HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200700024 Staff Report 2007-10-02l
pF Alfj
9
JRCiNI'
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SDP 2007 -00025 CV 340A Staff Gerald Gatobu, Megan Yaniglos,
Brownsville /Ramsey Property Margaret Maliszewski
Planning Commission Public Hearing:Board of Supervisors Hearing:
October 2, 2007 N/A
Owners: James H or Jeanne T Ramsay Applicant: Cingular Wireless
Acreage: 6.82 Acres Rezone from: Not applicable
Lease Area: 0.017 Acres)Special Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: Tax Map 56, Parcel 35B By -right use: R1 Residential and EC,
Location: On the north side of Rt. 250 West,Entrance Corridor Zoning
east of Crozet Avenue and adjacent to
Sheppard Run.
Magisterial District: White Hall Proffers /Conditions: No
Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: N/A DA - X RA -
Proposal: Proposal to install a Tier II Comp. Plan Designation: CT -2,
personal wireless service treetop facility.Development Area Reserve within the
The proposed facility consists of a 67.4-Crozet Community.
foot tall monopole measured above
ground level (AGL), painted brown with
an approximate top elevation of 730.7
feet, measured above mean sea level
AMSL .
Character of Property: Sloping, wooded,Use of Surrounding Properties: Single -
undeveloped land.family Residential
Factors Favorable:Factors Unfavorable:
1. The lease area for the ground equipment 1. From vantage points on route 250, the
and monopole is not located on critical proposed height of 67.4 feet was
slopes or other significant features minimally visible. Where visible, the
identified in the Crozet Development Area tower rose above the treetops with no
Master Plan.wooded backdrop, causing the balloon to
2. ARB has approved the location based on be skylighted.
low levels of visibility from the Route 250,
an Entrance Corridor.
RECOMMENDATION This facility located 10 feet above the tallest tree within 25 feet would
not have any adverse impacts on adjacent and nearby resources. Staff recommends
approval.
STAFF CONTACT:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
AGENDA TITLE:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Gerald Gatobu; Megan Yaniglos; Margaret Maliszewski
October 2, 2007
SDP 07 -025: Brownsville /Ramsey Property
Ramsay, James H or Jeanne T
Cingular Wireless
This is a proposal to install a Tier II personal wireless service treetop facility (Attachment A).
The proposed facility consists of a 67.4 -foot tall monopole measured above ground level (AGL)
to be painted brown with a ground elevation of 663 feet, measured above mean sea level
AMSL). The proposed monopole will be 10 feet higher than the identified reference tree
located 14 feet from the tower site. The monopole will be equipped with an array featuring three
3) flush- mounted panel antennas, approximately (51.6 "x 12.1 "x 4.5 "). Supporting ground
equipment will be contained within a proposed 12' by 16' Cingular concrete equipment pad.
The lease area for the proposed facility is located on property described as Tax Map 56, Parcel
35B, which is approximately 6.82 acres and is zoned R -1, Residential and EC, Entrance
Corridor. The site is located north of Rockfish Gap Turnpike [Rte. 250] just east of its
intersection with Shephard Run [Private] in the White Hall Magisterial District.
This application has been submitted in accordance with Section 15.2.2(17) of the Zoning
Ordinance, which allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in the R 1 Residential zoning
district.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Development Area Reserve [CT 2] within
the Crozet Community.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The site of this proposed facility is up a wooded slope. The proposed tower site obtains access
from a 20 -foot wide access easement extending off Shephard Run [Private]. Shephard Run is on
the north side of Rockfish Gap Turnpike [Rte. 250]. Rockfish Gap Turnpike [Rte. 250] is an
entrance corridor. There is a residence on the property. All properties adjacent to the subject
parcel are zoned R1 Residential.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SUB 1999 -225 Ramsay, James Family Division: (Plat done by Roger Ray and Associates).
