03SN0159-June18.pdfr.~. .....1~ onn'~ CPC
.LV.L~J ~..,~, z..,vv..., ~-,2,. '~,
June 18, 2003 BS
STAFF'S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATION
03SN0159
Verizon Wireless
Matoaca Magisterial District
Northwest quadrant of River and Trents Bridge Roads
REQUEST: Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a communications tower plus
height and setback exceptions in an Agricultural (A) District.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
Antennae for cellular communications and associated improvements are planned.
Specifically, co-location of antenna on an existing 225 foot utility tower, erected in
1957, is proposed.
PLANNING COlVIMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION ON PAGE 2 AND
ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROFFERED CONDITIONS ON PAGES 2 AND 3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reasons:
This request is not in compliance with the Public Facilities Plan which suggests that
communications toWers should generally be located away from existing or planned
areas of residential development. The request property lies in an area designated by
the Southern and Western Area Plan for residential development and is directly
adjacent to, and in Close proximity of, existing residential developmem.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE Community Through Excellence in Public Service.
Be
The request is not in compliance with the Guidelines for Review' of Substantial
Accord Determin~ition and/or Zoning Appr°Val:~ for Communications _TOwer
Locations which suggest ~atif a tower is to be loCated~-in'the vicinity of residential
areas, it should cite} b~architecmrally incorporated in the design of an eXisting
structure, such as ai church~Or office building; possess design features that'mask the
utilitarian.natureofthe-toWer; or be located as remOtely as.possible from existing Or
planned areas of development or other high visibility:areas and on property that'is
densely wooded Wlth m~tture trees. A more remote iocation Would be appropriate.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY. PROFFER
CONDITIONS. THE CONDITIONS -NOTED WITH "STAFF/CPC" WERE-AGREED UPON. BY
BOTH STAFF AND THE COMMISSION. CONDITIONS WITH ONLY A '.'STAFF" ARE
RECOMMENDED SOLELY .BY STAFF. CONDITIONS WITH i ONLY A "CPC". ARE
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECO~NDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.)
CONDITION
(CPC)
In conjunction with the granting of this request, :the following excePtions shall be
granted:
Bo
An' eleven(11) foot exception to the 1.00f0ot front yard Setback
reqUirement; and
A seventy-five (75) foot exceptiontOthe 150 foot height limitation in
an AgricultUral (A) District. (P)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
The property owner/applicant in.this rezoning case, pursuant to ~Seetion15.2-2298 of the Code'of
Virginia (1950 as amended) and the Zoning Ordinance of CheSterfieldCounty, for itself and :its
successors or assigns, proffer that-~e property under consideration!~ll-?be develoPed according-to
the following Proffers' if, and only !if;' ~eXezoning request submitted herewith is granted with
those conditions agreed to by the owner/applicant. In the eventilthis:r~quest is denied or approved
with conditions not agreed to by the-oWner/applicant, the proffers stialliimmediate!ybe null and Void"
and of no-further force or effect.
(CPC)
The tower and equipment shall be designed andinStalled so as not to interfere
w~th the Chesterfield County Commumeations System.. Prior to attaching, its
antennas onto the existing tower, the oWner/developer shall submit
information as deemed necessary-by "Lhe ~Chesteneield County.
Communieationsand Electronics staff to determine if an engineeringstudy .
should be peffomed:to analyze the possibility o~radio frequency intefferehce ::
with the county system, based upon tower.location:and height; andup°n the ¥
frequeneies!:~d ~ffeetive radiated p°weri~-generated 'b½ t0Wer-m~Unted
equipment. :Prior to: release of an electriealpermit, the: study if required; shall.'.
2 03SN0159-JUNE18-BOS
(CPC)
(CPC)
(CPC)
(CPC)
(CPC)
(CPC)
(CPC)
be submitted to and approved by, the Chesterfield coUnty. CommuniCations
and Electronics staff. (GS)'
The developer shallbe responsible for correcting any frequency problems
which affect the Chesterfield County Communications System caused by this
use. Such corrections shall be made' immediately upon notification bythe
Chesterfield County Communications andElectroniCs staff. (GS)
At such time that the tower Ceases to be used for communications purposes
for a peri°d ~Xceeding twelve (12) conSecutive months,'the owner/developer
shall dismantle and remove the tower and all associated equipment froTM the
property. (P)
There shall be no signs permitted to identify, this use. (P)
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 soas to provide
sufficient'room between the fence and the' propertytine to accommodate
evergreen pl'.antings:having an initial height:-and spacing to proVide screening
of the base ofthe tower andpermanent-accesSory ground moUnted equipment
or structures from. adjacent properties as:provided -in. Condition 7 below.
