08SN0231
June 17, 2008 CPC
July 30, 2008 BS
October 22, 2008 BS
December 17, 2008 BS
STAFF’S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
08SN0231
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless
Dale Magisterial District
Southwest quadrant of the interchange of Chippenham Parkway and Belmont Road
REQUEST:Conditional Use to permit a communicationstower in a Residential (R-7) District.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A 155 foot communications tower is planned. (Condition)
(NOTE: PROFFERED CONDITION 2 WAS REVISED AND RESUBMITTED AS
PROFFERED CONDITIONS 2 AND 3 HEREWITH. THESE REVISED PROFFERS
WERE SUBMITTED SINCE THE COMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION OF THIS
CASE.)
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION ON PAGE 2 AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON PAGE 2.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Revised proffered conditions have been submitted to clarify tree preservation and screening
around the tower compound and to require replanting if existing vegetation is removed or
destroyed. Because these amendments were received since the Commission’s consideration of
the request, Staff recommends the application be remanded. However, should the Board wish to
consider this request, Staff recommends denial for the following reasons:
A.The proposal fails to conform to the Public Facilities Plan which suggests that
communications towers should generally be located away from high visibility
areas such as major traffic corridors and residential areas.
Ю±ª·¼·²¹ ¿ Ú×ÎÍÌ ÝØÑ×ÝÛ ½±³³«²·¬§ ¬¸®±«¹¸ »¨½»´´»²½» ·² °«¾´·½ »®ª·½»
B.The proposal fails to ensure that mature trees will be preserved, as suggested by
theTower Siting Policy, to lessen the visibility of the towers where such
structures are proposed in highly visible areas.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER
CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS NOTEDWITH "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.)
CONDITION
(CPC)The maximum height of the tower shall be 155 feet. (P)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
The owner and applicant in this rezoning request, pursuant to § 15.2-2298 of the Code of
Virginia (1950 as amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, Virginia (the
“County”) for itself and its successors and assigns, hereby proffer that the development of the
unimproved real property (the “Property”) under consideration in this rezoning request shall be
developed in accordance with the following conditions if, and only if, the request submitted
herewith is granted with only those conditions agreed to by the owner and applicant. In the event
this request is denied or approved with conditions not agreed to by the owner and applicant, the
proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force or effect.
(CPC)1.There shall be no signs permitted to identify the use, other than as may be
required by the FCC. (P)
(CPC)2.The base of the tower shall be enclosed by a minimum six (6) foot high fence,
designed to preclude trespassing. Existing maturetree growth shall be
preserved to the extent possible to provide screening of the base of the tower
and accessory ground equipment from adjacent properties. A detailed plan
depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (P)
(STAFF NOTE: SINCE THE COMMISSION’S CONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE
PROFFERED CONDITION 2 WAS REVISED AND RESUBMITTED AS PROFFERED
CONDITIONS 2 AND 3.)
2.Except for trees that are dead, diseased or dying, existing trees having a
minimum caliper of two and one-half (2.5) inches within 100 feet of the tower
compound shall be preserved unless removal is required by the Virginia
Department of Transportation. In the event such trees are removed or
destroyed, but the tower continues as a use, the area shall be replanted as
approved by VDOT by the owner of the towerwith trees having an average
minimum mature crown spread of greater than thirty (30) feet and a minimum
î ðèÍÒðîíïóÜÛÝïéóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
caliper of two and one-half (2 1/2) inches at the time of planting, to achieve a
minimum density of one (1) tree for each 300 square feet of cleared area. (P)
3.The base of the tower shall be enclosed by a minimum six (6) foot high fence,
designed to preclude trespassing. Existing maturetree growth shall be
preserved to the extent possible to provide screening of the base of the tower
and accessory ground equipment from adjacent properties. A detailed plan
depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
approval in conjunction with final site plan review. (P)
(CPC)4.The tower shall be a monopole structure. (P)
(CPC)5.The tower shall be colored gray or another neutral color, acceptable to the
Planning Department. (P)
(CPC)6.The tower shall not be lighted. (P)
(CPC)7.Any building or mechanical equipment shall comply with Sections 19-595 and
19-570 (b) and (c) of the Zoning Ordinance relative to architectural treatment
of building exteriors and screening of mechanical equipment. (P)
(CPC)8.At such time that the tower ceases to be used for communications purposes for
a period exceeding twelve (12) consecutive months, the owner/developer of the
tower shall dismantle and remove the tower and all associated equipment from
the Property. (P)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
Southwest quadrant of the interchange of Chippenham Parkway and Belmont Road. Tax
Map 772-686. (VDOT RIGHT OF WAY)
Existing Zoning:
R-7
Size:
1.9 acres
Existing Land Use:
Vacant/Wooded
í ðèÍÒðîíïóÜÛÝïéóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North - A & R-7; Single familyand multi-family residential or vacant
South & West – R-7; Single family residential or vacant
East - R-15; Single family residential or vacant
UTILITIES; PUBLIC FACILITIES;TRANSPORTATION; ENVIRONMENTAL
ENGINEERING AND COUNTY AIRPORT
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.
