10SN0168~yt
_.~ -
`~ «,
~RCR1~-„';;
ADDENDUM
lOSN0168
(Amended)
Richmond 20 MHz LLC
September 22, 2010 BS
Clover Hill Magisterial District
East line of South Old Hundred Road
REQUEST: Conditional Use to permit a communications tower in an Agricultural (A) District.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A 196-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
conditional use approval is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFERED CONITIONS ON PAGES 2 AND 3
IN THE "REQUEST ANALYSIS."
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (9/21/10):
The applicant did not accept staff's recommendation, but did accept the Planning
Commission's recommendation. There was no opposition present.
Mr. Gulley stated that the property was difficult to develop due to the Resource
Protection Area and wetlands and that area residents seem to be satisfied.
On motion of Mr. Gulley, seconded by Mr. Hassen, the Commission recommended
approval and acceptance of the proffered conditions on pages 2 and 3 in the "Request
Analysis."
AYES: Messrs. Brown, Hassen, Bass, Gulley and Waller.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service
l OSN0168-SEP22-BOS-ADD
~~
,• •'~'~'•_~i~
.h{fr ~f~
~.
.+~~
+,~..~,f
- ..~r
~.
f.r I~
STAFF' S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
lOSN0168
(Amended)
Richmond 20 MHz LLC
,, ~ 7 Q ~rv~a
September 22, 2010 BS
Clover Hill Magisterial District
East line of South Old Hundred Road
RE VEST: Conditional Use to permit a communications tower in an Agricultural (A) District.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A 196-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
conditional use approval is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS SCHEDULED TO HEAR THIS CASE AT THEIR
MEETING ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2010. STAFF WILL ADVISE THE BOARD OF
THE COMMISSION' S ACTION AFTER THEIR MEETING.
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.
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 732-681-4585,
732-681-3768, 733-681-0761, and 731-681-8265 (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 shall immediately be null
and void and of no further force or effect.
1. There shall be no signs permitted to identify this use. (P)
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' 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)
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)
2 10SN0168-SEP22-BOS-RPT
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 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 ortower-mounted equipment.)
5. The tower shall not exceed a height of 196-feet. (P)
(NOTE: The tower shall be a 190-foot tall monopole structure with a six (6) foot tall
lightning rod.)
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 ,ncati nn
East line of South Old Hundred Road, south of Rose Glen Drive. Tax IDs 731-681-Part
of 8265; 732-681-Parts of 4585 and 3768; and 733-681-Part of 0761.
Existing Zoning:
A
Size:
2.3 acres
Existing Land Use:
Residential or vacant
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North, South, East and West - A and R-7; Single-family residential or vacant
T TTTT TTTFC
Public Water System:
This request will not impact the public water system.
3 10SN0168-SEP22-BOS-RPT
Public Wastewater S,, sue:
This request will not impact the public wastewater system. However, atwenty-seven (27)
inch wastewater trunk line extends along Nuttree Creek within afifty-five (55) foot
easement. This line must not be disturbed during construction.
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
This request will have no impact on these facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL
The subject property is bordered to the north by Nuttree Creek which is a perennial stream
subject to a 100-foot conservation buffer, inside of which only water dependant uses are allowed.
In conjunction with plan submittal, a copy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation approval must be submitted so the conservation area (RPA limits) can be adjusted
such that all disturbance is outside of the Resource Protection Area (RPA). If more than 2500
square feet of land is disturbed to construct the cell tower and associated roads, a land
disturbance permit will be required from the Department of Environmental Engineering.
It should be noted, prior to plan submittal, a perennial flow and connective wetlands connectivity
application must be submitted to Water Quality for review and approval.
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
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.
4 10SN0168-SEP22-BOS-RPT
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 T1~F,
Comprehensive Plan:
The request property lies within the boundaries of the Upper Swift Creek Plan Amendment
which suggests the property is appropriate for residential use of 2.2 units per acre or less
and conservation/recreationuse.
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 subject property is located in an area characterized by single-family residential uses on
acreage parcels and single-family residential subdivision development, including Rose Glen,
Nuttree and Echo Ridge. In addition, subdivisions within the Brandermill community are
located to the west, across Old Hundred Road. Single-family residential development is
expected to continue in this area, as suggested by the Plan.
Development Standards:
The applicant is proposing a 196-foot monopole communications tower with internally
mounted antennas 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; 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.
5 10SN0168-SEP22-BOS-RPT
Given these considerations, denial of this request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Applicant (3/29/10 and 3/31/10):
The applicant submitted additional proffered conditions.