Created one 2.14 acre lot with a 6.82 acre residue
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 3.1 provides the following definitions that are relevant to this proposal:
Tier H personal wireless service,facility: A personal wireless service facility that is a treetop
facility not located within an avoidance area.
Treetop_facility: A personal wireless service facility consisting of a self - supporting monopole
having a single shaft of wood, metal or concrete no more than ten (10) feet taller than the crown
of the tallest tree within twenty -five (25) feet of the monopole, measured above sea level (ASL),
and includes associated antennas, mounting structures, an equipment cabinet and other essential
personal wireless service equipment.
Avoidance area: An area having significant resources where the siting of personal wireless
service facilities could result in adverse impacts as follows: (i) any ridge area where a personal
wireless service facility would be skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural and forestal
district; (iii) a parcel within a historic district; (iv) any location in which the proposed personal
wireless service facility and three (3) or more existing or approved personal wireless service
facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having
a radius of two hundred (200) feet; or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any state
scenic highway or by -way.
Section 5.1.40(d), "Tier II facilities" states:
Each Tier ILfacility may be established upon commission approval ofan application satis&ing
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 tinie periods established in section 32.4.2.6. The connnission
shall approve each application, without conditions, once it determines that all of these
requirements have been satisfied. ff the commission denies an application, it shall identify which
requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each
requirement. "
The applicant has submitted an application that satisfies the requirements set forth in Section
5.1.40(a) and has performed a balloon test at the location of the proposed facility (Attachments C
and D). The Architectural Review Board reviewed this request for compliance with the
County's design guidelines for the entrance corridor and recommended approval.
Section 5.1.40(d)(1): The facility shall coniply iv th subsection 5.1.40(b) and subsection
5.1.40(c)(2) through (9).
Staff has determined that the proposed facility's location complies with all of the exemptions of
Section 5.1.40(b) and the proposed equipment meets all relevant design, mounting and size
criteria that are set forth in Section 5.1.40(c)(2) and (3). The remainder of subsection (c)
provides requirements that are subject to enforcement if the facility is approved.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site provide adequate opportunities for screening and the,facility
shall be sited to minimize its visibiliry_from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of'their
distanee 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 would be located
on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easetent, the, facility shall be
sited to so that it is not visible front any resources specifically identified for protection in the
deed of easement.
The proposed facility includes a monopole that would have a height of approximately 67.4 feet
above ground level (AGL) or 730.7 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the
reference tree is approximately 720.7 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located 17 feet
southwest of the proposed monopole. A balloon test was conducted on March 21, 2007. During
the site visit, staff observed a test balloon that was floated at the approximate height of the
proposed monopole. The balloon was visible from the entrance corridor, but minimally so. When
visible, it was seen for a short distance on the Route 250 entrance corridor and it was seen
through trees. The trees did not provide a backdrop for the balloon, so when it was visible, it was
sky -lit. The low level of visibility is not expected to have a negative impact on the EC.
Based on the information above, it is staff s opinion that the proposed facility will be minimally
visible from adjacent parcels and streets.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The 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 Crozet
Development Area Master Plan (Attachment F). Staff believes there is no significant loss of
resources related to the installation of the tower. The site plan shows the removal of 4 existing
pine trees. During the August 20 ARB review hearing, the applicant stated that the four Pine
trees shown on the site plan (to be removed) are either dead or dying.
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). The proposed pole is expected to be
visible for a relatively short period of time when traveling on Route 250 (an entrance corridor).
The degree of visibility is not expected to have a negative impact on the EC based on these
findings. The Architectural Review Board has approved the location with conditions
Attachment G). Therefore, staff feels the visibility of the monopole will not adversely impact
the resources of the entrance corridor or historic districts.
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 mould be within an area comprised of a circle
centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet.
There is no existing personal wireless service facility located within an area comprised of a circle
centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet.
Section 5.1.40(d)(5): The maximum base diameter of the monopole shall be thirty (30) inches
and the maximum diameter at the top of the monopole shall be eighteen (18) inches.