Prior to attaching its antennas on the eXisting tower, the owner/deVeloper
shall submit-a' detailed plan depicting .this-~equirement to thePl~g
Department ~for approval. (P)
Any building or.mechanical equipment shall comply ~with Sections 1-.9-595
and 19-5701(b) and (c) of the Zoning Ordinance relative''to architectural
treatment of building exteriors and 'screening!fOr mechanical equipment';
provided, however, that nothing contained herein :shall require the screening
of the tower, 6r tower-mounted equipment. (P)
Supplemental landscaping between the permanent shelter and the soiithern
and eastern property boundaries of the property shall be provided as shorn
on Sheet L+I of'the conceptual plan entitled ,Lake Chesdin Co-LOcate
Existing 21i5" self'Suppor~ T°~er~ 10501. River Road, Matoaca,' VA,
Chesterfield County", prepared by Clark Nexsen dated September 1-3;:2002
and filed with this-request. (P)
Lighting during'daYlight hours shall be'limited to medium intensitystrobe
lights ,aYith t~P~tardreflection and'lighting during night-time hours shall: be
limited to-soft blinking lights with upward reflection. (P)
3 03SN0159-JUNE18~,BOS
Location:
GENERAL INFORMATION
Northwest quadrant of the intersection of River and Trents Bridge Roads.- Tax ID 754-624-
6621 (Sheet 40).
Existing Zoning:
Size:
.Agricultural (A)
3.7 acres
Existing Land Use:
A 225 foot tower and associated improvements
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North - A; Single family, residential
South - A, A with Special?Exception and R-15; Single family.residential
East , A; Single family residential
West - A; Single family residential · .' '" ' ~
UTILITIES
The proposed use will not necessitate a manned facility; therefore, the use 'of the public water: and
wastewater systems is not required. ..
ENVIRONMENTAL
Drainage and Erosion:
If the tower installation and constructiOn of associated improvements disturbs more than
2,500 square feet of land, a land disturbance permit will be required.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Fi~e Service and Transportation:
The proposed tower and aSSociated equipment will have a minimal impact On fire/rescue
services 'and the existing transportation network.
4 03SN01594UNE18-BOS
COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance requires that any structure over eighty (80) feet in height be reviewed by the
County's Public Safety Review Te~n forpOtential detrimental impacts the structure could have on
the County's Radio Communications System microwave paths. This determination must be made
prior to increasing the height of the Communications tower.
A preliminary review of this tower proposal has indicated that the facility .will not interfere with the
County's Communications System; however, if this request is approved, a condition should be
imposed to insure that the tower is ~esigned and constructed so as not to interfere with the County's
CommUnications: System (Proffere~ Condition 1). In addition, once the tower is in operation, if
,interference occurs, the owner/developer should be required 'to correct any problems. (Proffered
Condition 2)
COUNTY AIRPORT
A preliminary review of this tower proposal has indicated that,' given the approximate location and
elevation of the proposedinstallation,.it appears the tower will not adversely affect the Chesterfield
County Airport.
~LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan-:
The request property lies wi'thin the boundaries of the Southern and Westem. Area_Plan
which suggests the property;~ind surrounding area are appropriate for residential use'of l'to 5
acre' lots..
The Public Facilities Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, suggests' that
communications uses shoul~l be located in areas so as to minimize impacts-on existing and
furore areas of development,and to reduce impacts on adjacent planned or existing residential
development in industrial, commercial or remote areas. In addition, the Plan suggests that
commumeat~ons towers should be generally located away from areas of high visibility or
otherwise be designed to nfinimize the visual impact.
Area Development Trends:
The request property is located in an area characterized'by single family residences lOcated'
along. River Road and in WCStfield~ Flintshire, Chesdin Park and Trents Farm Subdivisionsi "
It is anticipated that properffeS in the vicinity of the request site wiltcontinue tobe developed'
for residential uses as suggested by the Southern and Western Area Plan.
5 03SN01594UNE18~BOS
Zoning History:
An application is pending for a :COnditional Use Planned Development to .permit the
applicants to locate a cell on wheels(COW)mobile trailer.with a temporary guyed toWer on
the request property for one (1)' year (Case O2SN0217): At their.meeting on October '1.5,
2002, the Commission recommended approval of Case 02SN0217; The Board of
Supervisors' will consider~the reqUest for the COW (Case 02sN0217)~at their meeting:on
November 26, 2002.
