HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201100003 Legacy Document 2011-08-22o��OF atg���H
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 201100003 Scottsville Elementary
Staff: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
School- AT &T Tier III PWSF
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
June 21, 2011
TBD
Owners: County of Albemarle School Board
Applicant: Joe O'Conner, SAI
Communications; Valerie Long, Williams
Mullen
Acreage: 14.77 acres
Rezone from: Not applicable
(Lease Area: 600 square feet)
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2(48) Special Use
Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless
facilities in the RA Zoning District.
TMP: Tax Map 130 Parcel 25P
By -right use: RA, Rural Areas
Location: Scottsville Elementary School- 7868 Scottsville
Road (State Route 20)
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Proffers /Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: N/A
DA - RA - X
Proposal: An seventy three (73) foot AT &T treetop
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural
monopole and associated ground equipment
Area 4.
Character of Property: Site of Scottsville Elementary
Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural Areas -
School. Open with wooded area close to State Route 20.
single family residential
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. See report.
1. See report
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
1. Section 10.2.2 (48) and Section 5.1.4 Personal Wireless Facility- Tier III tower at ten (10) feet above the
tallest tree. Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends denial of the proposed personal
wireless service facility.
STAFF CONTACT:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
AGENDA TITLE:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
June 21, 2011
:0
SP201100003: Scottsville Elementary School- AT &T Tier
III
County of Albemarle School Board
Joe O'Connor- SAI Communications; Valerie Long -
Williams Mullen
This is a proposal to install a Tier III personal wireless service treetop facility [Attachment A].
The proposed treetop personal wireless service facility will contain a steel monopole that would
be approximately 73 feet tall [ 10 feet AMSL above the height of the tallest tree within 25 feet],
with a ten foot high equipment shelter that will be contained within a 600 square foot lease area.
The property is 14.77 acres, described as Tax Map 130, Parcel 25P, is located in the Scottsville
Magisterial District and is zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor [Attachment B].
The property is also located within 200 feet of a Virginia Byway (State Route 20).
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 4.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The proposed site is a 14.77 acre parcel located along Scottsville Road [Route 20 South] and the
site of Scottsville Elementary School. The proposed facility is located next to a wooded area
adjacent to Route 20. The character of the general area is rural. The site is included within 200
feet of a Virginia Byway.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
none
DISCUSSION:
A Special Use Permit is required for this proposal because it is located within 200 feet of a
Virginia Byway. Virginia Scenic Byways have been identified in the Personal Wireless Facilities
Policy and Zoning Ordinance as `Avoidance Areas'.
The Planning Commission will need to make findings on the appropriateness of the proposed
personal wireless facility.
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?
It is staff's opinion that the proposal will be a substantial detriment to the adjacent property
0
and to the Virginia Byway Route 20. During the balloon test and as shown in the
photosimulations [Attachments C and E] the monopole was extremely visible and sky lit from
both Route 20 and adjacent properties. There is no backdrop for the monopole and it is sited
close to Route 20.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
It is staff's opinion that the character of the zoning district will change with this use. By siting
a monopole in such a visible location with little screening, the rural character will change and
the monopole will become a negative fixture along the Route 20 corridor.
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 1.4.3, 1.4.4 and 1.4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified
in the Rural Areas chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). This request is not
consistent with either section. Section 1.4.3 states that the zoning ordinance is designed "to
facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community ". The siting of
this proposed PWSF does not create an attractive community. Also stated in the Rural Areas
chapter of the ordinance it states that the intent of the district has the following purpose:
"conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources ". Since this facility is within the
Virginia Byway, and is highly visible, it is not conserving the scenic resource.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
The proposed personal wireless service facility will not restrict any nearby by -right uses
within the Rural Areas district.
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. In this case, the proposed facility will provide coverage
to a local school, as well as Route 20 corridor, including E911 call services. This can be seen
as contributing to the public health, safety and welfare.
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.
Section S. 1.40 (e) Tier III 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.
3
Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and section 31.6.1 special use
permits have been met. 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: [Ordinance sections are in italics]
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 will meet the required Rural Areas 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 monopole does not require the installation of guy wires, nor will it be fitted with
any whip antennas. The proposed grounding rod complies with the size requirements. The
facility will only have one outdoor light fixture which will be shielded and operated by motion
sensor. All proposed lighting is for temporary maintenance and security use only.
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 antennae configuration will consist of one sector with three panel antennas that
measure 51.9 "x 12.7 "x 2.8 ", and each antenna shall not exceed 1,152 square inches. These
antennas will be installed using "pipe- mounts" that will allow for any required amount of down -
tilting without exceeding the County's requirements for flush - mounts (12- inches maximum
El
between the face of the monopole and the face of the antennae. All antennae will be painted to
match the color of the tower.
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 and its access from the existing
parking lot will not require the removal of any trees for the access road. The applicant will
provide a tree conservation plan by a certified arborist prior to the submittal of a building permit
for this facility.
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.
In order to ensure that there is no significant impact to any of the trees that are to remain, the
conservation plan will be completed prior to the submittal of a building permit.
