03SN0283-Aug27.pdf STAFF'S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATION
August 27, 2003'BS
03SN0283
Token Tower, L.L.C.
Bermuda Magisterial District
Off the eastern terminusof~Station ROad
REQUEST: 'Amend Conditional Use planned Development (Case02SN0166) to permit a second
communications t°wer'inan AgricultUral (A:) DisffiC[. :' A.390.f~ot ~xception to. the
150 foot height limitation fOr towers in A~eulmml (A) DistrictS.is requested.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A 540 foot communications tower with acceSSory~equipmemis planned.
PLANNING COMMISSION'~CO~ATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF.. THEPROFFERED CONDITION ON
PAGE 2. ' :
STAFF'RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reasons:
Ao
The request is not in compliance with. the Public Facilities Plan which suggests.
that communications towers should gener~ly b~'iocatedaway :from high visibility_
areas, such as major traffic .corridorS, :rivers, parks~ community recreatiOnal
facilities and similar uses: ' '
The request, is not in compliance with.the GuidelineS?forReview of Substantial i
Accord Determination and/or Zoning ApprO~ai.lf°~;.~'C. 0mmunieafi0ns-iT~er'
Locations_ which: suggest; that if a toWer is to' bet°~ated :~ the;vicinity: Of.p~ks, ii
community recreati°n areas, high viSibility'are~i:~and ~eaS of existing °rPi~ed '~'
residential developmem, it should be either architeCtUrally in~orPorated'.ini~the?
Providing a FIRST CHOICE Community Through EXcellenCe-in Public Service:
design of an existing structure, possess design_features that mask. .the ;utilitarian .
.nature of the tower, or' be located as remotely as posSible'on property that', is~
densely woodedwith mature trees. ~ ~ ..-_ i:.~ ,-~ '
C. The Jefferson Davis Coffidor Plan-provides that revitalizationof the Corridor is
an important keyt° .its liVability and vitalitY~...:The, pl~i:!sUggestS::;a~key,~to.:~
implement this reVitaliZation is en~.fineing?the appearanceof?~ COrridor.
Plan also suggests' ProteCtionof the' 'Gateway', Which conV6ysti.~t:i~P~essioiis to
visitors from Chip~enldam Parkway and I:95~ Theeo~fi0nl 0f ai-i:~ad~tional~'.
tower on the req%~t Property wilt hayed negative:~s~:~aet 0nflle'C0rddor
and the "Gateway." -: :'
(NOTE: coNDmoNs MAY BE IMPOSED OR-~, ', ,THE ,PROPERTYOWNER:'MAYPROFFER:i
CON~mONS. Tim CONDIT~OtqS ~OTED WI~ ~'ST~F2ceC'.(~ :._'~ON'
BY BOTH sTAFF AND THE COMMISSION. cONDITIONSii~~ .? ~AF~',~, ~ARE~
RECOMMENDED SOLELY'BY STAFF. coNDITIONS~.!~~ O~NL:~¥!i:A'--~,!CPQ!Ii
ADmT~oN~ CONDITIONS RECOm~Em~ED BY'~ e dO~SstO~)
PROFFERED CONDmON ~ - .
The property owner (the "Owner") in this zoning.case, pursuant t°::Se~ti0~i,ilS~'2r2298;!'oLthe..~
Code of v~ghia. 0950 a~ amended)~and_the 'zodng O~C%f~C~esierfieldCOtmty,_:!tor!:.
themselves:and their 'successors or assi .~,, proffer that the deYeloPm~nt!:bf~i;prope~:known..i~
as Chesterfield County Tax .identifiCati°n Number
consideration will be developed according to the fOllo~g conditi0nsi~ifi)~di;Ody if, .the:Xequ%t:)'
for CUPD with height exceptions:iS granted. In theevem.~e ~eqUestiS:
conditions not. agreed to by ilie ow%r;:the proffersandc0ndifi°i~s ~1.:. ~ be'"fiUlli~d:~
void and have n~-further force or effect. ~ ":i~: ii:.,/_i':' '- ~
(CPC) With approval of-this: CUPD, one additional tOwer: maYi:be '
Property, Which toWer shall not exceed' a
feet above groUnd level ~ ' :'
(Staff Note: This condition'is in addition to c0nditionsjof.:Zo~gapProval:ifor:.
