Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201000006 Legacy Document 2010-10-15o� arm ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SDP 2010 -6 Mill Creek / Snow's Staff: Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner, Eryn Brennan - Garden Center (AT &T) Tier II PWSF ARB, John Diez, Engineer Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Hearing: October 19, 2010 N/A Owners: RDPD LLC Applicant: New Cingular Wireless (AT &T /SAI Communications Acreage: 8.167 Rezone from: Not applicable (Lease Area: 900 square feet) Special Use Permit for: Not applicable TMP: Tax Map 90, Parcel 35 By -right use: LI, Light Industry and EC, Entrance Location: 1995 Snow Point Lane [Private] at the Corridor Overlay intersection of Avon Street Extended [State Route 742] and Stoney Creek Drive [Private]. Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers /Conditions: No Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: N/A DA -X RA - Proposal: Proposal to install a Tier II personal Comp. Plan Designation: Industrial Service in Urban wireless service facility. The proposed facility Area 4 will consist of a 77 -foot tall monopole, associated equipment and a fence. The monopole will be ten (10) feet above the reference tree. Character of Property: The proposed site is Use of Surrounding Properties: located on a parcel with an entrance off Avon Street Mostly Industrial and Commercial structures. There are Extended [State Route 742]. The lease area is some residential uses across Avon Street Extended. wooded and there are existing commercial /industrial structures on the property. Factors Favorable: Proposal meets the Factors Unfavorable: none identified requirements of Section 5.1.40 Recommendation: Section 5.1.40 Personal Wireless Facility- Staff recommends approval of this personal wireless service facility at the proposed height of ten (10) feet above the reference tree. Waiver of Section 4.2.3.2 — disturbance of critical slopes - Staff recommends approval of the critical slopes disturbance waiver. STAFF CONTACT: Gerald Gatobu, John Diez, Eryn Brennan, PLANNING COMMISSION: October 19th, 2010 AGENDA TITLE: SDP 2010 -6: Woodson Property — Mill Creek / Snow's Garden Center (AT &T) Tier II PWSF PROPERTY OWNER: RDPD LLC APPLICANT: New Cingular Wireless (AT &T /SAI Communications) PROPOSAL: Request for approval of a treetop personal wireless service facility with a steel monopole that would be approximately 77 feet tall (ten (10) feet above the height of the reference tree), within a 30 x 30 foot lease area. This application is being made in accordance with section 27.2.1.(19) of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in the (LI) Light Industry zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Industrial Service in Urban Area 4 CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The proposed site is located on a parcel with an entrance off Avon Street Extended [State Route 742]. The lease area is wooded and there are existing commercial /industrial structures. The rear of the property is wooded with areas of critical slopes (slopes greater than 25 %). 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. N Section 5.1.40(d), "Tier II 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]. The Architectural Review Board reviewed this request for compliance with the County's design guidelines for the entrance corridor and has recommended approval [Attachment E]. 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 facility's location complies with all of the exemptions of Section 5.1.40(b) and the proposed equipment meets all relevant design, mounting and size criteria that are 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 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 77 feet above ground level (AGL) or 680 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is about 67 feet above ground level (AGL) or approximately 670 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located 24.1 feet south of the proposed monopole. A balloon test was conducted on September 9th, 2010 [Attachments D]. During the site visit, the balloon was launched a few feet off the proposed monopole location. The balloon was raised to the same elevation as the proposed pole, ten (10) feet above the reference tree. The balloon was visible for a short period of time from the North bound lane of Avon Street Extended [State Route 742]_well as from the South bound lane of Avon Street Extended [State Route 742]. The balloon was also visible from Parham Construction off Scottsville Road [State Route 20]. The trees around the balloon provided a backdrop; therefore, visual impact was mitigated. The balloon was also minimally visible at the Roof Center off Scottsville Road [State Route 20] The monopole at the proposed elevation of ten (10) feet above the reference tree is not expected to have an adverse impact on the Avon Street Extended [State Route 742] and Scottsville Road [State Route 20] entrance corridors due to its limited visibility. The ground equipment will not be visible from the entrance corridor. The "Java Brown" color of the monopole and antennas is expected to further limit views of the facility. 