Notes on the site plan for this facility propose a monopole diameter not to exceed 30" at the base
or 18 inches at the top. These dimensions comply with the maximum width requirements for
treetop monopoles serving Tier II facilities.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level,
shall not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall not be more
than seven (7),feet taller than the tallest tree tirithin twenty -five (25) feet of the monopole, and
shall include anv base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre- existing natural
ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the commission ntay be up to ten (10)
feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the
proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7), feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not
a material difference in adverse impacts to resources identified in the county's open space plan
caused by the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than
the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner's denial of a modification to the
board ofsupervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12).
As mentioned previously in this report, the proposed monopole would have a height of
approximately 730.7 feet above median sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is
approximately 720.7 feet AMSL. The proposed monopole will be (10) feet taller than the tallest
tree within twenty -five (25) feet.
Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark bron 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 the v are enclosed n or behind an approved structure,./`made or 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 ofyear 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 for the support cabinets is a brown paint (specific brown color sample
will be turned in to the ARB) to match existing surroundings. A note on the site plan indicates
that the tower, ice bridge components, coaxial cables, antennas and supports are to be painted
brown, and the final choice is to be approved by Albemarle County.
Section 5.1.40(d)(8): Each wood monopole shall be constructed so that all cables, tiviring 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 affray 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.
5
A note on the site plan indicates that vertical cables, wiring and similar attachments must be
contained within the monopole's structure.
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996
The regulation of the placement, construction and modification ofpersonal wireless by
any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of
Prohibiting the provision ofpersonal 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.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The lease area for the ground equipment and monopole are not located on critical
slopes or other significant features identified in the Crozet Development Area Master
Plan.
2. ARB has approved the location based on minimal visibility from the Route 250
Entrance Corridor.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. From a few vantage points on the adjacent streets [Route 250] the proposed height rises
well above the treetops with no wooded backdrop, causing the balloon to be skylighted.
2. Four (4) Pine Trees are to be removed.
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.
6
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Applicant Justification Letter
D. Balloon photos at proposed location
E. Balloon view from selected roads in adjoining subdivision
F. Location on Crozet Development Area Master Plan
G. ARB action
ALg, ?
9
IR(II1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SDP 2007 -024 — CV 339 Staff: Summer Frederick, Margaret
Wild Turkey / Cross Property Maliszewski
Planning Commission Public Hearing:Board of Supervisors Hearing:
October 2, 2007 N/A
Owners: Robert L. Cross Applicant: Cingular Wireless
Acreage: approximately 6.000 acres Rezone from: Not applicable
Lease Area: 0.017 acre S ecial Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: Tax Map 57, Parcel 41 L By -right use: RA, Rural Areas and EC,
Location: Southern site of Route 250 West,Entrance Corridor
approximately one mile west of the Mechums
River crossin
Magisterial District: White Hall Proffers /Conditions: Yes - Conditions
Requested # of Dwelling Units /Lots: N/A DA RA - X
Proposal: Proposal to install a Tier II Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas in
personal wireless service treetop facility.Rural Area 3
The proposed facility consists of a
109.2 -foot tall monopole measured
above ground level (AGL), with an
approximate top elevation of 783.1 feet
measured above mean sea level
AMSL .
Character of Property: Sloping, open field Use of Surrounding Properties: Single -
surrounded by wooded areas family Residential and Agricultural
Factors Favorable:Factors Unfavorable:
1. The lease area is located in an area with 1. The proposal is for a 109.2 -foot tall
no significant features as identified in the monopole. During the required Balloon
Open Space Plan.Test, the balloon was flown at 98 -feet,
2. The Architectural Review Board has providing an inaccurate depiction of the
approved the proposed location,monopole's height.
monopole, and support equipment,
pending staff administrative approval of
conditions.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff cannot support the facility at the proposed 109.2 feet. However,
staff finds this facility would not have any adverse impacts on adjacent and nearby resources
and recommends approval with the following condition:
1. The height of the pole shall be reduced to ninety -eight (98) feet, as depicted during the
required Balloon Test.
