10SN0174,• •'~'~'•_~i~
.h{fr ~f~
~ ~.
.' {'
+,~..~,f
..~
T. i
,f. ,
STAFF' S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
l OSN0174
Pegasus Tower Company Ltd
c r~rvzo-~ nrv
n,-.r;~ ~n ~n ~ n~C
May 26, 2010 BS
Matoaca Magisterial District
North line of Timber Bluff Parkway
RE VEST: Conditional Use to permit a communications tower in a Residential (R-9) District.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A 150-foot communications tower, employing astealth/slick-stick design, and
associated improvements are planned. Since the tower would not meet the
restrictions for towers in a residential district, a conditional use is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND DENIAL.
AYES: MESSRS. BROWN, HASSEN AND BASS.
NAY: MR. WALLER.
ABSENT: MR. GULLEY.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
While staff recommends approval of this request, it is important to note comments recently
received from the School Board Office. This recommendation is made for the following reasons:
A. The proposal conforms 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.
B. The proposal conforms to the Tower Sitin.~ Policy which 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.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service
C. The School Board administration office has expressed concerns with a tower
being located in proximity to the front of the school.
(NOTES: A. CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER
MAY PROFFER CONDITIONS. CONDITIONS NOTED "STAFF" ARE
RECOMMENDED ONLY BY THE PLANNING STAFF.
B. UNDER THE FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT,
LOCALITIES CANNOT REGULATE CELL TOWERS ON THE BASIS
OF POSSIBLE HEALTH OR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF
RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSIONS.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
The Applicant in this zoning case, pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia (1950
as amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield County, for itself and its successors or
assigns, proffers that the property known as Chesterfield County Tax ID 718-680-1818 will be
used for the purposes as set forth below; however, in the event the request is denied or approved
with conditions not agreed to by the Applicant, these proffers shall be immediately null and void
and of no further force or effect.
The Applicant hereby makes the following Proffered Conditions:
(STAFF) 1. There shall be no signs permitted to identify this use. (P)
(STAFF) 2. The base of the tower and associated equipment shall be enclosed by a
minimum six (6) foot high fence, designed to preclude trespassing. The
fence shall be placed so as to provide sufficient room between the fence
and the access road to accommodate evergreen plantings having an initial
height and spacing to provide screening of the base of the tower and
accessory ground-mounted equipment or structures from adjacent
properties. In conjunction with site plan submission, or prior to release of
a building permit, whichever occurs first, a landscaping plan depicting this
requirement shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and
approval. (P)
(STAFF) 3. The color and lighting system for the tower shall be as follows:
(a) The tower shall be grey or another neutral color, acceptable to the
Planning Department.
(b) The tower shall be a stealth/slick-stick design structure. (P)
(STAFF) 4. Any building or mechanical equipment shall comply with Sections 19-595
and 19-570(b) and (c) of the Zoning Ordinance relative to architectural
2 10SN0174-MAY26-BOS-RPT
treatment of building exteriors and screening of mechanical equipment.
(P)
(STAFF) 5. The tower shall not exceed a height of 150 feet. (P)
(STAFF) 6. At such time that the tower ceases to be used for communications
purposes for a period exceeding twelve (12) consecutive months, the
owner/developer shall dismantle and remove the tower and all associated
equipment from the property. (P)
GENERAL INFORMATION
T nratinn~
North line of Timber Bluff Parkway, east of Woolridge Road. Tax ID 718-680-Part of
1818.
Existing Zoning:
R-9
Size:
.2 acre
Existing Land Use:
Public/Semi-public -Woolridge Elementary School
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North, South, East and West - R-9; Public/semi-public (school) or single-family
residential
UTILITIES; PUBLIC FACILITIES; AND COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
This request will have no impact on these facilities.
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (VDOT~
A cell tower requires a special private entrance. The property owner shall identify the desired
location of the private entrance with the assistance of the Richmond District Administrator's
designee. If the minimum sight distance standards specified in Appendix G of the VDOT Road
Design Manual (see 24 VAC 30-73-170 A) cannot be met, the entrance should be placed at the
location with the best possible sight distance as determined by the Richmond District
Administrator's designee. The District Administrator's designee may require the property owner to
3 10SN0174-MAY26-BOS-RPT
grade slopes, clear brush, remove trees, or conduct other similar efforts, or any combination of
these, necessary to provide the safest possible means of ingress or egress that can be reasonably
ac ieve .