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 use of the antennae site in this location become discontinued at anytime in the future,
SAI Communications 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
W
than May or and no later than July I 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.
After the proposed PWSF has been installed, SAI Communications will submit an annual report
updating the user status and equipment inventory of the facility in the required time period.
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 slopes associated with the installation of the facility are steeper than 2:1.
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 proposal includes a 20'x 30' area that will be fenced with a wooden board fence. Staff has
found that this fence will not be detrimental to the character of the area, nor the public health,
safety or general welfare.
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, 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 proposed facility includes a monopole that would have a height of approximately seventy
three (73) feet above ground level (AGL) or 469 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height
of the reference tree is approximately 459 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located
within twenty five (25) feet of the proposed monopole.
A balloon test was conducted on March 30, 2011 [Attachment C]. During the site visit, staff
observed a test balloon that was floated at the approximate height of the proposed monopole.
Route 20 was traveled north and south of the site to determine the extent of visibility of the
proposal. Staff found that the balloon was visible for approximately 0.5 miles traveling south on
Route 20, and for approximately 1000 feet when traveling north on Route 20. The whole
distance the balloon was visible was approximately 0.75 miles. During this time the balloon was
sky lit, with no background.
The applicant is providing additional landscape screening for the ground equipment and for the
T
lower portion of the monopole to minimize its visibility. This screening will help minimize the
visibility for the lower portion of the monopole and for the ground equipment, however since the
monopole is surrounded by a wooded area, and has no wooded backdrop, the top of the tower
will still be highly visible.
Staff has found that this proposal does not meet this requirement do to the amount of visibility
from adjacent properties and Route 20.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county's
open space plan.
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 historic resources). Staff's analysis of this request
addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic resources. The proposed lease
area is located within the Virginia Byways (Route 20) in the Open Space Plan [Attachment E].
As stated previously, it is staff's opinion that this facility does adversely impact Route 20 by it
being sited such that it is highly visible.
The Architectural Review Board has given a recommendation that the applicant consider another
site for this facility [Attachment F] and has recommended denial for this site.
A tree conservation plan, with measures limiting the impacts to existing trees remain will be
submitted prior to application for the building permit.
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 of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12).
As mentioned previously in this report, the proposed monopole would have a height of
approximately 469 feet above mean sea level (AMSQ. The height of the reference tree is
approximately 459 feet above mean sea level (AMSQ. As proposed by the applicant the
monopole will be ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty -five (25) feet. Since this is
a Tier III facility, the applicant has requested that this facility be at ten feet above the reference
tree, Staff has found that there isn't a material difference in the impact of resources between
seven feet and ten feet. The balloon is approximately three feet in diameter, and therefore the
bottom of the balloon would be at the seven foot height. During the balloon test staff found that
even at the seven foot height, the proposed monopole would be just as visible compared to ten
foot height.
7
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, facade 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 (Java Brown) to match
existing surroundings.
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)(I)(II) 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 (I) shall not unreasonably
discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (II) 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. 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 special use permitting process nor
the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of
personal wireless services.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of this personal wireless facility.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The addition of this monopole provides cellular, data, and ECC coverage for the existing
school contributing to the general health, safety, and welfare of the public.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The proposal does not meet Sections 5.1.40 (d)(2) or 5.1.40 (d)(3).
2. The proposed monopole when visible is sky lit.
3. The proposal is within the Virginia Byways, an avoidance area outlined in the Open
Space Plan.
4. The Architectural Review Board has recommended denial of this proposal at this
location.
In order to comply with Section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, 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.
Per Section 5.1.40 (e)(1), Tier III facilities must comply with subsection 5.1.40(b), subsection
5.1.40(c)(2) through (9), and subsections 5.1.40(d)(2), (3), (6), and (7) unless modified by the
board of supervisors. This proposal does not meet Sections 5.1.40(d)(2) or 5.1.40(d)(3) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this application, Staff recommends the
following conditions:
Conditions of approval:
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.
2. 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.
3. All work shall be done in general accord with what is described in the applicant's request
and site construction plans, entitled "Scottsville Elementary School CV434 ", with a final
zoning drawing submittal date of 5/17/11.
X
4. 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.
5. The owner of the facility shall submit a report to the agent by no earlier than May 1 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.
6. The following shall be submitted to the agent after installation of the monopole is
completed and prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: (i) certification by a
registered surveyor stating the height of the monopole, measured both in feet above
ground level and in elevation above mean sea level, using the benchmarks or reference
datum identified in the application; and (ii) certification stating that the lightning rod's
height does not exceed two (2) feet above the top of the monopole and width does not
exceed a diameter of one (1) inch.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity
C. Balloon photos
D. Open Space Plan- Page 11
E. Applicant Photo Simulations
F. Architectural Review Board Letter
10
Motion: The Planning Commission's role in this case (SP20110003) is to make a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III
personal wireless service facility
I move to recommend approval of SP 20110003 Scottsville Elementary School
AT &T Tier III PWSF with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201100003 Scottsville Elementary School AT &T
Tier III PWSF because the proposal does not meet Sections 5.1.40(e)(1), 5.1.40(d)(2)
and 5.1.40(d)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance.
11