STAFF CONTACT: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner; Margaret Maliszewski, Principal
Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: October 2, 2007
AGENDA TITLE: SDP 2007 -024 — CV 339 Wild Turkey / Cross Property
PROPERTY OWNER: Robert L. Cross
APPLICANT Cingular Wireless
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposes to install a Tier II personal wireless service treetop facility (Attachment A). The
proposed facility consists of a 109.2 -foot monopole measured above ground level (AGL), with a ground
elevation of 783.1 feet, measured above mean sea level (AMSL). The proposed monopole will be ten (10) feet
higher than the identified reference tree with a dripline within twenty -five (25) feet from the tower site. The
monopole will be equipped with an array featuring three (3) flush- mounted panel antennas, approximately
51.6 "x12.1 "x4.5" in size. Supporting ground equipment is to be contained within a 5'3"x4'4" concrete pad. The
total area to be leased by Cingular Wireless is 750 square feet.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Rural Area within Rural Area 3.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP 1999 -009 — A Special Use Permit was approved allowing the construction of an eighty [80] foot telephone
pole type tower with two panel antennas that will not exceed the surrounding tree tops.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Section 3.1 provides the following definitions that are relevant to this proposal:
Tier 11 personal wireless service facility: A personal wireless service facility that is a treetop facility not located
within an avoidance area.
Treetop facility: A personal wireless service facility consisting of a self - supporting monopole having a single
shaft of wood, metal or concrete no more than ten (10) feet taller than the crown of the tallest tree within twenty -
five (25) feet of the monopole, measured above sea level (ASL), and includes associated antennas, mounting
structures, an equipment cabinet and other essential personal wireless service equipment.
Avoidance area: An area having significant resources where the siting of personal wireless service facilities
could result in adverse impacts as follows: (i) any ridge area where a personal wireless service facility would be
skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural and forestal district; (iii) a parcel within a historic district; (iv) any
location in which the proposed personal wireless service facility and three (3) or more existing or approved
personal wireless service facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the
ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet; or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any state
scenic highway or by -way.
Section 5.1.40(d), "Tier II facilities" states:
Each Tier 11 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."
2
The applicant has submitted an application that satisfies the requirements set forth in Section 5.1.40(a) and has
performed a balloon test at the location of the proposed facility. The Architectural Review Board reviewed this
request for compliance with the County's design guidelines for the entrance corridor and recommended
approval, pending staff administrative approval of the following conditions:
1. Reduce the pole height to 98' maximum.
2. Indicate the proposed paint color on the plan and provide a sample forreview. Revise all paint color notes to
identify the specific paint color.
3. Revise note #2 under "Monopole Details" on Sheet A -02A by replacing the "or" with "and"
4. Provide a larger set of plans for review.
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 conforms with the exemptions allowed by Section
5.1.40(b) and the proposed equipment meets all relevant design, mounting and size criteria that are set forth in
Section 5.1.40(c)(2) and (3). The remainder of subsection (c) provides requirements that are subject to
enforcement if the facility is approved.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2):
The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility
from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible
from a state scenic river or a national park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto,
the facility also shall be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be
located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, the facility shall be sited to
so that it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement.
The proposed facility includes a monopole that would have a height of approximately 109.2 feet above ground level
AGL) or 783.1 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is approximately 774.3 feet
above mean sea level (AMSL) and the dripline of said tree is located within twenty -five five (25) feet east of the
proposed monopole. A balloon test was conducted at the proposed location. During the site visit, staff observed a
test balloon that was floated at approximately ninety -eight (98) feet above ground level. The balloon was visible
from the entrance corridor, but minimally so. When visible, it was seen through the trees within the VDOT right -of-
way located along Route 250. The low level of visibility is not expected to have a negative impact on the EC.
