HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201200024 Staff Report 2012-10-23ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201200024 Virginia Department of
Staff: Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner
Forestry "Buckingham" Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
October 23, 2012
November 14, 2012
Owners: Virginia Public Building Authority c/o Va.
Applicant: Verizon Wireless -c/o Stephen
Department of Forestry
Waller
Acreage: 32.59
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 23.2.2(15) Special Use
Permit, which allows for Tier II I personal wireless
facilities in the CO Zoning District.
TMP: Tax Map 76 Parcel 17A
By -right use: CO, Commercial Office
Location: 908 Natural Resources Drive
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller
Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A
DA -X RA -
Proposal: Request for installation of a 110 foot tall
Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood 6;
monopine and associated ground equipment
Office Service
Character of Property: This property is zoned CO and
Use of Surrounding Properties: Vacant R-1
located in the Entrance Corridor and contains an office
and CO
building and accessory structures next to wooded areas.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The ARB finds that the proposed location and
1. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities
design of the facility will minimize visibility such
Policy looks unfavorably on mitigating
that no significant negative impact on the
visual impact by creating more visual
Entrance Corridor will be created. However, their
impact.
opinion is specific to this site and this treatment,
and does not endorse this monopine treatment to
2. The height of the monopine relative to
be used on a wider scale in circumstances where
the surrounding trees increases its
the pole exceeds the recommended height above
visibility primarily on site and from the
the surrounding trees.
adjacent property.
2. This facility will provide advanced technology
service and support a larger project to provide
fourth generation (4G) services therefore
contributing to the general health, safety, and
welfare of the public.
3. No objection has been received from the adjacent
owner, which is where the structure is visible.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
Modifications for Sections 5.1.40(c)(3), and (d)(5)(6) are included. Based on findings presented in the
staff report, staff recommends approval of SP201200024 and all modification (special exception)
requests with a condition.
STAFF CONTACT:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
AGENDA TITLE:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner
October 23, 2012
November 7, 2012
SP201200024 Virginia Department of Forestry
"Buckingham" Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF
Virginia Public Building Authority c/o Va.
Department of Forestry
Verizon Wireless -c/o Stephen Waller
This is a proposal to install a Tier III personal service wireless facility on the Department
of Forestry site. The Applicant is proposing a monopine, which is a monopole structure
designed to look like a pine tree that will be located upon a hill as well as supporting
ground equipment that will be located at the bottom of the hill adjacent to an existing
building. The monopine will be 110 feet tall, which is 616 above mean sea level
("AMSC"). Three antenna arrays mounted in full sectors are also proposed and will be
located at 104 feet, 100 feet and 96 feet respectively. The pine tree limbs are intended
to provide screening for the panel antennas. The supporting ground equipment will be
located in an existing parking lot at the bottom of the hill from the monopine. The site
will be accessed by an existing parking lot used by the Forestry Department. The 32.59
acre property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 17A, is located in the Samuel Miller
District and is zoned Commercial Office ("CO").
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property located in Urban Neighborhood 6 -for
Office Service uses.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
This property is zoned CO and located in the Entrance Corridor and contains an office
building and accessory structures next to wooded areas.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
ZMA 1992-10, rezoning from R-1 to CO.
DISCUSSION:
This is a proposal to install a Tier III monopine. The tower is a Tier III due to the fact that
it does not qualify to be either a Tier I or II facility. The site is located in the Entrance
Corridors for the Route 29/250 Bypass, Fontaine Avenue Extended and 1-64 and was
evaluated by the ARB. As part of the application, several waivers are proposed that are
outlined below.
Additionally, the Applicant has been working with the Department of Forestry as part of
a special pilot project to place towers on state owned lands. The proposed design for a
monopine was specifically selected by the Department.
2
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?
The monopine is proposed to be 110 feet (616 AMSL), and there are few trees within
25 feet of the structure. The Applicant has requested a waiver of the reference tree
requirement as the monopine is significantly taller than the surrounding trees which
increases its visibility. (Attachments C & D). The Applicant proposes to construct the
facility to resemble a pine tree and the Department of Forestry has selected this
specific type of structure. Additionally, adjacent property owners, including the
Fontaine Research Park, have expressed no objection to the monopine.
Will the character of the zoninq district change with this use?