Site Design and.Architecture:
As noted herein, a 225 foot tower exists on the request property;~ The applicant intends
locate private cellular antennae on the existing tower. The existing tower was constmetedin
1957. The tower is a non,conforming use and cannot be expanded or'structurally altered
without a Conditional Usei
The request property lies within an Emerging .Growth DeveloPment Area. 'The Zoning
Ordinance specifically addresses access, landscaping, setbacks, parking, signs, bUffers,
utilities and screening for develOpments within these areas 'in-0rder to prOmote high quality,
well-designed projects. Because the request property is zoned Agricultural (A), development
is not required to meet the .standards for.an Emerging Growth Area; howeVer, Proffered
Condition 6 requires that architectural treatment of building exteriors and screening:0f
mechanical'equipment will be accomplished in accordancewith.Ordinance requirements.
(Proffered Condition 6)
Dwellings within 2,000 feet of the tower are shown on the attachment: It is important to note
that residential stmcmres o'n.this map were placed according tO. aerial photographs taken'in
1994 and therefore may not fullyrepresent all the structures in thearea.-Assuch, the request
property does not conformto the ~tOwer siting criteria. The.County guidelines sUggeSt'that
towers should be locatedi as 'remOtely as .possible' frOm existing .or planned areas ,of
develoPment or other high viSibility areas'. TYPically, SUch. placement would' be' in the
vicinity of stream beds or ResourceProtection Areas (RPA)that generally define the ~dgeof
future residential develop~ents~ r~ese wooded areas prOvide:appropriate separatiOn and
screening from future residential neighborhoods. InsUffiCient mature Vegetation exists :Onthe_
requeSt property to provide separation and screening from. exiSf~g-and future residential
development.
Further, where allowed in residential, areas, provision of.adeqUate buffers Consisting of
mature vegetation has been required. The proposal does not Conform to this criteria.~ While
the policy suggests that co-location-on existing structures may be.appropriate, the' guidelines
also suggest that towers should be! lOcated away from existingor planned areas of residential
development and high visibility areas such as major roads andthat the view of the towers from
these areas should be minim' ized. The criteria suggests that.:wooded areas provide appropriate
separation and screening from future residential neighborhoods. 'In this case, 'the request site
lacks sufficient vegetation or topographical features to provide screening or mitigate views of
6
. . 03SN0159-JUNE18-BOS .
the tower frOm these identified' resources. In fact, the existing tower is located so close to
existing roadways and adjacent residential development~ an exception is requested to'the
minimum, setback requirements from River Road to accommodate the existing equipmem
bUilding (Condition). A more remote location would'be appropriate.
Consistent with past actions.on similar facilities to ensure that the tOwer does not become a
maintenance problem or an eyesore, if approved, the tower should be removed at such time that
it ceases to be used for communications purposes. (Proffeired Condition 3)
Access to the tower site WOuld be provided via an existing gravel drive .from River Road.
Consistent with past actions on similar facilities, ifthis'requestis approved, the baseofthe
tower should be secured with a fence to discourage tresp~,ssing;. (PrOffered Condition
Similarly, Proffered Condition 4 prohibits signs to identi~7 the use. These typical standards
will not assist in mitigating the visual impact of the 'existing tower.
Lighting:
Traditionally, tower height has been restricted in'residential areas to approximately 199 feet
because the FAA normally does not require towers to be lightedwhich are less than 200 feet
in. height. The Siting Policy suggests that towers' should not be lighted, especially in
reSidential areas. The exiSting 225 foot tower onwhich-the apPlicants propose to locate
their antennae is lighted.' The existing.lighting details are shown on Sheet C,3 (Elevation
View) of the plan prepared by ClarkNexsen entitled"Lake Chesdin Co-Locate Existing 215'
Self-Support Tower" whichis attached herewith. According to the applicants, the existing
tower lighting is sufficient and will-not be supplemented with additional lighting. Proffered
COnditiOn 8 provides that lighting during daylight hours will be limited to medium intensity
strObelighting with upwardirefleetion and lighting during ~aight~time hoUrs.will be limited` to
soft blinking lights with upward reflection, as suggested b~g the County's tower siting policy
where towers are allowed through theConditional Use to be lighted (Proffered Condition 8).