Planning Commission Meeting (4/20/10):
The applicant did not accept staff s recommendation, but did accept the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
There was opposition present expressing concerns relative to visibility; other alternatives;
proximity to residential development; locating the tower in a business area or on a
Virginia Power structure; visual impact; depreciation of property values; and the safety of
children. There was support present, stating: they grew up adjacent to towers; they own a
business and rely on cell services; there were other users of the tower, not just this
applicant; preference for a tower instead of residential use with 300-500 homes; and that
towers have to be located somewhere.
Mr. Waller questioned the dangers of the microwaves from a cell phone versus those
emitted by antennas on a cell tower. He noted the applicant has made some progress
towards addressing staff s concerns. He also indicated area property owners have a
reasonable expectation for wireless coverage.
In response to a question from Mr. Hassen, Mr. Keene stated that locating the tower
closer to Route 288 would mean the removal of more trees; there were wetlands and less
land to work with; and that the Colonial Pipeline runs through the property.
Mr. Bass asked if health issues were discussed at the community meeting. He also stated
that with 139 signatures on a petition, he felt he would have to vote with the people.
On motion of Mr. Waller, seconded by Dr. Brown, the Commission recommended
approval and acceptance of the proffered conditions on pages 2 and 3.
AYES: Messrs. Brown, Hassen and Waller.
NAY: Mr. Bass.
ABSENT: Mr. Gulley.
6 10SN0168-SEP22-BOS-RPT
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (5/26/10):
At the request of the applicant, the Board deferred this case to July 28, 2010.
Staff (5/27/10):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant, new or revised information
should be submitted no later than June 1, 2010 for consideration at the Board's July 28,
2010 public hearing.
The applicant was also advised that a $1,000.00 deferral fee must be paid prior to the
Board's public hearing.
Staff (6/ 17/ 10)
The deferral fee was paid.
Applicant (6/29/10):
A revised plan was submitted, showing the proposed tower as being relocated in an effort
to address concerns of area property owners.
Applicant (7/23/10):
As a result of relocating the proposed tower the applicant submitted a revised proffer
reducing the height.
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (7/28/10):
On their own motion the Board remanded this case to the Commission due to a change in
the proposed tower location. The applicant consented to the remand.
Staff (7/29/10):
The applicant was advised in writing the case will be scheduled for public hearing before the
Planning Commission once it has been amended.
7 10SN0168-SEP22-BOS-RPT
Staff (9/1/10):
If this case is acted upon by the Planning Commission on September 21, 2010 it will be
considered by the Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, September 22, 2010.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, September 22, 2010, beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
8 10SN0168-SEP22-BOS-RPT
J
U N
U
N ~
g ~- ~
T2$ - .•~ ~
R ~ -~ r~
- ~ \ I ,1.
~~ ^ ` ~ ~
--~~~ ' ~
r
r~-~ l
Q ~
/ ~
NEE r ~ .
t ~ f~
~ a t
~~~~i
Q
1
1'.
.r
~ ~ ~ J ~ / ~ I ~ ~ Nl 3lAl 3~ l
z~
ti s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y
~ !~ / / w
~ ~ ~. ~
~ I ~ z
1 ~ / ~
r .~ ~ ~ 2~ ~
~ p ~ ~ 1 '
G~ d ~ ~ ~
/ Y
U , ~
V ,
~ 8/~ 0 / Q G~ Q
o ~ ~
~ ~ ~P
~ 1 ~ i ~
Q ~ o ~
d Sy N
~Z ~ ~ ,~
~~~
~~~,
~~ ~~
~~
~~
~ Ha~OS W
~ ~ z cn
W
m,
o m,
o ~
0
a
~7 0 ~ U
fly'
e
~~
~ ~
O ~
~n
X
O
0
Q
o t ~
O ~
U ~ ^
O
O .,
r ~~
~i ~ ~ r
U
TOTAL HaGFIT
198'-O"f AGL
ItiI1Al"~AI~rA 71 1 IAi IT-Iiil/\ I'IAh
FOR
~R
PROPOSED fi-i
uTluTr RACK
3'~3' HOFFfrIAN
PROPOSED 7' HIGH
cHAi~uN~ FENCE
Y~~ ~3J STRAND5
OF BARBED SIRE
TO[[yyP OF TTQWEyR ~
1 ~7~'-0"f AGL
N1Qt GF PROP054D N1F106 AN1E?lIAS
1 - f A~6L
RAD CENTER OF FUTURE ANTENNA
180'-O't AGL
RAD CENTER OF FUTURE ANTENNA ~
170'-0"t AGL
RAD CENTER OF FUTURE ANTENNA
160'-0"f AGL
COAl~
STEEL SKID
FINISH GRAQE
0'-0"t AGL
- - ` , ,