Although the height of the monopine relative to the surrounding tree canopy is
significant, its visibility is limited within the vicinity. A balloon test was performed on
September 12, 2012 and viewed from various areas. The balloon was visible and
skylighted for a brief period of time along the Route 64 Bridge over the Norfolk
Southern Railroad tracks. At other locations, the topography and tree coverage
mitigate the visibility of the proposed structure. The ARB reviewed and
recommended approval of this proposal on October 1, 2012. The ARB also provided
additional comment to the Planning Commission that their opinion is specific to this
site and this treatment, and does not endorse this monopine treatment to be used on
a wider scale in circumstances where the pole exceeds the recommended height
above the surrounding trees.
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. of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified
in the Commercial Office 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?
A monopine by design is an attempt to disguise the appearance of a personal
wireless service facility. The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy states that
"the most important rule in mitigating visual impact is to avoid creating more visual
impact through an attempted mitigation." The use of a monopine structure would
create more visual impact and draw more attention because the disguised structure
appears unrealistic due to its scale and materials used. However, this particular
location and its lack of visibility mitigate any adverse impacts.
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. The proposed monopine will
provide more reliable access to the wireless communication market, to include
schools and residences. This can be seen as contributing to the public health, safety
and welfare. Otherwise, no change to the public health, safety and general welfare is
expected with this approval.
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 [Ordinance sections are in bold italics]:
Section 5.1.40(e) Tier 111 facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon
approval of a special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.6.1 of this chapter,
initiated upon an application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a)
and section 31.6.2, 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.
Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.6.1
special use permits have been met, with the exception of the modifications detailed
below. 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:
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 meets the required Commercial Office setbacks in
addition to all other area and bulk regulations and minimum yard requirements.
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 monopine will not require the installation of guy wires, nor will it be fitted
with any whip antennas. The proposed grounding rod will not extend more than 2 feet
above the tallest branches of the monopine. All other requirements of this subsection
M
have been met.
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.
The proposed antenna configuration will be spaced horizontally in a single array
mounted on T—mount sector frames. The 12 proposed antennas will be installed in a
triangular sector with dispersed antennas meeting the size requirements. However, the
antennas will project more than 12 inches from the existing structure and will not be
flush -mounted. The Applicant has requested a waiver from this section. Staff can
support this waiver, since the T -mounts will match the color of the main structure (Java
Brown #6090) and will also be screened by the pine branches. If the Planning
Commission chose not to approve the monopine, but rather a monopole, Staff would not
support the waiver.
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 only require
removal of short pines that range in height between 4-8 feet and were planted by the
Department of Forestry. A conservation plan meeting the requirements of the
subsection will be provided for review prior to building permit issuance.
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.
As stated above, a conservation plan meeting the requirements of this subsection shall
E
be provided for review.
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 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 the use of this facility in this location become discontinued at anytime in the
future, Verizon Wireless 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.
It is recommended that Verizon Wireless submit an annual report updating the user
annually to satisfy the requirements under the Ordinance.
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 new slopes greater than 2:1 will be created as a result of installation of the facility.
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 Applicant is not proposing fencing at this time.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening
I
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 monopine is meant to disguise the appearance of a tower and a length of string and
the balloon was briefly visible from Route 64; however, the facility is adequately sited to
minimize visibility elsewhere. The ARB has also approved the monopine largely due to
its location and limited visibility.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in
the county's open space plan.
The Personal Wireless Service Facility Policy encourages facilities that have limited
visual impact. This proposed site is in the Entrance Corridor, but will only be visible from
a limited location and therefore does not adversely impact any resources in the open
space plan.
Section 5.1.40(d)(4): The facility shall not be located so that it and three (3) or
more existing or approved personal wireless service facilities would be within an
area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of
two hundred (200) feet.
The proposed monopine is the only facility on the property or within the 200 feet radius.
Section 5.1.40(d)(5): The maximum base diameter of the monopole shall be thirty
(30) inches and the maximum diameter at the top of the monopole shall be
eighteen (18) inches.
The Applicant has requested a waiver because the diameter of the tower will be
approximately 54 inches. Staff is supporting this waiver due to the location of the
monopine, which will not provide any adverse visual impact.
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
7
modification to the board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12).
The proposed monopine will be roughly 47 feet taller than any of the surrounding trees.
The Applicant is requesting a waiver of the reference tree requirements for this
subsection. Staff and the ARB are supporting the waiver in this instance, since it is not
visible from most locations due to topography and tree coverage and no objections from
the public have been received.
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, fagade 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 has stated that the monopine's trunk, limbs and antenna arrays will be
painted JAVA Brown (#6090). The limbs will also contain artificial green pine needles.