SCHOOL BOARD ADMINISTRATION
The School Board objects the location of afree-standing communication tower in front of
Woolridge Elementary School. Such a tower would negatively impact the aesthetic value of the
school, conflict with its present harmonious campus setting, and reduce the number of mature trees
and open-space on the school's property.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Drainage and Erosion:
If more than 2500 square feet of land area is disturbed for construction of any access road
or tower site, a land disturbance permit will be required from the Department of
Environmental Engineering.
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. A preliminary review
finds no technical reason to deny this application, provided the system installation meets the
standard conditions regarding interference with Chesterfield County Radio and Microwave
Systems. A final review and 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, there will be no adverse affect on the County Airport.
T,ANn TIFF.
Comprehensive Plan:
The request property lies within the boundaries of the Upper Swift Creek Plan Amendment
which suggests the property is appropriate for public use.
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 Siting Policy suggests that
towers in the vicinity of existing or planned areas of development should be
architecturally incorporated in the design of an existing structure or posses design
features that mask the utilitarian nature of the tower.
4 10SN0174-MAY26-BOS-RPT
It should be noted that previously, the Public Facilities Plan suggested towers be located
away from facilities including schools, parks, community recreation facilities and similar
development. while the Plan no longer includes this suggestion, our policy has not been
updated to remove this dated language.
Area Development Trends:
The subj ect property is occupied by woolridge Elementary School. Adjacent properties are
zoned Residential (R-9) and are occupied by single-family residential uses in the woodlake
mixed-use development or remain vacant. It is anticipated that residential uses will continue
in the area, as suggested by the Plan.
In addition, a map depicting existing area communication towers, and associated users of
these structures is included at the end of this report.
Development Standards:
The request property lies within an Emerging Growth Area. The purpose of the Emerging
Growth standards is to promote high quality, well-designed projects. However, because
the property is zoned Residential (R-9), development is not required to meet Emerging
Growth Area development standards. A condition has been proffered to require
compliance with Emerging Growth Area requirements relative to the architectural
treatment of the proposed equipment building. (Proffered Condition 4)
The conditional use process provides a means of addressing ways to minimize the
possibility of any adverse impact of a tower on existing and planned areas of
development. The Tower Siting Policy suggests, where towers are to be located in the
vicinity of existing or planned areas of development, the tower should be located as
remotely as possible from these areas. The proposed communications tower will be
located on school property, within a wooded area. The closest residence is approximately
400 feet away, south of Timber Bluff Parkway. This distance and the proposed treatment
of the tower will mitigate the visual impact of the tower from area residential
development.
The height of the proposed tower would not exceed 150 feet (Proffered Condition 5).
Access to the tower site will be provided by a planned driveway to Timber Bluff
Parkway. Consistent with past actions on similar facilities, the base of the tower should
be secured with a fence to discourage trespassing, should this request be approved
(Proffered Condition 2). Due to the proximity area development, the communications
tower should be gray or another neutral color and employ a design intended to minimize
the visual impact of the tower on area residents. (Proffered Condition 3)
Consistent with past actions on similar facilities and to ensure that the tower does not
become a maintenance problem or an eyesore, the tower should be removed at such time
that it ceases to be used for communications purposes. (Proffered Condition 6)
5 10SN0174-MAY26-BOS-RPT
CONCLUSIONS
The proposal conforms 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. In addition, the proposal conforms to the Tower Sitin.~ Policy which 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.
Given these considerations, approval of this request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (2/16/10):
The applicant accepted staff s recommendation. There was opposition present noting
issues relative to location; aesthetics; assurance of coverage; impact on property values;
and health risks.
In response to questions by the Commission, the applicant stated the tower would serve
as a tool to promote economic development; is needed now and in the future; will provide
a connection to existing towers; and would be structurally designed for a minimum of
t ee (3) carriers.
Mr. Bass noted no one was present from the school board to represent the case. He
indicated that he disagreed with staff s position that the proposal complies with the
Tower Siting Policy: that the original Woodlake zoning did not allow overhead utilities;
that other suggested locations be considered; and that the submitted petition indicates the
citizens do not want the tower in this area
Mr. Bass made a motion to deny the case. The motion failed due to the lack of a second.
Dr. Brown then made a motion for approval. The motion failed due to the lack of a
second.