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
ThePublic Facilities Plan suggests that communications towers should generally be located
away high visibility areas such as major traffic corridors, rivers, parks and areas of existing
or planned residential development.
Area Development Trends:
Surrounding properties are zoned for, and occupied by, single family and multi-family
residential use or is vacant. It is anticipated that residential use will continue in the area at
densities suggested by the Plan.
Development Standards:
Conditions have been offered which are typical to conditions imposed or accepted for other
tower structures in the County, except that there is no guarantee with this case that mature
vegetation surrounding the tower will be preserved.
Typically, in highly visible areas or for locations in the vicinity of residential use, when the
appearance of the tower is not disguised or camouflaged to resemble other structures such as
flag poles, bell towers, or natural features, a one hundred (100) foot buffer is maintained
around the tower and related structures. In this instance, Proffered Condition 3 requires
evergreen plantings outside of the tower compound to screen the base of the tower and
accessory ground equipment from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. This
addresses vegetation to screenthe base of the tower, but will not be substantial enough to
minimize the visual impact of the tower itself. Proffered Condition 2 does require trees
ì ðèÍÒðîíïóÜÛÝïéóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
having a minimum caliper of twoand one-half (2.5) inches within 100 feet of the tower to
be maintained. However, it is important to note that the proffer states trees will be preserved
“unless removal is required by the Virginia Departmentof Transportation” (VDOT), the
property owner. There is no guarantee the trees will be preserved since VDOT can require
their removal. The proffer would require replanting within 100 feet of the tower compound
in the event such trees are removed or destroyed and the tower continues as a use. The
proffer provides such replanting is subject to VDOT approval. Therefore, preservation of
mature vegetation around the tower and replanting if such trees are removed or destroyed is
not guaranteed.
It is also important to note that while Proffered Condition 3 references maintaining
vegetation “within 100 feet of the tower compound,” there is only approximately fifty (50)
feet of vegetated area between the proposedtower compound and the Belmont Road ramp
and only approximately sixty (60) feet between the compound and Chippenham Parkway to
the east (Exhibit A). The typical 100 foot buffer area is not offered on the east and west
sides. There does appear to be more than 100 feet of buffer area north and south of the
proposed compound.
Other conditions offered with this case would prohibit lighting and signage, unless signage
is expressly required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and would require
security fencing, the tower to be a monopole structure and removal of the tower after it
ceases to be used (Proffered Conditions 1, 3, 4, 6 and 8). In addition, proffered conditions
establish that the tower will be gray or another neutralcolor and require screening of any
building or mechanical equipment and a specific architectural treatment for building
exteriors. (Proffered Conditions 5 and 7)
CONCLUSIONS
The proposal fails to conform to the Public Facilities Plan which suggests that communications
towers should be located away from areas of existing or planned residential development and
other highly visible areas such as major traffic corridors. The proposed tower will be visible
from Chippenham Parkway and Belmont Road. Further, the site is locatedin an area designated
for residential development. The Siting Policy suggests that when towers are to be located in
such areas, they should be architecturally incorporated in the design of a structure or process
design features that mask the utilitarian nature of the tower.
While conditions have been offered which are similar to those that have been approved for other
tower structures, the proposal fails to ensure that mature trees on the proposed site will be
preserved as suggested by the Tower Siting Policy to lessen the visibility of the towers where
such structures are proposed in highly visible areas.
Given these considerations, denial of this request is recommended.
ë ðèÍÒðîíïóÜÛÝïéóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
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.
In response to a question from Dr. Brown, the applicant agreed to a condition which
would limit the height of the tower.
On motion of Dr. Brown, seconded by Mr. Waller, the Commission recommended
approval of the case subject to the condition on page 2 and acceptance of the proffered
conditions on page 2.
AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Bass, Brown, Hassen and Waller.
Board of Supervisors’ Meeting (7/30/08):
Mr. Holland expressed his desire to defer the request to allow time to explore alternative
sites.
On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to their October 22, 2008 public
hearing.
Staff (7/31/08):
The applicant was advised in writing that any new or revised information should be
submitted no later than August 11, 2008, for consideration at the Board’s October 22,
2008 public hearing.
Staff (9/29/08):
Staff and the applicant continue to discuss the potential for alternative sites.
Applicant, Dale District Board Member, Dale District Planning Commissioner and Staff
(09/12/08):
A meeting was held to discuss the case relative to alternative sites and tree preservation
on proposed site.
ê ðèÍÒðîíïóÜÛÝïéóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Applicant and Staff (10/2/08):
A site visit was made to discuss potential alternative sites.
Board of Supervisors’ Meeting (10/22/08):
On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to their December 17, 2008 public
hearing to allow additional time to explore alternative sites.
Applicant (11/19 and 12/01/08):
Revised proffered conditions were submitted.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, December 17, 2008, beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
é ðèÍÒðîíïóÜÛÝïéóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
î