The intent of this subsection is to ensure that the structure blends in with the wooded
area. Staff does not believe that the monopine's design will help the pole blend into the
surrounding area. However, because of its limited visibility beyond the site and
adjacent property, the proposed structure creates limited negative visual impact to
surrounding areas.
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
31.6.3).
Section 704(a) (7) (b) (1) (11) 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 (1)
shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent
services; (ll) 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. 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 structure
8
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:
The ARB finds that the proposed location of the facility will minimize visibility
such that no significant negative impact on the Entrance Corridor will be
created. However, their opinion is specific to this site and this treatment, and
does not endorse this monopine treatment to be used on a wider scale in
circumstances where the pole exceeds the recommended height above the
surrounding trees.
2. This facility will provide advanced technology service and support a larger
project to provide fourth generation (4G) services therefore contributing to the
general health, safety, and welfare of the public.
3. No objection has been received from the adjacent property owner, which is
where the structure is visible.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
The Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy looks unfavorably on mitigating
visual impact by creating more visual impact.
2. The height of the monopine relative to the surrounding trees increases its
visibility, primarily on site and from the adjacent property.
Staff finds the tower location acceptable due to the limited visibility. The Personal
Wireless Facilities Policy states that the most important rule in mitigating visual impacts
of a facility is to avoid creating more visual impact through an attempted mitigation.
Staff's opinion is that the artificial tree of this scale (monopine) could actually draw
attention to facilities, and generally this visual mitigation approach should be avoided.
Since this particular tower site has limited visibility and the adjacent Research Park has
no objection to the monopine, Staff can support this particular proposal.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance if recommended for
denial, 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 Tier III personal wireless
services facility based upon the analysis provided herein.
Special Exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance:
9
Requests for modifications must be reviewed under the criteria established in Section
31.8 taking into consideration the factors, standards, criteria and findings for each
request; however no specific finding is required in support of a decision. The proposed
modifications are for certain required information to be provided on supporting plan
documents. The application request is for an additional antenna array on the existing
tower are part of a larger project to improve Verizon Wireless' existing network of
facilities by adding fourth generation ('AG") services to the existing cellular services.
The recommended modifications are for requirements of the ordinance that are
generally meant to aid in the determination of whether a new tower is appropriate in the
proposed area of the County or whether a height increase is appropriate. Staff is able
to support all of the recommended modifications described in the staff report due to the
proximity of the monopine and limited visibility. Listed below are the recommended
modifications:
1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3) -no antenna to project more than 12 inches from a structure
2. Section 5.1.40(d)(5) -maximum base of the diameter
3. Section 5.1.40(d)(6) -height of the structure in relation to the reference tree
RECOMMENDATION ON SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR TIER III WIRELESS FACILITY:
Staff recommends approval of the following special exceptions of this personal
wireless service facility:
1. Section 5.1.40(c)(3) -no antenna to project more than 12 inches from a structure
2. Section 5.1.40(d)(5) -maximum base of the diameter
3. Section 5.1.40(d)(6) -height of the structure in relation to the reference tree
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this application, Staff
recommends the following conditions:
Conditions of approval:
Development and use shall be in general accord with what is described in the
applicant's request and site plans, entitled "Buckingham Circle Rawland
Monopine," with a final zoning drawing submittal date of 9/25/12 (hereafter
"Conceptual Plan"), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Administrator. To be in 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 height
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Color
f. Location of ground equipment
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above
may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
10
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Vicinity Map
B. Site Plan
C. Balloon Test Photos
D. ADDlicant Photo Simulations
Motion One: The Planning Commission's role in this case (SP201100024) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Plannina Commission choose to recommend aaaroval of this Tier
III personal wireless service facility
I move to recommend approval of SP 201200024 Virginia Department of
Forestry "Buckingham" Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF with the conditions
outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III
Dersonal wireless service facilitv:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201200024 Virginia Department of
Forestry "Buckingham" Verizon Wireless Tier III PWSF (Planning
Commission needs to give a reason for denial).
Motion Two: The Planning Commission's role in this case (SP201200024) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to approve or deny modifications for
Sections 5.1.40(c)(3), (d)(5) and (d)(6) under the special exception criteria of Section 31.8
of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Should the Plannina Commission choose to recommend aaaroval
modifications of Sections_5.1.40 (c)(3), (d)(5) and (d)(6).
