10SN0192,• •'~'~'•_~i~
.h{fr ~f~
..~~.
.~{~
+,~..~,f
..~
f.r I~
STAFF' S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
l OSN0192
New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC
Matoaca Magisterial District
South line of Hickory Road
May 26, 2010 BS
RE VEST: Conditional use to permit a communications tower in an Agricultural (A) District.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A 199-foot communications tower and associated improvements are planned.
Since the tower would not meet the restrictions for towers in an Agricultural (A)
District a conditional use permit is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON
PAGES 2 AND 3.
AYES: Messrs. Brown, Hassen, Bass and Waller.
ABSENT: Mr. Gulley.
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 Sitin.~ 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
(NOTES: A. CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER
MAY PROFFER CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH
ONLY A "CPC" ARE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION.
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 Owners and Developer in this request for a conditional use (CU), pursuant to Section 15.2-
2298 of the Code of Virginia (1950 as amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of Chesterfield
County, for themselves and their respective successors or assigns, proffer that the development
of the property known as part of Chesterfield County Tax Identification Numbers 776-620-9733,
776-619-8107, and 776-620-7234 (the "Property") under consideration will be developed
according to the following conditions if, and only if, the CU to construct a telecommunications
tower on the Property is granted. In the event the request is denied or approved with conditions
not agreed to by the Developer, the proffers and conditions shall immediately be null and void
and of no further force or effect.
(CPC) 1. There shall be no signs permitted to identify this use. (P)
(CPC) 2. The base of the tower 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 property line to
maintain a tree preservation area of at least 100 feet in each direction, such
buffer to be comprised of existing trees at the site and 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. So long as such area is required, no trees within the area shall be
removed unless such trees are dead, diseased, or dying. (P)
(CPC) 3. The color, design and lighting system for the tower shall be as follows:
a. The tower shall be gray or another neutral color, acceptable to the
Planning Department.
b. The tower shall not be lighted.
c. The tower shall be a monopole structure. (P)
(CPC) 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 10SN0192-MAY26-BOS-RPT
treatment of building exteriors and screening of mechanical equipment.
(P)
(NOTE: Section 19-570 (b) and (c) would require the screening of mechanical
equipment located on the building or ground from adjacent properties and public
rights of way. Screening would not be required for the tower or tower-mounted
equipment.)
(CPC) 5. The tower shall not exceed a height of 199 feet. (P)
(CPC) 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~
South line of Hickory Road, west of Matoaca Road. Tax IDs 776-619-8107; and 776-
620-Parts of 7234 and 9733.
Existing Zoning:
A
Size:
25.3 acres
Existing Land Use:
Single-family residential and vacant
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North, South, East and West - A; Single-family residential, public/semi-public (church),
school, or vacant
UTILITIES; PUBLIC FACILITIES; TRANSPORTATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL
This request will have no impact on these facilities.
3 10SN0192-MAY26-BOS-RPT
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
Drainage and Erosion:
The subject property drains to the east-southeast to Old Town Creek. There are no
existing or anticipated on- or off site drainage or erosion control problems.
If construction of any access road and the tower site disturb more than 2500 square feet
of land area, a land disturbance permit must be obtained from the Department of
Environmental Engineering.
Prior to plan submittal, the applicant must submit for approval to the Water Quality
Section of Environmental Engineering, a perennial flow and wetland connectivity for
review an approva .
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (VDOT~
A cell tower may have a 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 F 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 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 .
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, there will be no adverse affect on the County Airport.
T,ANT~ TIFF,
Comprehensive Plan:
The request property lies within the boundaries of the Matoaca Villa eg Plan which suggests
the property is appropriate for residential use of one (1) unit per acre or less.
4 10SN0192-MAY26-BOS-RPT
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 possess design
features that mask the utilitarian nature of the tower.
Area Development Trends:
The area is characterized by single-family residential uses and a church on large agricultural
parcels or remains vacant. It is anticipated residential development as suggested by the Plan
will continue in this area.
Development Standards:
The applicant is proposing a 199-foot monopole communications tower and associated
accessory equipment, and has offered standards similar to those for towers located in
areas where staff would typically be supportive (Proffered Conditions 1 through 6).
These include standards for fencing and landscaping; tower color, design and lighting;
maximum height; architectural treatment and screening of mechanical equipment and a
provision for removal.
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.
Given these considerations, denial of this request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (4/20/10):
The applicant did not accept staff s recommendation, but did accept the Planning
Commission's recommendation. There was no opposition present.
Messrs. Bass and Hassen stated this was a less visible site; area residents were pleased
with this location; and this was a good example of the tower being on the ground before
the surrounding area develops.
5 10SN0192-MAY26-BOS-RPT
On motion of Mr. Bass, seconded by Mr. Hassen, the Commission recommended
approval and acceptance of the proffered conditions on pages 2 and 3.
AYES: Messrs. Brown, Hassen, Bass and 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.
6 10SN0192-MAY26-BOS-RPT
i
~~ 0
Q
V
O
Q
Q
r -^
1 ~ 1
,`
~..
J
~~ ~ N~
Q
_;IIIlII~I
,7•
~~
/ \
U ~
d ~ O ~
g ~.
~~~
...............
......................
~~
Q ._
w
z~c~
N
r
O ~
Z V
oa
^~
W
~n
0
o ~
0
0
~ ! \
i