Buffers and Screening:
The request property is located within an area designated by the Plan for future residential
development and is in a highly visible area. The County's siting criteria suggests that the.
tower 'should be located as ~remotelY as possible from such-high visibility areas and: awaY
from existing and/or planned residential development: The siting criteria provides that
typically such tower placement Should be located ina Wooded area in' the vicinity of stream
beds or Resource Protection. Areas '(RPA) because these wooded areas can offer adequate
buffers that will mitigate the vieW of the toWer-from high visibility areas. Typically, ..a.
minimum 100 foot buffer of mature trees has been reqUiired to be maintained around.i'the
tower site. Proffered Condition 7 Provides that supplementai landscapingwill be provided
betweenthe permanent equipmem shelter and the southern and eastern property boundaries
and Proffered Condition 5 provides that supplementalevergreen plantings will be providedto
7 03 SN0159-JUNE 18~BOS
screenthe base of the towerand ground-mounted equipment(Proffered Conditions 5 and. 7).
.This supplemental landscaping will not mitigate views of the 225 foot tower.'.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposal fails to conform to the Public Facilities Plan and the GUidelines for Review. of
Substantial Accord Determination and/or Zoning Approval for CommunieationsTower Locations2
The request property lies within the bOundaries of the Southern and Western Area Plan which
suggests.that the property and sUrrounding area are appropriate for residential developmentwith l to
5 acre lots, suited for R-88 zoning. ~ The:area surrounding the property has experieneeda significant·
amount of residential development. It is anticipated that this development patteTM will Continue,in
accordance with the adopted Plan. The Public Facilities Plan suggests that towers shOuld be located
in areas designated on the adopted Plan for general commercial, general industrial and
agrieultural/forestal use. Specifically, the Plan provides that towers.should generally be located away
from existing or Planned areas of residenfi'al, recreational and similar types, of deVelopment:.
The Public Facilities Plan and the Guidelines for RevieW of Substantial Accord DeterminatiOn
and/or Zoning Approval for CommuniCations Tower Locations indicate,that Views of.towerS frOm
existing or planned areas of residential~ development should be minimized. If-loCated in a high
visibility area, the tower should be architecturally incorporated in the design oran existing structure,
such as a church or office building, or Possess design features that mask the utilitarian nature of the
tower. Otherwise, the tower should belocated as remotely as possible fxom existing or plannedareas
of development or other high visibility areas and on property that is denSely.Wooded with mature
trees. The existing tower is located~approximately 135 feet from TrentsBridgeRoad andeighty-nine
(89) feet from River Road. There are a significant number of dwellings in proximity of the tower.
Given these considerations, denial.of the request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (11 / 19/02):
At the applicant's request, the Commission deferred this case to February 18, 2003;
Staff (11/20/02):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information should
be submitted no later than December 16, 2002, for consideration.at the CommissioWs
February 18, 2003, public heating. The applicant was-also advisedthata $1-40.00 deferral
fee muSt be paid prior to the. Commission's public hearing.
8 03SN0159-JUNE18~BOS
ApPlicant (1/9/03):
The $140.00 deferral fee was paid.
Staff (1/27/03):
To date, no new or revised information has been submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (2/18/03):
This case was deferred for sixty (60) days at the applicant's request and thirty (30) days at the
Matoaca DiStrict Commissioner's.request for a total of ninety (90) days to the May 20, 2003,
public hearing.
Staff (2/1'8/03):
The 'applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information should
be submitted no later than March 17, 2003, for consideration at the Commission's February
18, 2003, Public hearing. The applicant was also advised that a $140.00 deferral fee must be
paid prior to the CommissiOn's May public hearing.
Applicant (3/3/03):
The $140.00 deferral fee was paid.
Staff (4/22/03):
To date, no new or revised information has been submitted.
Planning Commission Meeting (5/20/03):
The applicant accepted the Commission's recommendation. There was no oppOSition
present.
Mr. Stack provided that while he.would not generally be .sUpportive of expanding non-
conforming towers in the vicinity of residential development, he was supportive of this
request because there is a need for better service in rural areas. He further provided that there
should be a minimal impact on thesurrounding residential areas'since thiS tower has existed
for so long.
9 03SN0159-JUNE18-BOS
On motion of Mr. Stack, seconded by Mr. Cunningham, the Commission recommended
approVal subject to the COndition on page 2 and acceptance of the proffered conditions.on
pages 2 and 3.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, June 18, 2003, beginning at 7:00 p,m., will .take under
consideration this request.
10
03SN0159~JUNE18-BOS
.!
.I
I
I
I
I
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/.
/
/
.£'9C~L
I
I