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. Staff believes there is no significant loss of resources related to the installation of the tower. This tower will not impact adjacent properties, and there will be no significant loss of historical and scenic resources related to the installation of the tower. The County's wireless service facilities policy encourages facilities with limited visibility, facilities with adequate wooded backdrop, and facilities that do not adversely impact Avoidance Areas (including Entrance Corridors and Scenic byways). The proposed pole is expected to be visible for a relatively short period of time when traveling on Avon Street Extended [State Route 742] and Scottsville Road [State Route 20] entrance corridors. As mentioned above, the degree of visibility is not expected to have a negative impact on the Entrance Corridors. The Architectural Review Board has approved the proposed monopole location; therefore, it is staff's opinion that the visibility of the monopole will not adversely impact the entrance corridors or the Scenic byway (Scottsville Road State Route 20). A tree conservation plan, with measures limiting the impacts to existing trees remain will be submitted prior to building permit application. 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 is no existing personal wireless service facility 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)(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. Notes on the site plan for this facility propose a monopole diameter not to exceed 30 inches at the base or 18 inches at the top. These dimensions comply with the maximum width requirements for treetop monopoles serving Tier II facilities. 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 680 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is approximately 670 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The proposed monopole will be about ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty -five (25) feet. 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. 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 equipment cabinet is Sherwin Williams brown paint (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 vertical cables, wiring and similar attachments will be located inside the monopole. 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. The Telecommunications Act addresses concerns for environmental effects with the following language, "No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commissions' regulations concerning such emissions." In order to operate the proposed facility, the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions. 5 These requirements will adequately protect the public health and safety. It is staff's opinion that the denial of this application would not have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless communication services. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this personal wireless service facility. Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval at the proposed ten (10) feet above the reference tree. 2. CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER The proposed facility will require the disturbance of critical slopes. The request for a modification [Attachment C] 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) allows the Planning Commission to waive this restriction. The applicant has submitted a critical slopes waiver request [Attachment B], and staff has analyzed this request to address the provisions of the ordinance. Critical slopes cover approximately 1.02 acres, or approximately 18% percent of the site. 261 square feet, or 0.006% of critical slopes on the site, are included in this request. The requested critical slopes are naturally occurring [Attachment F]. 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." A request to allow disturbance of critical slopes must be reviewed in accord with the requirements of Section 4.2.5. This section requires a two part analysis. Section 4.2.5(a)(1 -2) is a review of the technical performance standards. If these technical standards are not met, the disturbance of critical slopes cannot be approved by the Planning Commission. If these technical standards are met, the Planning Commission may then consider the disturbance of critical slopes. The criteria for the Planning Commission's review of the disturbance of critical slopes is found in Section 4.2.5(a)(3). Section 4.2.5. (a) Review of the request by Current Development Engineering staff: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: This is an 8.167 -acre LI, Light Industry zoned parcel in the off Avon Street Extended [State Route 742]. The disturbance of critical slopes is requested by the applicant to construct an access road to a cell tower. Areas Acres Total site 5.78 Critical slopes Approx. 1.02 Approx. 18% of parcel Critical slopes disturbed 0.006 Approx. 0.006% of critical slopes Co Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18 -4.2 is addressed: 1. "movement of soil and rock ": This plan does not meet the minimum threshold for needing an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan approved by the county. The applicant has correctly shown silt fence downhill of the development, which should help trap some sediment. 2. "excessive stormwater run- off ": Peak flows will increase with this plan but the additional runoff is not a great concern because the water will be in sheet flow on an already stabilized slope. 3. "siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water": This plan does not meet the minimum threshold for needing an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan approved by the county. The applicant has correctly shown silt fence downhill of the development, which should help trap some sediment. 4. "loss of aesthetic resource ": Aesthetic resources were discussed earlier in this report. No loss of aesthetic resources will occur. 