Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201200067 Legacy Document 2013-02-21 (10)Attachment I STAFF CONTACT: David Benish Brent Nelson, Planner PLANNING COMMISSION: N/A AGENDA TITLE: SDP2012 -067: Houchens Property - Verizon Wireless Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility PROPERTY OWNER: Charles M. & Wanda S. Houchens APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless PROPOSAL: This is a proposal to install a Tier II personal wireless service treetop facility (Attachment A). The propose treetop personal wireless service facility will contain a steel monopole that would be approximately 100 feet tall (10 feet AMSL above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet), with associated ground equipment contained within a 10,004 square foot (82' x 122') lease area. This application is being made in accordance with Section 10.2.1 (22) of the Zoning Ordinance, allowing for Tier II wireless facilities by -right in the Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map 75, Parcel 24A, contains 4.51 acres, is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and zoned RA, Rural Areas and Entrance Corridor (Attachment B). The parcel under review does not directly adjoin the Route 29 South Entrance Corridor (EC) right -of -way; however, part of the parcel does lie within the 500 foot EC boundary extending from that right -of -way. ARB staff has determined that the proposed lease area does not lie within that 500 foot boundary; therefore, the proposal does not require ARB review and approval. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 4. CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The proposed facility is to be located at 1019 Britts Mountain Hollow on the south side of Route 29 South, approximately 1.5 miles south of the I -64 /Route 29 interchange. The parcel is located approximately 300' south of the Route 29 right -of -way. The parcel has a rural character containing wooded and cleared areas with the facility under review to be located on a hillside just inside the wooded area. The properties surrounding the subject parcel, characterized by large farms and single family residential lots, are designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan and included in the Rural Area Zoning District. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: SP198600023: Request to install a mobile home, administratively approved. STAFF COMMENT: Section 3.1 provides the following definitions that are relevant to this proposal: Tier II personal wireless service facility: A personal wireless service facility that is a treetop facility not located within an avoidance area. Treetop facility: A personal wireless service facility consisting of a self - supporting monopole having a single shaft of wood, metal or concrete no more than ten (10) feet taller than the crown of the tallest tree within twenty -five (25) feet of the monopole, measured above sea level (ASL), and includes associated antennas, mounting structures, an equipment cabinet and other essential personal wireless service equipment. Avoidance area: An area having significant resources where the siting of personal wireless service facilities could result in adverse impacts as follows: (i) any ridge area where a personal wireless service facility would be skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural and forestal district; (iii) a parcel within a historic district; (iv) any location in which the proposed personal wireless service facility 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; or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any state scenic highway or by -way. The proposed steel monopole and associated ground equipment will also require the disturbance of critical slopes, which may be approved by special exception under County Code § 18- 31.8(a)(1). The Tier II application and height of the monopole 10' above the reference tree are also reviewed as special exceptions under County Code § 18- 31.8(a) (1) &(2). Section 5.1.40(d), "Tier 11 facilities" states: "Each Tier II facility may be established upon commission approval of an application satisfying the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and demonstrating that the facility will be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter, criteria (1) through (8) below, and satisfying all conditions of the architectural review board. The commission shall act on each application within the time periods established in section 32.4.2.6 The commission shall approve each application, without conditions, once it determines that all of these requirements have been satisfied. If the commission denies an application, it shall identify which requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement. " The applicant has submitted an application that satisfies the requirements set forth in Section 5.1.40(a) and has performed a balloon test at the location of the proposed facility [Attachments D,E &F]. Section 5.1.40(d)(1): The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) and subsection 5.1.40(c)(2) through (9). Staff has determined that the proposed Tier II personal wireless service treetop facility complies with all of the exemptions of Section 5.1.40(b) and the proposed equipment meets all relevant design, mounting and size criteria set forth in Section 5.1.40(c)(2) and (3). The remainder of subsection (c) provides requirements that are subject to enforcement if the facility is approved. Section 5.1.40(d)(2): 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. 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 W 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, the facility shall be sited to so that it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement. The proposed facility includes a monopole that would have a height of approximately 100 feet above ground level (AGL) or 707.0 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is approximately 697.0 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located within 25' of the proposed monopole. A balloon test was conducted on December 14, 2012 (Attachments D, E & F). During the site visit, staff observed a balloon that was floated at the approximate height of the proposed monopole, 10' above the reference tree. Route 29 South was traveled to determine the extent of visibility of the proposal. The proposed ground equipment lease area was not visible. The balloon was only visible for a very short duration from sections of Route 29 South directly across and just north and south of the site. From locations north and south of the site, the balloon was seen through trees. From locations across from the site, the balloon was visible above trees but with a significant wooded mountainside backdrop. The balloon was then lowered to a height 7' above the reference tree. Staff did not notice a material difference in the visibility of the balloon. Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county's open space plan. Staff's analysis of this request addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic resources. The proposed lease area is not delineated as a significant resource on the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan [Attachment G]. Staff believes there is no significant loss of resources related to the proposed Tier II personal wireless service treetop facility. 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. There are no other personal wireless service facilities located within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet. 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 modification to the board ofsupervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d) (12). As mentioned previously in this report, the proposed monopole would have a height of approximately 707.0 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is approximately 697.0 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). As proposed by the applicant, the monopole will be ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty -five (25) feet. It is Staff's opinion that there is no material difference between the ten foot height and the seven foot height; therefore staff recommends approval at the proposed ten foot above the reference tree. 