HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201100072 Staff ReportA1,
:.1�i1 ul
T
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SDP2011 -072 Moore's Creek-
Staff: Sarah Baldwin- Senior
Verizon Wireless- Tier III PWSF
Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
January 24, 2012
N/A
Owners: Canody, John C. or Anita L.
Applicant: Verizon Wireless -
Stephen Waller
Acreage: 6.364 Acres
Rezone from: Not applicable
(Lease Area: 1200 square feet)
Special Use Permit for: Not
applicable
TMP: Tax Map 89, Parcel 4
By -right use: RA -Rural Area, EC-
Location: U.S. Route 29, approximately 3'/4 miles
Entrance Corridor
south of the 1 -64 Interchange on the east side of the
road across from the Eltzroth Thompson Nursery
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller
Proffers /Conditions: No
Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lot: N/A
DA - RA - X
Proposal: Request for an extension of an existing
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural
steel monopole in order to support the attachment of
Area in Rural Area 4
a new set of antennas mounted on a second array.
The new proposed height of the monopole will be
approximately 96 feet, a 7 foot extension from the
top of the existing antennas which will slightly clear
the surrounding tree tops.
Character of Property: The existing facility is
Use of Surrounding Properties:
located in a wooded area surrounded by several
Single- family Residential, Vacant
trees screening the ground based equipment and
Residential and Commercial
taller trees located to the north and west.
Factors Favorable: Proposal meets the
Factors Unfavorable: none
requirements of Section 5.1.40
identified
Recommendation:
Section 5.1.40 Personal Wireless Facility- Staff recommends approval of 7 foot extension of the
existing monopole to support the attachment of a new set of antennas, which will bring the height
to approximately 96 feet, slightly clearing the surrounding tree tops.
STAFF CONTACT: Sarah Baldwin
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 24, 2012
AGENDA TITLE: SDP2011 -072 Moore's Creek- Verizon Wireless- Tier III
PWSF
PROPERTY OWNER: Canody, John C. or Anita L.
APPLICANT: Stephen Waller, Verizon Wireless
PROPOSAL:
Request for approval of a 7 foot extension of an existing of a steel monopole for the attachment
of a new set of antennas mounted on a second array. The existing tower is approximately 89 feet
and contains an existing antenna array located below the top of the monopole at a centerline
located approximately 85.42 feet above ground level (AGL). The 7 foot extension will utilize a
pipe mount extension that will bring the top of the new antennas to approximately 96 feet AGL,
slightly clearing the surrounding treetops [Attachment].
The BOS approved Special Permit SP2003 -66 on 12/10/03 authorizing the construction of this
facility. The current regulations for Wireless Facilities were also adopted on 10/13/04. Because
this facility was approved prior to the current regulations it is still subject to the conditions of SP
2003 -66 and is not considered a Tiered Facility because the concept of Tiered approvals did not
exist. Any change to the site must be consistent with the conditions of the Special Permit or the
conditions must be modified by using the Special Permit process or the site must be approved as
a Tier II. The site meets all the requirements of a Tier II facility and will be considered a Tier II
facility for the purposes of administering the ordinance and subsequent changes to the site may
be made provided that it meets the requirements of the Ordinance regulating Wireless Facilities.
The existing site and current application is being made in accordance with Section 10.2.1 (22) of
the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in the Rural Areas.
The property, described as Tax Map 89, Parcel 4, containing 6.364 acres is located in the Samuel
Miller District, and is zoned RA, Rural Areas.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 4.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The property and existing facility is a wooded site on a hill above the northbound lane of I -64.
The leased area is surrounded by several trees that screen the existing ground equipment and
taller trees located to the north and west of the monopole. The adjacent properties are zoned
Rural Areas, and contain single family residential, vacant residential and commercial.
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 3.1 provides the following definitions that are relevant to this proposal:
Tier III personal wireless service facility: A personal wireless service facility that is neither a
Tier I nor a Tier II facility, including a facility that was not approved by the commission or board
of supervisors as a Tier II facility.
N
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) feel 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.
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). No balloon test was deemed necessary since it is an existing structure. Staff is
comfortable with the limited increase in height which does not substantially alter the structure.
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). It should be noted that this tower exceeds the required setbacks due to the
height of the tower. No easement is necessary since the adjacent parcel is a public road right -of-
way (Route 29). 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
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 lease site is located upon a hill in a wooded area, and will not require removal of any trees.
Staff has found that the existing trees, along with the vegetative screening and existing fence
adequately screen the both the existing and proposed extension of the monopole and equipment
shelter.
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 will be no significant loss of resources related to
the installation of the towers.
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.
Aside from the existing facility under review, no additional personal wireless service facilities
are 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.
The existing facility will not require any increase in either the base diameter or the top of the
existing monopole.
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).
The proposed height increase to the existing monopole will be 96 feet tall and 759 feet above
mean sea level (AMSL). The extension will place the antennas approximately 1 foot above the
top elevation of the reference tree, which is identified as a 101 foot tall (AGL), 18 inch diameter
tree located 5 feet away from the monopole.
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 extension of the monopole and all antennas as well as proposed equipment will be painted
Sherwin Williams Java Brown #6090, which is consistent with previous approved PWSF.
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.
The existing monopole was constructed with cables and wiring contained within the monopole.
The Application states that an attempt will be made to locate any new required coaxial cables
and service lines inside the monopole. However, if the new cables do not fit, they will be located
vertically on the back side of the pole from the ground equipment to the antennas facing the
interior of the property.
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.
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: Based upon findings represented in the Application and presented in
the staff report, approval of this 7 foot extension to the personal wireless service facility is
recommended by Staff.
5
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Mqp
C. Applicant Photo Simulation