I move to recommend approval granting the modifications for reasons
outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial the
modifications for this Tier III personal wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of the modifications outlined in the staff
report. (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
12
SP -12-24 Buckingham Verizon Wireless Tier III
76-13 76E--OC-8 J c
I 76E--OD-1 7613--OB-3 -)--OC-5A Legend
76E--OC-1 �/ q (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
76E--OC-9 76-1213 ` �� 7613 --OC 4' GL
7.601--OW2�
76-13B 76E--OB-4 � D%� fi� O 76-4 aCou--NVE-
76E--OB-3 7601--OB-17601*OC-2Ay 00 0 a�REs `s'""°"
� � ®CB °awe,
76E --0B 1 OA -3 a t7.6=4B qp ®PO-OFFCE"
y 76E 76-12A
f1✓ 6D--OC-
76E--O
D--OC-4A
�- WINE, ENMEXT•
7fiE--0,4-1 776-8
6-12F 76V17B5- d Q g q
� X29; 76-9784 76-17B3 0
7B-158 ,� ��} 6' ��' E�¢ o a b d o 0
702 j X6.12 ¢� 76-1781+�
RESER\R RD
� 5 0 76-17BW" I
76-17B6o�
�j 4 fT o o
Tfi-1776-17C+ 76-17A1 !1 � Q �o of
'9 C'� e
0 0
76-1F738T;6=�17B7
o 4
OO�pO
76=17:82 CS
�TM.676-176
p 0 76-1769
O
A�j E
�F
+ 76-17 - - 766i_01-15
` 1 9G 60Qe1 876811�0�
77, 76B--02-6
��'
76B--0'2-'31 Q
F G 76B --O 2-: ,
�s r
SO
UFc { �..76B�-02=10. ,
76B--02 -1376B--02-, 1�
768 02-'.18768 !02'24768=!!02,22
76B--02-28�` 7,6B--02-37
768--02-34
76B--02=38IO2-�7.6B--02 4
�N �76B--02-4376B--02=44
0A� 768 1 7 �B--0 E2
76B-,03 NAP1
NRF 76-24
410 768-=03 8 -
P -ORAS 768 03-12`�
O�F�cr �76B 03-15:,
a,�76B -0 �y ey GIS -Web
76R1 -04--D p� .6g ` - Geographic Data Services
y 768--03=24 y www.albemarle.org
76R1-04--75 �,R� (434)296-5632
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources October 16, 2012
E
GENERAL NOTES
1. NO COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING MATERIAL WILL BE USED IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE NEW TOWER.
2. ALL VERTICAL CABLES, WIRES, AND SIMILAR ATTACHMENTS SHALL
2 BE RUN VERTICALLY WITHIN THE MONOPINE'S STRUCTURE.
3. ANTENNAS, ANTENNA MOUNTS, MONOPINE TRUNK AND GROUND
EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PAINTED TO COUNT APPROVED COLOR,
SHERWIN WILLIAMS (#6090) JAVA BROWN.
TOP DIAMETER OF MONOPINE = 2.0'± -
E
E
APPROXIMATE MAX SPREAD OF MONOPINE = 16'±
,MkTOP OF CANOPY_ _ _
ELEVATION = [69'-0"±] 566'± AMSL
TOP OF CANOPY_
ELEVATION =
[57'-0"±] 556'±
BASE DIAMETER OF MONOPINE = 4.5'±-
TOP
.5'±—TOP OF FOU_NDATIOq____-,-
ELEVATION = [506'-9"'±] AMSL
NEW VERIZON WIRELESS
PCS ANTENNA
NEW VERIZON WIRELESS
CELL ANTENNAS
TOP OF MONOPINE BRANCH
ELEVATION= [110'-0"±] 616'± AMSL
NEW VERIZON WIRELESS
LTE ANTENNA
SE�2g�
NEW VERIZON WIRELESS
PCS ANTENNA -
GI n1ATIIIAI — f611R'+1 AI.AQI
THE GRADE AT THE BASE OF THE EXISTING TREES IS AT A LOWER ELEVATION IN COMPARISON TO
THE GRADE AT THE MONOPINE BASE. SEE SHEET C-5 FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN GRADE.