5. "septic effluent": No existing septic systems or drainfields were found on the site. This site does not drain into a waterway that is a public drinking water supply for Albemarle County. No portion of the disturbed area is located inside the 100 -year flood plain area according to FEMA Maps, dated 04 February 2005. Exemptions [18- 4.2.6c]: No portion of this site is considered exempt by engineering review. Recommendation: Considering the minimal amount of total disturbance proposed (- 4,OOOsf, of which only —261 sf are critical slopes), the ESC measures proposed by the applicant in this set, and the fact that personal wireless service facilities are usually constructed and stabilized quickly, engineering review has no objections to the approval of the waiver. Review of the request by Current Development Planning staff: Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2.3.2: Section 4.2.5(a)(3): The Planning 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; The applicant has proposed to site this personal wireless facility so that the tower is minimally visible, and is screened from the entrance corridor. In order for the placement of this facility to take advantage of a backdrop of trees, disturbance of critical slopes is necessary. Since this is a personal wireless service facility proposal with a small area of disturbance, strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter. 7 b. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; The developer or subdivider has not proposed any alternatives that would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; however, the applicant will use /is showing a silt fence when none is required. 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 The property is already developed; therefore, denial of this critical slopes waiver would not prohibit or restrict the use of the property. Prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes will not unreasonably restrict the use of the property nor would it result in significant degradation to the property or adjacent properties. 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 waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import. Granting the waiver will allow the siting of a telecommunication facility on the property with limited visibility from the entrance corridor. It is difficult to find sites with limited visual impacts in the County of Albemarle. In order to place this facility on this property and take advantage of an existing backdrop of trees, minimal disturbance of critical slopes (for access to the site) is necessary. A public purpose of greater import will be served. SITMMARV Staff review has resulted in favorable findings: Favorable factors: 1. Application meets technical criteria for disturbance of critical slopes; and, 2. The disturbance of critical slopes will allow the siting of a personal wireless facility that is minimally visible and well screened from the entrance corridor. Additionally, the proposed tower will be in conformance with the personal wireless policy. Unfavorable factors: 1. None indentified RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has proposed to site this personal wireless facility so that the tower is minimally visible, and is screened from the entrance corridor. In order for the placement of this facility to take advantage of a backdrop of trees, disturbance of critical slopes is necessary. The personal wireless facility policy encourages the siting of facilities so that they are minimally visible and well screened. The amount of disturbance is minimal and the lease area is only 900 square feet. Staff recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver. PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION(S) Staff recommendations: A. Staff recommends approval of the associated critical slopes disturbance waiver. B. Staff recommends approval of this personal wireless service facility at the proposed height of ten (10) feet above the reference tree. There are two Planning Commission motions associated with this agenda item. A motion to approve or deny the associated critical slopes disturbance waiver request, and a motion to approve or deny the personal wireless service facility at the proposed height of ten (10) feet above the tallest tree. Motion 1: Approve /Deny the associated critical slopes disturbance waiver request. A. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the critical slopes disturbance waiver: I move to approve SDP2010 -6 Mill Creek / Snow's Garden Center (AT &T) Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility critical slopes disturbance waiver based upon a finding that the request satisfies the requirements of section 4.2.3.2 as outlined in staff s report. B. Should the Planning Commission choose to deny the critical slopes disturbance waiver: I move to deny SDP2010 -6 Mill Creek / Snow's Garden Center (AT &T) Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility critical slopes disturbance waiver. If the commission chooses to deny the critical slopes disturbance waiver request, it shall identify /establish requirements /reasons for denial. Motion 2: Approve /Deny the personal wireless service facility (tower) at the proposed height of ten (10) feet above the reference tree. A. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the personal wireless service facility: I move to approve SDP2010 -6 Mill Creek / Snow's Garden Center (AT &T) Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility at the proposed height of ten (10) feet above the reference tree. B. Should the Planning Commission choose to deny the personal wireless service facility I move to deny SDP2010 -6 Mill Creek / Snow's Garden Center (AT &T) Tier II PWSF for the following reason(s): 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 per section 5.1.40(d). 9 ATTACHMENTS: A. Site Plan B. Vicinity Map C. Applicant Justification Letter D. Balloon photos at proposed location E. ARB Approval F. Critical Slopes for TMP 90 -35 G. Letter from Mr. Duane Snow 10