon test staff traveled Ric
20_Stonv Point Road, Rte 640 Gilbert Station, Rte 640 'l'LH -UN S�az Road, and visited
surrounding and adjacent properties. At a few vantage points it appeared that the lilcility would be
sl:ylighted (see Atlachment ,-1). The County's wireless policy discourages facilitieS that are sky 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
windiing nature of Rte 20 Stony Point Road: however, the balloon was visible froln the adjacent
property's residence and portions oftheir 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
sinnilations) or perspective drawings of the facility froin 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? Rev 1. The applicant has provided
photo simulations as requested. Upon reviewing these pictures it appears that the tower is highly
visible from the neighboring property [TNT 34 -70C] because of the towers' skylining
characteristic (also known as skylight, which means with a backdrop to the facility being sky).
Additionally staff has been contacted by neighboring property one removed from the Durkin
2
property [TMP34 -70D] and the property owner is very concerned with the visibility of the tower
from her home and has stated that the tower is directly in the line of their view shed and would be
a visual nuisance. Based on the above vantage point and high visibility nature of this tower, the
applicant shall reduce the visual presence of this tower from this vantage point.
Also, staff has been contacted by neighboring property owners [TMP 34 -70B and TMP 34 -70A]
who are opposed to the project in its current location due to visibility issues caused by the towers
proximity to their homes. As the leaves have all fallen these property owners have stated that they
can see the reference tree from their back yards and are concerned that when the tower is installed
it will pose a visual nuisance to their property and ruin their enjoyment of their views from their
back yards. Due to the proximity of the tower facility to these homes it is conceivable that the
tower has an intrusive presence on the neighboring properties.
The owner of TMP 34 -70B has suggested a new location be proposed for the tower which sets it
back an addition 100' from the property line to help minimize visibility and provide additional
buffering which will mitigate the visual impacts to their property. The owner of TMP 34 -70B also
reflected this sentiment.
Based on the above staff suggests the applicant work to reduce the visibility of the tower to these
neighboring properties. Possible methods to reduce tower visibility: increase the distance and
buffering of trees between the tower to neighboring properties, reducing height or bulk of tower,
camouflage the tower. Once the applicant has worked to reduce the visibility of the proposed
tower it shall be pertinent to schedule a second balloon test that each of the abutting owners as
well as staff is notified of to aid in determining visibility of the tower with the leaves off the trees.
If the applicant does not intend to adequately address the above, please advise staff and a
denial letter will be issued.
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. Rev 1. The applicant addressed the initial
comment; however, also revised the plan to provide two (2) additional Twin TMA's to the tower
which lack dimensions on the plan. On the plan provide the dimensions of each TMA to aid staff
in determining the number of arrays which are present on the tower. Revise.
3. [Comment] The, elevation depicted on sheet A -2 labels "existing 7' high security fence" and
sheet A -0 labels "existing 50'x50'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 ". Rev 1. Comment not addressed.
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.
Rev 1. Comment not addressed.
[Comment] :11c, licigh1 0}_ rite tonv cr sil« tiicl be conSISI.cm tl,n)ughout the I)iaii, r;ht c is i'l -0.
-2 labs le(l it as I 1. ; i)mve ver, on sheet A -2 it labels both 131.6' (Top of tower) and
131.5' (proposed monopole). Please clarify. Rev 1. Comment not fully addressed. Please
explain.
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.
Rev 1. Comment not addressed.
7. [SecNoun 5.1<.40(c)(4)] Tree Conservation Plan. Prior to issuance (?/'a building permit, the
czpplir_anl shall su6�7�it a tree couservalion plan prepared by a certified iarborist. The plan shall he
3
srdnnilted to the agent for revieli, and approval to assure that all alyVicahle requirements have
been satisfied The plan shall specific tree protection methods and procedures, and idenlifj, all
exisling trees to he removed on the parcel for the inslallallon, operation and Ir9ainlenanCe of /he
f aCrhlV.
ISee on 5.T.40(c)(5)1 free Conservation Plan. The Installation, operallon and maintenance Of
the Jacilily shall be Condncled in accordance YI'rth the free conservation plan. Dead and dvilig
lr'ees identified by the arborisl 'S report nrav he removed ]f so noted on the tree Conservation plan.
If free retnov(al is later requesled that YNas not approved by the agent lvhen the free Conservation
plan boas approved the applicant shall submit an amended plan. The agent mad) approve the
ar77e1'ldC'd pl[ir'l If the pi'OposCGl tree i "ei) "ZOl'Gil bb'!ll not Lldver',Sely affeel the visibility (# the.f[:icihlY
from ant) localion off of the parcel. The agent. may iinpose reasonable coi- idillons to assure that
the parrposes of this puraaraph are achieved
Provide a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified a.rborist 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.
r' so.
A -1 'Conl1� }o[llld i'ielll c:onta9ti,s 41 ke{.6; 1nvc11to1y and
ahk:1'
a t.11 i; Ill(:
"i '711 ! 1'�{ �1R' -; ii i 1. �' C<<�;illlallA' ill (.t' •..i �, 'v,l.`.:!?
iii Ibc afl'C,_1t
d b`,' (lit' ;i�,;'�llO�;1 "Il('lil, 5171_'C111Cf1�1�' V�;
1t�1191 E11C ,,IIv) of thi. ,.
20
Vv
Ulihf. c.d -,G 1'I
"sellt' ,vh; .11 1,,ot s11mVi" on tit
61c 171,111 io do pica (Ind
Iccotlfa 1Y)1' "15i
h
Rev 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the Conservation Plan signed by a certified
arborist report shall be provided.
Additional Comments
1) [Comment] On sheet A -1, the Tree Table, has TR5 (77.5' tall Hickory) listed as remaining;
however, in the diagram TR5 is listed as "To be removed ". Assure that this sheet is revised so the
diagram and the table match.
2) [Section 5.1.40b(5), 32.7.4.1(a), 17.204(e)] Per Engineering's comment below the plan
appears to show over 10,000 square feet of proposed land disturbance and requires a WPO plan
be approved prior to approval of the site plan. Please contact Engineering for questions related to
the application of a WPO plan.
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. The ARB application has been approved.
Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer
- No objections
Building Inspections — Jay Schlothauer
. - No objections
4
E911— Andrew Slack
- Approved
VDOT— Troy Austin
- No objections
ACSA — Alex Morrison
- No objections.
When this project is resubmitted 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 Planner
Planning Services
File: SDP 2013 -00048
5