Case 02SN0166.) ~:i-
Locmion:
Eastern terminus of Station Road: Tax ID 792-685-56621'{Sheet12)~ ·
Existing Zoning:
Agricultural (A) with Conditional Use to
manufacturing; and, with Conditional
telecommunications tower.
2
Size:
12.5 acres
Existing Land Use:
Vacant (Closed construction/demolition/debris landfill)
Adiacent Zoning and Land Use:
North
South
East
West -
1-2; Industrial (Falling Creek Wastewater Treatment FacilitY)
A; Public/semi-public (Falling Creek IronworksPark)
-A with Conditional USe Planned_ Development and 1:2; A 540 .foot
telecommunications toWer and industrial (Falling Creek-Wastewater Treatment
Plant)
1-2; Industrial ' ~
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Utilities:
The proposed use will not necessitate a manned facility; therefore, the use of the public
water and wastewater systems is not required.
Drainage and Erosion:
The site is located between Falling Creek and..Gfindall Creek and c°mpletely within the 100
year floodplain. The site was filied manY"Years ag0, but there shoUld be.no fiirther fillirig. -
'prOffered Condition 9"°fCase 02SN01'66 prohibited addifi°iial filling. Any structures
associated with the tower, should be elevated to one(l) foot above :.the minimum floodplain
or flood proofed. (Proffered Condition 2, Case 02SN0166) ' '
Water Quality:
When the site plan is submitted, EnvirOnmental` Engineering willl nOt :alloW removal of
existing trees within Resource ProteetiOn Areas ~As)tO aeeommodatednstallatiOn: of: guy
wires. AlOng the denUded, areas, the Ordinance requires that the conserVafion-areabe re-.
established, This re-vegetation of the:conservatiOn area must beapproved';with the site plan.'
Fire Service and Transportation:
The proposed additional tower and associated eqm'pment willhave a-minimal' impact-on
fire/rescue services and the exiSting transportation network.
3 03SN0283-AUGUST 2%BS
CounW.Communications:.
The Zoning Ordinance requires that any structure over eighty(80)feet ~i~height:be xeviewed
by the Cor~nty' s Public S~ety Re~ew Team :fOr potenfi~dd~en~.~:~Pa~-ts :the stmcture:,.. '
could have on the County'S:' Rttc!io communicationsi!SySte.~::':~
detemfinafion must be made pfiorto erection of the proPCSed:i~0~Caii°m-.tower:'
A preliminary review of.this tOV~er:proposal :has: indicated; that: ~e'ifacility.Al:;not~ffere_~ .
with the COunty' s communications sYstem, ff thisrcqUe~is~aPl5ro
6 of.Case 02SN0166 enSuresthat the tower is,desig%~l ~d: Co~cted!?~6~'& n°ti~'i~rfere)
with.~the COunty CommUnicafi°~SYstem. :.In aCi'diti0~' i:0n~.;~elitow~?isdnOPemti~ if.-
interference occurs, the
(proffered Condition 6, Case 02SN0166)
County.Airport:
A .preFuninary review :of this'.tov/er
locatiOn:and elevation of the pmP0Sed
affect the Chesterfield County Ai~ort.
Parks and Recreation:
Parks and Recreation has concems about the
of-an important historic-property_,
Purpose Park.
According to
quality, park experience shoUld~be Pr°teCte&
Park. woUld negatively impacti
quality of the experience for parkdUsers.