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 is proposing the installation of a facility with a steel monopole. The proposed color for the tower and associated equipment shelter is a brown paint color (SW6090, Java Brown) to match existing surroundings. Section 5.1.40(d)(8): Each wood monopole shall be constructed so that all cables, wiring and similar attachments that run vertically from the ground equipment to the antennas are placed on the pole to face the interior of the property and away from public view, as determined by the agent. Metal monopoles shall be constructed so that vertical cables, wiring and similar attachments are contained within the monopole's structure. A note on the site plan indicates that all vertical cables, wires and similar attachments shall be run vertically within the monopole structure. Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 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. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. 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 antenna additions at this site. Therefore, staff does not believe that the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of personal wireless services. 2 SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DISTURB CRITICAL SLOPES The applicant has submitted a request and justification for a special exception to disturb critical slopes [Attachment H], and staff has analyzed this request to address the provisions of the Ordinance. The request has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the critical slopes regulations. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth - disturbing activity on critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5(a) establishes the criteria by which a request to disturb critical slopes is evaluated. Under Section 31.8(b), the Board must consider the factors, standards, criteria, and findings delineated in Section 4.2.5(a), but it is not required to make specific findings in support of its decision. The critical slopes specific to this site appear to be previously disturbed during the development of the existing gravel road. The overall critical slopes in the area of this request are natural and belong to a larger system of critical slopes that have been identified as needing to be protected in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has reviewed this waiver request with consideration for the concerns that are set forth in Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled "Critical Slopes." These concerns have been addressed directly through the analysis provided herein, which is presented in two parts, based on the Section of the Ordinance to which each pertain. Section 4.2.5(a) Review of the request by Engineering staff: The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed. The engineering analysis of the request follows: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: This is a mountainside parcel with existing dwelling. Applicant proposes to construct an access road and site development for a tier II personal wireless service facility. Areas Acres Total site 4.508 acres approximately Critical slopes 3.338 74% of site Critical slopes disturbed 0.24 7.2% of critical slopes Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: This disturbance is not exempt. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2: "movement of soil and rock" Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of soil. "excessive stormwater runoff' Stormwater runoff will be maintained roughly as it is today in this area, as much of the work is along an existing gravel driveway and old logging road. Additional vegetation will help off -set the proposed impervious area. 5 "siltation" Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long -term stability. "loss of aesthetic resource" This area is visible from the roads and houses in the neighborhood. "septic effluent" This neighborhood is not serviced by public sewer. Based on the review above, there are no engineering concerns that prohibit the disturbance of the critical slopes as shown. Review of the request by Planning staff: Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2: Section 4.2.5 establishes the review process for granting a waiver of Section 4.2.3. The preceding comments by staff address the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a). Staff has included the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a)(3), along with staff comment on the various provisions. Under 31.8, the Board may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 based on these provisions, however, no specific finding is required in support of the Board's decision on the special exception. "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; " Granting the special exception could better serve the purpose of this chapter or the public health, safety or welfare by allowing the site to provide area residents with more reliable 4G service. More reliable service may be considered to serve public welfare, in an area where cell service is more limited. "B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; " No alternatives have been proposed by the applicant. "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" Because the entire property is located on the slope of a mountain with 74% in critical slopes, critical slopes disturbance is necessary in order to install the by -right facility, regardless of its location on the parcel. "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. " Granting the special exception would serve a public purpose of greater importance than would be C� served by strict application of the regulations. Although the critical slopes to be disturbed belong to a larger system of critical slopes, the total disturbance is minimal. Loss of aesthetic resource is also expected to be minimal. The proposed tower is well sited and otherwise meets the County's Wireless Policy. SUMMARY: Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal: Factors favorable to this PWSF request include: 1. The monopole is located so that it is only visible for a short duration from sections of Route 29 South directly across and just north and south of the site. From locations north and south of the site, the balloon was seen through trees. From locations across from the site, the balloon was seen above trees but with a significant wooded mountainside backdrop. 2. The proposed ground equipment is not expected to be visible from nearby roadways and properties. Factors unfavorable to this PWSF request include: 1. None identified. Favorable Factors for Critical Slope Disturbance: 1. The amount of total disturbance is limited. 2. Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization should prevent any movement of soil. 3. Proper stabilization and maintenance can help long term stability. No septic effluent concerns. 4. Approval of the critical slopes waiver would better serve public welfare than strict application of the regulations. 5. Minimal loss of aesthetic resource is expected. Unfavorable Factors for Critical Slope Disturbance: 1. The disturbance of critical slopes is to a larger system of critical slopes. In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, if the Board of Supervisors chooses to deny this application, the Board 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. Special Exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance: 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 the height of the structure in relation to the reference tree as per Section 5.1.40 (d) (6). 7 RECOMMENDATIONS: RECOMMENDATION ON SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS FOR TIER II WIRELESS FACILITY: Staff recommends approval of special exceptions for a monopole 10' above the reference tree, modification of Section 5.1.40 (d) (6) to allow a waiver to disturb critical slopes and approval of SDP201200067 Verizon Britts Mountain a Tier II personal wireless service facility. Conditions of approval: 1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled ` Britts Mountain Installation of Monopole, Compound and Operation of Antennas and Base Station Equipment in a Raw Land Lease Area (Houchens property)" prepared by Justin Yoon latest revision date 1/4/13 (hereafter "Conceptual Plan "), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general 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 type c. Antenna type d. Number of antenna e. Distance above reference tree f. Color g. Location of ground equipment and monopole Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: A. Site Plan B. Vicinity Map C. Application Justification Letter D. Balloon Test Photo, Route 29 South across from the site E. Balloon Test Photo, Route 29 South just north of the site F. Balloon Test Photo, Route 29 South just south of the site G. Open Space and Critical Resources Map H. Critical Slope Waiver Request N.