Loading...
08SN0236~~~F~Eip~'`~ i! ~ r~~ 11 ~ rY~ ry ~; I .,'r~l 17 J ~ ~~R~s1~~?'- STAFF' S REQUEST ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION 08SN0236 J~~ZnnQ rnr July 30, 2008 BS Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Matoaca Magisterial District North line of Genito Road RE VEST: Amendment to Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 99SN0257) relative to tower height. PROPOSED LAND USE: A 199-foot communications tower is located on the property. The applicant plans to extend the height of this tower to 220 feet. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RECOMMEND APPROVAL. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend denial for the following reasons: A. The proposal does not conform to the Public Facilities Plan which suggests that communications tower locations should generally be located to minimize the impact on existing or future areas of development and that locations adjacent to planned or existing residential development are to be minimized. B. The proposal does not conform to the Tower Siting Policy which suggests that towers should generally be located away from existing or planned areas of residential development. Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service (NOTE: CONDITIONS MAYBE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE AGREED UPON BY BOTH STAFF AND THE COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "STAFF" ARE RECOMMENDED SOLELY BY STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A "CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.) GENERAL INFORMATION T ,ncati nn North line of Genito Road, west of Weatherbury Place. Tax ID 709-689-Part of 3444. Existin.~g: A with Conditional Use Planned Development Size: 10 acres Existing Land Use: Communications Tower Adjacent Zoning and Land Use: North, South, East and West - A; Single-family residential or vacant UTILITIES; PUBLIC FACILITIES; TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL This request will have no impact on these facilities. COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS The Zoning Ordinance requires that any structure over eighty (80) feet in height be reviewed by the County's Public Safety Review Team for potential detrimental impacts the structure could have on the County's Radio Communications System microwave paths. This determination must be made prior to construction of the communications tower. COUNTY AIRPORT A preliminary review of this proposal indicates that, given the approximate location and elevation of the proposed installation, it appears there will be no adverse affect on the County Airport. 2 08SN0236 JUL30-BOS-RPT T,ANT~ TIFF, Comprehensive Plan: The request property lies within the boundaries of the Upper Swift Creek Plan which suggests the property is appropriate for residential use of 2.0 units per acre or less. The Public Facilities Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, suggests that communications tower locations should generally be located to minimize the impact on existing or future areas of development. Also, the Tower Sitin.~y suggests that towers in the vicinity of existing or planned areas of development should possess design features that mask the utilitarian nature of the tower. Area Development Trends: The subject property is located in an area characterized by single-family residential uses on acreage parcels and increasing single-family residential subdivision development. In addition, the proposed Powhite Parkway Extension right-of way is inclose proximity to the west of the property. Single-family residential development is expected to continue in this area, as suggested by the Plan. Zonin H.~ry: On April 28,1999, the Board of Supervisors, upon a recommendation for approval from the Planning Commission, approved a Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 99SN0257) to allow a communications tower on the request site. Along with other requirements, the tower was limited to a height of 199 feet. Development Standards: In addition to the development standards approved with Case 99SN0257, the applicant is proposing the requested tower at a height of 220 feet. CONCLUSIONS The proposal does not conform to the Public Facilities Plan which suggests that communications tower locations should generally be located to minimize the impact on existing or future areas of development and that locations adjacent to planned or existing residential development are to be minimized. In addition, the proposal does not conform to the Tower Siting Policy which suggests that towers should generally be located away from existing or planned areas of residential development. At the time Case 99SN0257 was approved, a tower at this location conformed to the Tower Siting Guidelines. Since that time the Tower Siting Policy has been revised and additional residential zoning has been approved or is pending in the area. A tower at this location does not 3 08SN0236 JUL30-BOS-RPT conform to the current Policy. Allowing the existing tower to be extended to a height of 220 feet would allow for additional encroachment into an area experiencing residential growth. Given these considerations, denial of this request is recommended. CASE HISTORY Planning Commission Meeting (6/17/08): The applicant did not accept staff s recommendation but did accept the Planning Commission's recommendation. There was no opposition present. Mr. Bass noted there was no opposition and he had spoken with one area property owner who was in support of this request. On motion of Mr. Bass, seconded by Mr. Hassen, the Commission recommended approval. AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Bass, Brown, Hassen and Waller. The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, July 30, 2008, beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take under consideration this request. 4 08SN0236 JUL30-BOS-RPT