HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201100024 Legacy Document 2011-11-29o� arm
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 201100024 Moyer Property- Verizon
Staff: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
Wireless Tier III PWSF
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
December 6, 2011
TBD
Owners: LeRoy and Helen Moyer
Applicant: Stephen Waller- GDN Sites;
Verizon Wireless C/O Maynard Sipe- LeClair
Ryan
Acreage: 8.98 acre
Rezone from: Not applicable
(Lease Area: 588 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 92 Parcel 56133
By -right use: RA, Rural Areas; EC, Entrance
Location: 1863 Thomas Jefferson Parkway
Corridor
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Proffers /Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: N/A
DA - RA - X
Proposal: Request for extension of an existing steel
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas in Rural
monopole in order to support the attachment of a
Area 4 - Preserve and protect agricultural,
second vertical array with three new flush mounted
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
antennas that will be located above existing
scenic resources/ density (.5 unit /acre in
antennas. The new proposed height of the existing
development lots)
monopole will be 89.5 feet, an 8.5 foot extension
from the top of the existing antennas, and will be
approximately six feet above the reference tree.
Character of Property: Mostly wooded and currently
Use of Surrounding Properties: Rural Areas -
contains an existing monopole and associated ground
single family residential
equipment.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The extension is proposed on an existing facility
1. None identified.
and will not have any visual impact to the entrance
corridor or adjacent properties.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has
recommended approval based on minimal visibility
from Route 53 an Entrance Corridor.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
1. Section 10.2.2 (48) and Section 5.1.40 Personal Wireless Facility- Tier III tower at sixteen (16) feet above
the tallest tree. Also included are modification for Sections 5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9) and (d)(6). Based on
findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval at the height of sixteen (16) feet above the
reference tree and associated modification requests, with conditions.
STAFF CONTACT: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: December 6, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: SP201100024:Moyer Property- Verizon Wireless Tier III
PWSF
PROPERTY OWNER: LeRoy and Helen Moyer
APPLICANT: Verizon Wireless
PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal for an extension of an existing steel monopole in order to support the
attachment of a second vertical array with three new flush mounted antennas that will be located
above existing antenna [Attachment A]. The new proposed height of the existing monopole will
be 89.5 feet, an eight foot extension from the top of the existing antennas, and will be
approximately six feet above the reference tree. The property is one acre, described as Tax Map
92, Parcel 56B3, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is zoned RA, Rural Areas and
EC, Entrance Corridor [Attachment B].
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit /acre in development lots).
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The site contains an existing personal wireless service facility and associated ground equipment.
The property is mainly wooded, and the character of the surrounding areas is single family
residential.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP2004 -018- Moyer, LeRoy and Helen- Alltel Nix Way - A special use permit for a personal
wireless service facility with an 80 foot monopole and associated ground equipment was
approved on August 11, 2004.
DISCUSSION:
A Special Use Permit is required for this proposal because it is located within 200 feet of a
Virginia Byway (Route 53). 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:
N
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adiacent property?
It is staff's opinion that the proposal will not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
property. The facility is located in a wooded area with lots of vegetation. The extension on the
existing monopole will not be skylighted, and there is a substantial backdrop for the facility.
Also, the extension monopole will not be visible from Route 53.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
It is staff's opinion that the character of the zoning district will not change with this use.
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 1.4.4 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 consistent with
both sections.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
No significant adverse impacts on adjacent properties in the (RA) Rural Area district are
anticipated. 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. The proposal is for an extension on an existing
monopole which was approved in August 2004. No change to the public health, safety and
general welfare is expected with the approval of the extension.
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 5.1.40 (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.
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) (L-51. 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 offacility 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 extension will not require guy wires, or whip antennas other than those that are already on
the existing monopole. The proposed grounding rod meets the requirements of the ordinance,
and the facility will only have one outdoor light fixture that will only be in use when service is
being performed at the site at night or during weather events. The ground equipment will be
located next to the existing ground equipment which is sheltered from all lot lines by existing
vegetation. The applicant will be required to provide a statement certifying that the height of the
new extension complies with this regulation.
