10SN0167
April 20, 2010 CPC
May 18, 2010 CPC
June 23, 2010 BS
STAFF’S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
10SN0167
Richmond 20 MHz LLC
Bermuda Magisterial District
Off southeast line of Silverdust Lane
REQUEST: Conditional use to permit a communications tower in an Agricultural (A) District.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A 158-foot communications tower, employing a monopole design with internally
mounted antennas, 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 DENIAL.
AYES: MESSRS. HASSEN, BASS AND GULLEY.
NAYS: MESSRS. BROWN AND WALLER.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend approval for the following reasons:
A. The proposal conforms to the Public Facilities Plan which suggests locating
facilities so as to minimize the impact on existing or future areas of development
and that locations with existing mature vegetation or topographical features which
provide screening are preferred.
B. The proposal conforms to the Tower Siting 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.
Ю±ª·¼·²¹ ¿ Ú×ÎÍÌ ÝØÑ×ÝÛ ½±³³«²·¬§ ¬¸®±«¹¸ »¨½»´´»²½» ·² °«¾´·½ »®ª·½»
(NOTES: A. CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER
MAY PROFFER CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS NOTED WITH
CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A “STAFF” ARE RECOMMENDED
SOLELY BY 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 Owner 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 Number 814-650-1993
(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.
(STAFF) 1. There shall be no signs permitted to identify this use. (P)
(STAFF) 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)
(STAFF) 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 with internally mounted
antennas. (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
î ïðÍÒðïêéóÖËÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
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.)
(STAFF) 5. The tower shall not exceed a height of 158 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
Location:
Fronts the southeast line of Silverdust Lane, east of Cypress Vine Drive. Tax ID 814-650-
Part of 1993.
Existing Zoning:
A
Size:
1.9 acres
Existing Land Use:
Single-family residential
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North and South - R-15; Single-family residential or vacant
East and West - A; Vacant
UTILITIES; PUBLIC FACILITIES; AND COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
This request will have no impact on these facilities.
í ïðÍÒðïêéóÖËÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (VDOT)
A cell tower requires a special private entrance. The property owner must 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
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
achieved.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The cell tower is located next to a creek on which a RPA has been shown. In conjunction with site
plan submittal for approval, the Corps of Engineers approved delineated wetlands must accompany
the plan.
If the construction of any access road and the site itself disturbs more than 2500 square feet, a land
disturbance permit must be obtained 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. 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.
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
The request property lies within the boundaries of the Consolidated Eastern Area Plan which
suggests the property is appropriate for residential use of 2.0 units per acre or less and of
4.0 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 Siting Policy suggests that
towers in the vicinity of existing or planned areas of development should be
ì ïðÍÒðïêéóÖËÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
architecturally incorporated in the design of an existing structure, or possess design
features that mask the utilitarian nature of the tower.
Area Development Trends:
Adjacent properties are zoned Residential (R-15) and Agricultural (A) and are occupied
by single-family residential uses (Cypress Woods and Ramblewood Forest subdivisions),
acreage parcels, or remain vacant. It is anticipated that single-family residential uses will
continue in the area, as suggested by the Consolidated Eastern Area Plan.
Development Standards:
The request property lies within an Emerging Growth Area. The purpose of the Emerging
Growth District standards is to promote high quality, well-designed projects.However,
because the request property is zoned Agricultural (A), development is not required to
meet the development standards for Emerging Growth Areas. The applicant has offered
language requiring compliance with Emerging Growth Area requirements relative to the
architectural treatment of the proposed equipment building and screening of mechanical
equipment.
The proposed communications tower would be a monopole with internally mounted
antennas (i.e., “slick stick” design), (intended to minimize its appearance (Proffered
Condition 3). The height of the tower would not exceed 188 feet (Proffered Condition 4).
Access to the tower site would be via a proposed driveway to Silverdust Lane. Should
this request be approved, the applicant has proffered the base of the tower would be
secured with a fence to discourage trespassing. (Proffered Condition 2)
To ensure that the tower does not become a maintenance problem or an eyesore, the
applicant has offered the tower would be removed at such time that it ceases to be used
for communications purposes. (Condition 5)
CONCLUSIONS
The proposal conforms to the Public Facilities Plan which suggests locating facilities so as to
minimize the impact on existing or future areas of development and that locations with existing
mature vegetation or topographical features which provide screening are preferred. The proposal
also conforms to the Tower Siting 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 is recommended.
ë ïðÍÒðïêéóÖËÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
______________________________________________________________________________
CASE HISTORY
______________________________________________________________________________
Applicant (3/29/10):
The applicant submitted an additional proffered condition.
______________________________________________________________________________
Planning Commission Meeting (4/20/10):
The applicant accepted staff’s recommendation, but did not accept the Planning
Commission’s recommendation.
There was opposition present expressing concerns relative to visibility from residential
areas; impacts on property values; placement of tower in a commercial area; and a
deterrent to new home buyers.
Mr. Hassen stated it was important to consider community input; the policy indicated
“may” be suitable for “R” districts; and that the applicant had not tried locating the tower
on the opposite side of Route 10.
On motion of Mr. Hassen, seconded by Mr. Bass, the Commission recommended denial
of the request.
AYES: Messrs. Hassen and Bass.
NAYS: Messrs. Brown and Waller.
ABSENT: Mr. Gulley.
Due to the lack of a majority vote, the case carried over to the Commission’s May 18,
2010 public hearing.
______________________________________________________________________________
Staff (4/21/10):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than April 26, 2010 for consideration at the Commission’s
May 18, 2010 public hearing.
______________________________________________________________________________
Staff (4/27/10):
To date, no new information has been received.
ê ïðÍÒðïêéóÖËÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ
Planning Commission Meeting (5/18/10):
The applicant accepted staff’s recommendation, but did not accept the Planning
Commission’s recommendation.
There was opposition present expressing concerns relative to visibility from residential
areas; impacts on property values; placement of tower in a commercial area; and
deterrence to new home buyers.
On motion of Mr. Hassen, seconded by Mr. Bass, the Commission recommended denial.
AYES: Messrs. Hassen, Bass and Gulley.
NAYS: Messrs. Brown and Waller.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, June 23, 2010, beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take under
consideration this request.
é ïðÍÒðïêéóÖËÒîíóÞÑÍóÎÐÌ