Based on the information above, it is staff's opinion that the proposed facility will be minimally visible from adjacent
parcels and streets.
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 County's Open Space Plan. Staff
believes there is no significant loss of resources related to the installation of the tower.
The County's wireless service facilities policy encourages facilities with limited visibility, facilities with adequate
wooded backdrop, and facilities that do not adversely impact Avoidance Areas (including Entrance Corridors
and historic resources). The proposed pole is expected to be visible for a relatively short period of time when
traveling on Route 250 (an entrance corridor). The degree of visibility is not expected to have a negative
impact on the Entrance Corridor based on these findings. The Architectural Review Board has approved the
location with conditions. Therefore, staff feels the visibility of the monopole will not adversely impact the
resources of the entrance corridor or historic districts.
Section 5.1.40(d)(4):
The facility shall not be located so that it and three (3) or more existing or approved personal wireless service
facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two
hundred (200) feet.
There is an existing personal wireless service facility within two hundred (200) feet of the proposed facility.
These are the only two personal wireless service facilities (proposed or existing) located on the site.
Section 5.1.40(d)(5):
The maximum base diameter of the monopole shall be thirty (30) inches and the maximum diameter at the top
of the monopole shall be eighteen (18) inches.
Notes on the site plan for this facility propose a monopole diameter not to exceed 30 inches at the base or 18
inches at the top. These dimensions comply with the maximum width requirements for treetop monopoles
serving Tier II facilities.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6):
The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level, shall not exceed the height approved
by the commission. The approved height shall not be more than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within
twenty -five (25) feet of the monopole, and shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole
above the pre- existing natural ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the commission may be
up to ten (10) feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the proposed height, rather
than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not a material difference in adverse
impacts to resources identified in the county's open space plan caused by the monopole at the proposed
height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the
commissioner's denial of a modification to the board 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 783.1 feet
above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is approximately 774.3 feet above mean sea
level (AMSL). The proposed monopole would be approximately nine (9) feet taller than the tallest tree within
twenty -five (25) feet. Because the balloon test was flown to a height of ninety -eight (98) feet rather than the
proposed 109.2 feet, staff cannot determine whether there is a material difference in the visibility in the
monopole at the proposed height. Staff can state that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the
monopole at ninety -eight (98) feet. This determination is the basis of staff recommendation for a condition
restricting the facility to ninety -eight (98) feet in height, if the Planning Commission approves the applicant's
proposal.
Section 5.1.40(d)(7):
Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color; each metal or concrete monopole shall be
painted a brown wood color to blend into the surrounding trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all
other equipment attached to the monopole shall be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The
ground equipment, the ground equipment cabinet, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely
matches that of the monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a
color if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, fagade or fencing that: (i) is a color that
closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the area; and (iii) makes the ground
equipment and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other parcel or a public or private street.
The applicant is proposing the installation of a facility with a steel monopole. The proposed color for the tower
and for the support cabinets is a brown paint (specific brown color sample will be turned in to the ARB) to
match existing surroundings. A note on the site plan indicates that the tower, ice bridge components, coaxial
cables, antennas and supports are to be painted brown, and the final choice is to be approved by Albemarle
County.
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,
in
wiring and similar attachments are contained within the monopole's structure
A note on the site plan indicates that vertical cables, wiring and similar attachments must be contained within
the monopole's structure.
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(1)(11) 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.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The lease area is located in an area with no significant features.
2. ARB has approved the location based on minimal visibility from the Route 250 Entrance Corridor.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The proposal is for a 109.2 -foot tall monopole. During the required Balloon Test, the balloon was flown
at 98 -feet, providing an inaccurate depiction of the monopole's height.
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.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff cannot support the facility at the proposed 109.2 feet. However, staff finds this facility would not have any
adverse impacts on adjacent and nearby resources and recommends approval with the following condition:
1. The height of the pole shall be reduced to ninety -eight (98) feet, as depicted during the required Balloon
Test.