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 94.6 "x 11.2 "x 4.5 ", and each antenna shall not exceed 1,152 square inches. These
antennas will be installed using "pipe -mast extension" that will allow for any required amount of
down - tilting without exceeding the County's requirements for flush - mounts (12- inches
maximum between the face of the monopole and the face of the antennae). All antennae will be
painted to match the color of the monopole.
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 extension and all supporting ground equipment will be kept
within the existing facility compound. No trees will need to be removed in order to install the
new antennae and ground equipment.
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.
A tree conservation plan will not be needed since this is an existing site and no additional trees
will be removed with the installation of the antennae and ground equipment.
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,
Verizon Wireless and/or its assignee(s) will be required to remove the facility within 90 days.
Subsection 5.1.40(0(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
5
report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user acquiescing in the report.
After the proposed PWSF has been installed, Verizon Wireless 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 applicant is requesting a modification of this section. The applicant is not proposing to
install a fence surrounding the existing and proposed facility and ground equipment. Staff does
not believe a fence would protect the facility from livestock or wildlife, and not having a fence
would not be detrimental to 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 antenna will extend the height of the pole from 80 feet to 85.5 feet, approximately
12 feet taller than the reference tree.
A balloon test was conducted on October 10th, 2011 [Attachment C]. During the site visit, staff
observed a test balloon that was floated at the approximate height of the proposed monopole.
Route 53 was traveled to determine the extent of visibility of the proposal. The balloon was
visible from a great distance away for a brief period of time while traveling north/west on Route
53. The balloon and facility was also visible directly in front of the site through the trees on
Route 53, however this is not a change from the current visibility. Staff has found that the
visibility from these two areas was minimal and is not expected to have a negative impact on
adjacent properties.
Architectural Review Board staff reviewed this request and attended the balloon test and has
stated that this proposal is not expected to have a negative impact on the Entrance Corridor
[Attachment E]. It is Staff's opinion that at the proposed sixteen foot height above the reference
tree, the low level of visibility is not expected to have a negative impact on the Entrance
Corridors or adjacent properties.
Co
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county's
open space plan.
No resources identified for this property in the County's Open Space Plan are being adversely
impacted.
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 extension antenna would have a height of
approximately 530.0 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The existing monopole is at a height of
525.5 AMSL. The height of the reference tree is approximately 522.0 feet above mean sea level
(AMSL). As proposed by the applicant the monopole will be 12 feet taller than the tallest tree
within twenty -five (25) feet. The top of the existing monopole is below the height of the
reference tree. The extension is proposed to stay within the requirements of this section.
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 new antenna and all associated cable, and equipment will be painted to match the existing
facility.
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 32.2.4):
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
7
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 approval of the proposed changes to the existing
personal wireless service facility, and modifications, based on the analysis provided herein.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The extension is proposed on an existing facility and will not have any visual impact to
the entrance corridor or adjacent properties.
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval based on minimal
visibility from Route 53 an Entrance Corridor.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. none
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.
Zoning Ordinance Modifications:
1. Section 5.1.40 (c)(4)- Requirement for a tree conservation plan to be submitted prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
2. Section 5.1.40 (c)(5)- The installation, operation and maintenance of the facility to be
conducted in accordance with the tree conservation plan.
3. Section 5.1.40(c)(9)- Fencing around the ground equipment.
4. Section 5.1.40(d)(6)- Height of the monopole not more than ten (10) feet taller than the
tallest tree within 25 feet.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled "Nix
Way- Moyer Property" prepared by Clark Nexson and dated 11/9/11 (hereafter
"Conceptual Plan "), as determined by the Director of Planning and the 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 type
c. Antenna type
d. Number of antenna
e. Distance above reference tree
f. Color
g. 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.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Balloon photos
D. Applicant Justification
E. Architectural Review Board Staff comment
9
Motions- Two Separate:
Motion One: The Planning Commission's role is to approve or deny modifications for Sections
5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9), and (d)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of Sections
5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9), and (d)(6)._
I move to recommend approval of Sections 5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9), and (d)(6) with
the reasons 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 Sections 5.1.40(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(9), and (d)(6). (Planning
Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
Motion Two: The Planning Commission's role in this case (SP20110024) 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 20110024 Moyer Property 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 personal
wireless service facility:
I move to recommend denial of SP 201100024 Moyer Property Verizon Wireless
Tier III PWSF. (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
10