HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201100026 Legacy Document 2012-01-19M
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2011 -00026 Flatwoods Land
Staff. Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Trust
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing: TBD
January 24, 2012
Owners: Flatwoods Land Trust
Applicant: SAI -COM for AT &T
Acreage: 421.04 acres
Rezone from: Not applicable
(Lease Area: 1,600 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 112 Parcel 30G
By -right use: RA, Rural Areas; EC, Entrance
Location: Approximately one mile north of the
Corridor
intersection of Route 20 and Plank Road, on the
west side of Route 20.
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Proffers /Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: N/A
DA - RA - X
Proposal: Special use permit request for a
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas in Rural
personal wireless service facility including a
Area 4 - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
119 -foot metal monopole with flush -mount
open space, and natural, historic and scenic
antennae. Proposal includes requested
resources/ density (.5 unit /acre in development lots)
waiver of section 5.1.40(d)(6) of the Zoning
Ordinance (to allow a pole height 30 feet
above the reference tree, over the normal
maximum of seven to ten feet).
Character of Property: Hardwood forest, with a
Use of Surrounding Properties: The adjacent
pine plantation at the southwest corner.
properties are forests and farms, except for the
commercial uses at the intersection of Route 20 and
Plank Road.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The facility will not be visible from the
1. None.
Virginia Byway (Route 20).
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has
recommended approval based on minimal
visibility from Route 20, which is an Entrance
Corridor.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval of SP20 1 1 00026 (with
conditions) and associated modification request (for Section 5.1.40(d)(6)).
STAFF CONTACT:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
AGENDA TITLE:
Scott Clark, Senior Planner
January 24, 2011
1:E
SP201100026 Flatwoods Land Trust
PROPERTY OWNER: Flatwoods Land Trust
APPLICANT: SAI -COM for AT &T
PROPOSAL:
PROPOSED: Special use permit request for a personal wireless service facility including a 119 -
foot metal monopole with flush -mount antennae. Proposal includes requested waiver of section
5.1.40(d)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance (to allow a pole height 30 feet above the reference tree,
over the normal maximum of seven to ten feet).
ZONING CATEGORY /GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit /acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2 (48) which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning
District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 4 - Preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5
unit /acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES
LOCATION: At the northwest side of the intersection of Scottsville Road (Route 20), Esmont
Road (Route 715), and Coles Rolling Road (Route 712).
TAX MAP /PARCEL: 11200- 00- 00 -030GO
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
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 area is largely made up of large farm and forest parcels, with a few groupings of smaller
residential parcels to the north and south along Route 20, and a small area of commercial uses at
the southeast corner of the property (at the intersection of Route 20 and Plank Road). The parcel
and much of its surroundings are forested, mostly in hardwoods but with some significant areas
of pine plantations.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
The property has no previous planning or zoning history.
N
DISCUSSION:
A Special Use Permit is required for this proposal because it is located on a Virginia By -Way
(Route 20), which qualifies as an "avoidance area." Also, the height of the proposed tower would
be more than ten (10) feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet of the tower.
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 not be of substantial detriment to the adjacent
property. The proposed facility would located in a densely wooded area approximately 390
feet from the nearest road (Route 20) and behind the top of a steep rise that further obscures
visibility.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The facility would be very difficult to see from Route 20, and would be visited only for
occasional maintenance. Therefore 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?
The proposed facility would be located over 1,500 feet from the nearest dwelling and would
be surrounded by woods. 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 a new monopole with an associated access road. The Virginia Department
of Transportation (VDOT) has stated that a new entrance permit will be required. However,
no safety issues were noted.
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 Le Tier III facilities. Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of a
special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.61 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) (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 tower will not require guy wires or a whip antenna. 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 at the base of the tower, in an area that 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.
2
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 would consist of two sectors with three panel antennas, and
each antenna shall not exceed 1,152 square inches. The outer edge of the antennae would be
within 12 inches of the pole. All antennae would 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 tree conservation plan would be reviewed after approval of this special use permit request
and before issuance of a building permit for the 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.