NEW VERIZON WIRELESS
LTE ANTENNA
U
12'-0"
ANTENNA LAYOUT PLAN
NOT TO SCALE
NEW VERIZON WIRELESS
CELL ANTENNAS
NEW VERIZON WIRELESS
PCS ANTENNA
NEW VERIZON WIRELESS
LTE ANTENNA
NEW VERIZON WIRELESS
CELL ANTENNAS
PROPOSED
TOP OF NEW VERIZON WIRELESS_ ANTENNA ARRAY _
ELEVATION= [104'-0"i]-6 —04'± AMSL
CENTER OF NEW VERIZON WIRELESS ANTENNA ARRAY
ELEVATION= [100'-0"±] 600'± AMSL
BOTTOM OF NEW VERIZON WIRELESS_ ANTENNA ARRA
ELEVATION= [96'-0"±] 596'± AMSL
FUTURE ANTENNA ARRAY BY OTHERS) _
r�Y1X,yY�
FUTURE ANTENNA ARRAY (BY OTHERS) r
v
TOP OF CANOPY
ELEVATION = (7'i7
, 0"±] TOP_ OF CANOPY _
568 ± AMSL
TOP OF. CANOPY ELEVATION = [54'-O"±] 569'± AMSL
ELEVATION = [69'-0"±] TOP _OF CANOPY_
566 ± AMSL
ELEVATION = [52'-0"±] 567'± AMSL
TOP OF CANOPY
ELEVATION = [67'-0"±]
JLJ 559'± AMSL
%� AVERAGE TREE LINE HEIGHT U
a , n 60'± AMSL QQ
0
m
ON
TOP OF FOUNDATION
710 ELEVATION
m
J
W
N
-ture & Engineer
1331 L STREET,
SUITE
WASHINGTON, DC 2C
202.461.3260 FAX 202461 •.
verizon wireless
1831 RADY COURT
RICHMOND, VA 23222
P
v ;JU�STJNNY. YiN
Lie. No. 42897
TONAL
NEW VERIZON WIRELESS
100' MONOPINE
v
EXISTING GRADE ® TREE LINE
ELEVATION = 513'± AMSL
FINISHED GRADE ® TOWER AMSL OL
ELEVATION = [506'±] AMSL
a) NORTH EAST ELEVATION VIEW
C-3 THE GRADE AT THE BASE OF THE EXISTING TREES IS AT A HIGHER ELEVATION IN COMPARISON TO
THE GRADE AT THE MONOPINE BASE. SEE SHEET C-5 FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN GRADE.
srm WFO,:
BUCKINGHAM
CIRCLE
RAWLAND
MONOPINE
908 NATURAL
RESOURCES DRIVE
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA
22903
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
REVIEW:
JW
TN DATE:
6/9/11
COMM. NO. 3036.NNN
SUBMTT]ALS
SYM. DESOVPTX)N
DATE
, SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL
11/9/11
0 REVIEW SET
D1/25/1:
Q PRELIMINARY CONST. DWGS
06/05/1;
♦ FINAL CONST. DWGS
06/21/1:
5 REVISED FINAL CONST. DWGS0
S/*/1:
eQ REVISED FINAL CONST. DWGS
09/25/V
SHEETNAMR
ELEVATION VIEW
I %4MT NO.: C-3 I
..
2� i •% ppS
Al
.frp
IN d
lo
prod WAS toot to f Or ON ins 11 ere
It
It t
Fee- �y� 1 t - n• C
time 1 .1 Frot
..i. .e me I
tip 36'y lFFIt:dVy�='i gX1'N Y•- .y r
f .
AIR
.4 •' .f! ..'Joe r.;411, 6
76 FOLF
�J'
Fell+ \- r� iIF
get.� F NEL,1111ml. ? ry 51 S •ts�+
F41
I Fit
1.