There was discussion among the Commission concerning hopes that a compromise could
be reached; that near the entrance to the school was perhaps not the best location, but
elsewhere on the site; and the need for additional information.
Mr. Waller made a motion to defer the case for thirty (30) days. The applicant was then
asked if they were willing to request a deferral. The applicant indicated there was no
additional information they could provide the Commission during a deferral period and
would therefore not request a deferral. The motion failed due to the lack of a second.
6 10SN0174-MAY26-BOS-RPT
Mr. Bass again made a motion to deny the case. The motion again failed due to the lack
of a second.
The Commission was advised that if a motion was not passed, the case would carry over
to the next hearing and would continue to do so until a motion passed or until the
Commission's 100 days expired, at which time the case would be forwarded to the Board
with a recommendation for approval.
Mr. Hassen requested that Mr. Bass restate his previous motion. Mr. Bass moved to deny
the case, seconded by Mr. Hassen.
AYES: Messrs. Bass and Hassen.
NAYS: Messrs. Brown and Waller.
ABSENT: Mr. Gulley.
Due to the lack of a maj ority vote, the case carried over to the Commission's March 16,
2010 public hearing.
Staff (2/ 17/ 10)
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than February 22, 2010 for consideration at the
Commission's March 16, 2010 public hearing.
Staff (2/23/10):
No additional information has been received.
School Board Administration, Planning Staff, Right-of Way Agent and Applicant (3/l/10):
A meeting was held to discuss the location of the proposed site. In addition, a concern
was raised about the planned access off of the bus loop. The applicant agreed to consider
locating the tower elsewhere on the property and an access other than the bus loop.
School Board Administration, County Staff, Matoaca District Commissioner, and Applicant
(3/15/10):
A visit was made to the property to look at potential alternate locations. It was agreed the
current proposed site was the better location but the access should be moved off of the
bus loop access.
7 10SN0174-MAY26-BOS-RPT
Applicant (3/16/10):
Revised plans were submitted showing the access relocated directly onto Timber Bluff
Parkway.
Planning Commission Meeting (3/16/10):
On their own motion, the Commission deferred this case to their April 20, 2010 public
Baring.
Applicant (3/16/10):
The applicant submitted a revised plat showing the access relocation.
Staff (3/17/10):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than March 22, 2010 for consideration at the Commission's
April 20, 2010 public hearing.
Planning Commission Meeting (4/20/10):
The applicant accepted staffs recommendation, but did not accept the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
There was opposition present, expressing concerns relative to visibility; no above ground
utilities allowed in Woodlake; safety of children; decrease in property values; and no
proven coverage issue.
In response to a question from Mr. Waller, Dr. Etienne, from the School Board
Administration Office, stated there was no formal School Board vote to oppose the tower,
but that the School Board Administration's position was to not support the request.
Mr. Stuart Connock, from County Parks and Recreation, stated that there were no impacts
or enhancements from the tower to facilities maintained by the Parks and Recreation
Department.
Mr. Bass stated there were letters of opposition; that he does not agree that this proposal
is in compliance with the Tower Siting Policy; and that Woodlake is an underground
utlllty Communlty.
8 10SN0174-MAY26-BOS-RPT
Mr. Hassen stated that the Policy allows collocation on stadium lighting under certain
circumstances, but that this was not the right location.
On motion of Mr. Bass, seconded by Mr. Hassen, the Commission recommended denial.
AYES: Messrs. Brown, Hassen and Bass.
NAY: Mr. Waller.
ABSENT: Mr. Gulley.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take under
consideration this request.
9 10SN0174-MAY26-BOS-RPT
oI~Y~! m,~~~~Laa~~~~~
Y
V
0
Q `
,,
I
I
Q ~~
r
t
Q
• `
• `
N
U
N
1
W
/ ~ y v
a~
a
oy
~`
~~ my
~~ ~
``~~ ~m
. ~~
Oct
~`~O ~
~~0~~
~~
1_~
w
z cn
~ ~
o ~
~n
0
~ o
~ o
r ~
O ~
Z
V °
N
o ::
r ~~
7
Y
'~ 4. .~
~y ..
li,
i r II
5
•
,I
.~
__ .: iY.~. ...
I
r
,~,:.,~~
~.~
.., .
r- --
.~ .~.r - i- • • •'-~ -.
<~ , i
• _ ii