This requirement applies after the approval of the required tree conservation plan.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)(Q. 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
5
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, the
applicant 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
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
report includes a statement signed by a representative from each user acquiescing in the report.
If this special use permit request is approved, and after the proposed PWSF has been installed,
the applicant would submit an annual report updating the user status and equipment inventory of
the facility in the required time period.
Subsection 5.1.40(c)( . 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 proposed fence would (i) provide protection from wildlife, (ii) would not be detrimental to
the character of the area, as it would not be visible from Route 20 or from adjacent properties,
and (iii) would have no health or safety impacts. Therefore staff believes that the proposed fence
should be 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, or adjacent to a
Co
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 monopole would be 119 feet tall, and would be 30 feet taller than the reference
tree.
A balloon test was conducted on November 10, 2011. During the site visit, staff observed a test
balloon that was floated at the approximate height of the proposed monopole.
Staff travelled Route 20, Plank Road (Route 712), and Fry's Path (Route 627) to determine the
extent of visibility of the proposal. The balloon was not visible from any point, except when,
after careful observation, it was glimpsed through trees at the closest point of Route 20.
However, if the forest between the tower site and the road was cleared, the antenna would be
visible.
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. It is
staff's opinion that at the proposed height, the level of visibility will be low and is not expected
to have a negative impact on the Entrance Corridors or adjacent properties.
The northeast corner of this property meets at a point with the southwest corner of another parcel
that is under a conservation easement. However, the proposed facility is not expected to be
visible from the latter property due to topography, vegetation, and the distance from the facility
to the eased property (approximately 800 feet).
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county's
open space plan.
No significant resources identified in the Open Space & Critical Resources Plan would be
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).
The applicant is requesting a waiver of this section. In order to give sufficient service in the area,
the applicant is requesting to increase the height above the reference tree to 30 feet. While no
7
request for this much additional height has been considered by the County in the past, in this case
the impact of the additional height would be negligible due to topography and vegetation. As
stated above, staff found the proposed tower height (shown by the test balloon) practically
invisible from all of the surrounding roads. If it was pointed out, staff could find the balloon
through the trees (leaves were off), but only with effort. The brown monopole would be
significantly less visible than the large red balloon.
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 equipment will be painted a natural brown color.
Section 5.1.40(e)2: The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use
permit.
Conditions of approval are recommended below, and the facility will be held to those conditions.
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.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The facility will not be visible from the Virginia Byway (Route 20).
2. The Architectural Review Board staff has recommended approval based on minimal
visibility from Route 20, which is 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, if the Planning Commission
recommends denial of this request, it 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.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP 2011 -00026 Flatwoods Land Trust
with the conditions listed below, and of the requested modification to Section 5.1.40(d)(6) (to
permit the facility to extend 30 feet above the reference tree), based on the analysis provided
herein.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled "CV429"
prepared by O. Warren Williams, Jr., and dated 10 -10 -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 antennae
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.
2. Entrance design and location must be approved by the Virginia Department of
Transportation before construction of the access road for this use may commence.
Zoning Ordinance Modifications:
1. Section 5.1.40 (d)(6)- Modification of requirement that facility extend no more than 7
feet above the reference tree, to permit it to extend 30 feet above the reference tree.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Area Map
B. Site Map
C. Conceptual Plan
Motions (Two Separate):
Motion One: The Planning Commission's role is to recommend approval or denial of the
modification to Sections 5.1.40(d)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this modification
to Section 5.1.40 (d)(6)
I move to recommend granting the modification for the reasons outlined in the staff
report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this modification:
I move to recommend denial of the modification outlined in the staff report.
(Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
Motion Two: The Planning Commission's role in this case (SP20110026) 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 20110026 Flatwoods Land Trust 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 20110026 Flatwoods Land Trust. (Planning
Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
10