Attachments:
A. Applicant's Letter
B. Proposed Site Plan
C. Reference Tree Height Certification
D. Tax Map
E. Arial Map
Wild Turkey Lane
Cingular CV- 339 A)
What is the comprehensive plan designation for this property?
Rural /Agricultural
How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property?
The proposed SUP will have no adverse affect to any adjacent property. The proposed
tower, equipment, and concrete pad are proposed to be located a distance far enough within the
existing woods from all property lines that will obscure their visibility from any direction.
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding
the property?
The proposed facility is consistent with guidelines for a Tier II Wireless Communication
Facility and does not change the character of the district surrounding the property. It will not
generate additional traffic or development, and preserves the character of the district. Because the
surrounding property contains many tall trees and a power line easement the placement of the
pole and antennas are sited within a grove of tall trees so that it is minimally visible, the character
of the district surrounding the property will not be affected by the modifications.
How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
The proposed facility is consistent with the County's preference for monopole structures,
which extend slightly above the treetops as discussed in the County's wireless design manual. In
addition, wireless telecommunication services provide a public service to the community by
creating a "convenient, attractive and harmonious community ", consistent with the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance. These modifications will enable Cingular Wireless to further the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance by offering the citizens the most technologically advanced mobile
communication service available.
How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by -right in the district?
The proposed facility will not restrict the current uses or other by -right uses available at
this property or by -right uses on another property.
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the zoning ordinance apply
to this use?
Section 5.1.12, which outlines public utility structures and uses.
How will this use promote the public health, safety and general welfare of this
community?
The proposed facility will provide increased and improved wireless telecommunications
service to this portion of Albermarle County, especially emergency communications and
enhanced digital communications including internet, faxing, photo, video, etc. Specifically,
emergency communications will be promoted with enhanced 911 services including GPS location
capabilities built into handsets, thereby giving emergency services the ability to pinpoint the exact
location of emergency calls.
Attachment A
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as
number of persons involved in the use, operating hours and unique features of the
use:
Cingular Wireless requests a Special Use Permit to construct, maintain and manage a
wireless telecommunications facility on property owned by Robert L. Cross, identified as tax map
parcel 57 -041 L.
The proposed facility includes installing a monopole no taller than the closest tree
within 25 -feet and would be comprised of a metal monopole painted brown, installation of an
equipment pad, and an equipment cabinet. The coaxial cables will be internal to the towers and
exit at the base traveling across an ice bridge a short distance to the cabinet. This is all details in
the site plan provided.
Cingular Wireless operates a Personal Communications Service (PCS) system,
providing the most technologically advanced wireless communications throughout the United
States. Cingular Wireless provides convenient and secure mobile communications, combining
voice, messaging and paging communications in a single phone; while the modifications will
enable Triton to expand its services to include data, fax, internet, photo, and video to name a few.
Once the facility will be visited approximately one time per month for routine
maintenance checks. The facility will not impact the provision of services by Albemarle County.
As a telecommunications facility, this proposal will serve the community by fostering increased
communications, especially emergency communications.
The proposed modifications to the facility were designed to strictly comply with the
County's wireless design manual and adhere to the conditions of the already approved SUP.
f '1r riw.••Pr.. I i -L.r tea.. iv .ia
4 x
ll!r6SW J.; d6
4 -F. --P
LIX
e
yW .:.I.
An
41 14 lvcI D
7
Ad
Attachment B
1 € ii R o lq 0 ? :yia5 ems,.`) `•a U 'P
YQUR V1 1ON .1L HIFYEG iHRCVGH 0L RS
County of Albemarle
Zoning Administrator
July 19, 2007
Re: Cingular Wireless - Wild Turkey Site
Dear Sir,
Timmons Group certifies that the height of the reference tree used to
justify the height of the proposed monopole was the tallest tree within forty -
five feet (45') of the proposed mount and was a sixty inch (60 ") White Oak
being ninety -six and three tenths of a foot (96.3') tall. The top of this tree is
at an elevation of Seven hundred seventy four and three tenths of a foot
774.3').