> .rrl
l 4,. "Mme Flo oo IN ON 40 V:1 Vlw�;v Few F try
�.IOF F. '.'iil OFF
ti
i it Fill. y %`• s .c. {y yy.,r, + t'. :el . j 16
Sip( • IF • x`14 ' 41,E %'
\ 11FO I
'time 4IN No r id.. ' �i tl' ,�i yi 404 N) ij, �`"
r 1411111 Ft IF
IN F i IF
IF
IF
110 Lw Owfe
UFO 0
.41Ul-
^ t FFF �tNo 14,.Ft
to ,'.'a ;� !ra Jim
�,v �i'5..., y},y, '�`{,L, NoOF
of L
py 6 IFF
VfF
Ft p
• to ?' % loop, Ft
L IF
.t.'VL O� rFL
<; A !OF
IF , r
!T 1 4
�,.�Joe
1 0. Ali. rIt -
I IF r er.Y� ti �IF OF
14
. . f
_ rlt
4• `- tIF
a �IF 1Yrl IF �\ If
h
No I
Fell I,
IN I
U IF Ft
Joel. 4
IF 11141 1 of lip'
IF
to
IFFIFF L Felt OFF
tell, IF
lip .11 00
it
FFV
1 / ; "s
f �11 OF
S fv PAY Fee
- ILIA IF Vp IF L � y imp, A
cFor
I Is riFIR
yalyr. T. me Ft p IFF
\.*'y.rrIF
�1 i VIP
y e�fi
O..`\ OF
IN� Am
yam,
ti fb x * IF +i
WIN
ol� IF IN
NO
IF w aj
Y \ v d Oti fit a, f �� r \OF
Foot , Ft§uith 7t + OFF
+'
Ook
OFF Film
tom, IF I
IF me
# r It I toyIF I 0. y
r� 5y� ` F s OT
MR
it . 4
ty �.� aNoe.-�_ f. Kms. } n... x'. ✓Yi �.'kfi� lt."`�`i is[..' •�^��� �� .,n•3i mak, _ - 61 - \, �
' i -"p NI W�rR `S�r
� K� y ' i AIR- Fi � .� iJ� � �
f
` ~
��rJ r � � �`` i� ; rw�
. ii V
I i?�.' .�
t� I..
�':: f�,
', .# _.
t .y'a .. motif ���f y�� ��� ♦ L,
S ,,; � 4t' �� y t ,�„w�6F x Th,, �, �, � :'�a V Y ^� � I 11 � - .� ��� '�' M� l
,� �'
y� �t l,r � 1 fr ':� Y � 3. � a
�` � ��w� ` � �`. 4�� `fit' ��`'�,�;'e��i . R ,C ��` \ t .T,
� y p
r. �°
r �` k r t � � +q �
p �r1 J �_
�f � �, y.'". i� \ >\"~�.� ,'� II t t lM � \ � n � L.S 1tl���y'` � � Vim+ ; �.-ttr� �! � 'a 'l
a r�''a � � �/ � Id i !�r '" �,..�'� I "'i1� �' 'R`\i.� q f '.. F� � i�.:!1.-� � ��\ .. �. � -
�«T"iy ht.1�' �M3'r� c f ','� r��. 1 - \. .�ti 1 «� �` / �AY• �i ^rD+N �P I �\ S
rt' : � v a,
li tit "
4 !i
=r eAxOC
va3Y b ��a
Of
wr
WA }
Oz
llk
ff
l, or for Or
x d
�yOr, oe
r ejk.S
i,�Of
A WL
L r '
r \ (;
If i r W � V -
)t i i %� C
J.
1
t-�Oz
G may If
�' . '
/.j�NOR IL
:ted }r. �.
Ily
L
Id' A*��g { /�• \tom•, 1C•t �t� Dye
12-'`S :.' t a iT /� ` .a•, K'�{ t ®R K\xF�','�.-\
Or
Or u
+�k� �y
Or
40. Or
ra
4 1 I!
iv Of 4L 11 n i
•pf a t l' .*lis I`Lh,F. �`. t �♦
r 'Of Of
WIMEMeMpRoW W,
Ytv
OF
Ir d
-4
A.
rr
1r of
�
,rte•• k?:� ��. forx
05 V
Yt .,w4• - 00 !r
ty'a ,� s IT. 1ni 5
WOr
f 4�r rr— r
14 of
$r iOr
wil
S r
Of
i 44 1
If
:..
Ar
zy^}rip
�
L
rOLOrl
r
�wLNC`_ ir
OX OvIi.
•pT r y..
- �? 'a'., , ' . r' mal<< Y ?4 - 1�. ,y♦
�r
v a !
Of`, 4' ,.� }
Vw",&01'1 wireless
Architecture & Engineering
ATTACHMENT D
Buckingham Circle
Comm. # 3036.NNN
• �,] Y. �� � � , �� • � • ,r• raw ... �°� x`
y
.r
POW•
0 CLARKK • NEXSEN
1/@I'1�011 wireless
Architecture & Engineering
ATTACHMENT D
Buckingham Circle
Comm. # 3036.NNN
I -.�T I
CLARK *NEXSEN
1. vk
-41
4jjmmlj&
PROPOSED
MONOPINE
Wii
I
CLARK • NEXSEN
ir�Y
v
h
•
CLARK • NEXSEN
v
h
V�01'iwireless
Architecture & Engineering
ATTACHMENT D
Buckingham Circle
Comm. # 3036.NNN