All elevations are referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of
1988 (NAVD88) using GEOID'03 and established on site by GPS surveying
methods.
If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at 804 -200-
6551 or Bill.Ware @timmons.com
Sincerely,r
William F. Ware Jr., L. ,
Sr. Survey Project Manager gptL0y19 i 1MAR
k QUf1a
NMN
b
P
0
E
s
o
O —
v
o
Y
dO0
O N
t0 C)O
O oo
O
P
L q`
u E
j
f
o
n
Attachment C
i
040 041 042
41 DU - 3.. - --
d -- 13E - -" F3i.6 - 57 -69A.
s 57 -1 -- 8B\ ,68B i,,:-a`X-,--'6 57 -68134
57 -4 _ - -- --,j =B5 ,
67 , 41-73 4
73 1 J7 -7C3
674k L67A42 \ N 73C 3 5
i -cREx _ '_
68F, I
5 j' 73A5H5F i, 69
5G I 5D `
i- itE93
i 5C« i o 72A -
rr
71 1 93
5C1 85 P -- ,• AF'.'',57 -93't
56 -69 - 5C2, 74
94 s l
r S
6 9C - D , 72 4
ir 57
J z 77 75B 5
9B I17, 21/ /: by57
zao 15G^Q s? j \.. >; 75A
ra , 19 60 _ ' ?iVFR
115D r -; 2223 d ^: ) --110 1 I I .55A
i 't20 60Af1 A L a29F.._. 30F k59
9E4
G., flr7 -
nij 30G 9B1r
1 ,air"d I 29 CV 339 Wild Turkey /Cross Property _ lf lrt P Y 81E _1 (
I
I
3 -1+ R SDP2007 -00024 -ai
t Tax Map 57, Parcel 41L 81A _l _= 1
o 79B 7 ` ` -..c
J
C
79A1
32F ` 55 '81 J' 79A
80C 58 -6 `
17o -1..: r l j
56 -93A
57 -35 : "
o-
53
c t r'- 5
9 ` i 80
57 -81 B-
98 i
R
I
l
538' 53G
r 1, .42,; PY 105 + 1131 ; 102, q
i OA __ 44't+1 I2so _ F;
53A 2'• n, 116 3 ; G
v 41 F :. -
53D /''l ' ,106 1. n' 117
rcct 53C m/_sr'I, 53F '' J r,` ess -._.18 IlklyiJ ,
41E
82A2, 142B42,s;
52B 1 \14 -
133 ? 5714 g'
43 - 58iN" 82A` °5 391 ^ 131
r
82J41 82B(
44C 43A1 78 m ^j rr,.56 a , 41K j C, . 44B` 52A .85 h,j i. /NN I_r; .V
b,rh,'
p
5 -1028 _: ('
44A r',, 43A \ ! B , 82C , - p /Q = Eb ' S .S
52 e
7sb ,r 57 -8
0 / ha ,57 -41D !- 44, 44D- 3C, 1f : 51 Q
58 1
31 '57 -46B C' 1
1 6 45A 47 F
l J
57 46C ;r 45 46A2 50 1
50A, Uw oe 5850B; c 9 ..8
57 -46 CO , 15 Z 46A 5748v '
S Sq682 g 1
YI _48P 1' s' - -• ---
73 -6A
1
4.0 .31 P _, -32A
072 073 074
Scale Albemarle County
Tax Ma p' ^
rO
r /
r
0 800 1,600 2.400 ./
Note This map is for display purposes only
and shows parcels as of 1213112005
See Map Book Introduction for additional details'
Attachment D
Map is for display purposes only • Aedal Imagery 2002 Commonwealth of Virginia A y `aCnme «< l'