General Plan:
LieS within the
property for general
properties ~within the
LANDUSE
Parkway as a
conveying first'
The Public FaCilities Plan, an ,~
communications uses ShoUld ibe lOCated in_areas-so
~ 4
future areas of development and minimize lOcations- adjacent to planned or. existing
residential development.
Area Development Trends:
The property to the north of the request property is-zoned I-2 and, occupied by .a public
wastewater treatmem facility: ProPerty to the' eastis.zonedA~th COnditiOnal Use Planned
DevelOpment to permit a 540 foot~teleeommunications tOWer;'' Property to the westis zoned.
I-2 and is °ccupied by industfi? USes and:the CSXi-Railroad~ .':Pr01~rt~ tothe 'south is; z°ned
A and is the site of the coUnty, sFailing Creek Ir°nWorkSPark:d~{telo~ed~along the' banks of /
Falling Creek. This portion of'Falling.Creek has ihistbfie'significance2, -pr°Perty t° :the
soUth~vest, along the south bank.Of Falling.. Cgeek, .has.HistOric Landmark I~esi~nafion.
(Falling Creek Ironworks,' Case 8~001 ) .
Zoning History: .
On May 22, 1985, the Board of SupervisorS aPproved, a CondifionalUse:for seven (7) years i-
to permit a landfill on the.propertY(Case' 84Si90). Fill;material waS~!estricted to inert:
materials, to. include rock, dirt,:~avel, Conerete,.asphalt,.!0riCk!andbi°ck~d~precluded:°ther .;
types of Construction and land:'~ffadng debris s~eh'ias:;:~o0di-lib~h, :S~Ps, Plastic i
metal. Further, conditions oftheCondifio~iUsereq~d a~::s~Y of:(~e:fill area~ a Plat
nOte stating that the property-maY:not, be suitable for co~fi~/n;-~di'i~tno faCi!itieSibe
constmcted over the fill 'area ~ss soil engineering, stUdiesPmve the~:sUitability of such
· construction. . '
In additiOn, it should be noted that the reqUeSt' pmpe!g(ig~p~!0f property Which was
inCluded in an application by 'cogeatrix of Richmo~id fo~ Hea~ (l-3).zoning .with
a Conditional Use to permit an:ele~c power- generation~!~l~t_(case-90~SN0148);. On May..
23; 1990, the Board of superVisors, denied thatreqUest dd~.toi~°~emsrelative tO the impact
on area land uses.
On MaY 27, 1992, the' Boardof- Supervisors, upon a ::favorable..reco~endafion by the::
Planning COmmission, apProved the rezoning~0m:~: al- ~2) toAgfi~uitur~.
(A) wi'th Conditional useto, permit non-me ~tallie and W06d Produ~, manufacturing onlthe'
request property and property to i the South. (case 92SN01:45)! '-:.~
On April 26, 1995, the Board-of:SUpervisors, upon a fav°ra~!~?f%O~endati0n ibythe
planning Commission, :apProved:: a Conditional-Use. Pl~ed;~:!D~v~l°p~nt:- (95SN0239) to
permit a 540 foot coli~eafi°ns tower-on proPerty:~hi~ehi~ilati~:~e!~6; :inCludeai'the'
request site. This prOPertY waS'subSequent}}, s~b ii~h eXClUded the/requestl._
prOPerty.- Amendments to this Coiiditi°nal Use: Plamaed '. D~v~i~ment ix~e~e approved.b~ the ..
Board Of Supervisors _on March 27, 1996,-'r~lative ~61.t°W~::ii~g:~a;a~l:.POwer:line
easements (Case 96SN0185). These amendmentsall0wed;highe~in~us~:lighfi~g:thani.~at i
typically allowed on other tall strUctures in~theCoUnty, " .... ' '" -
5
03SN0283?g~UGUST 27,BS
On July 24, 2002, the Board of Supervisors, upon a favorable reCo ~m!n' endationby:the.
Planning Commission, approveda Conditional. Use ~platmed'Devel°pment(02SN01
permit' a 400 foot commu~iCafi°ns t°wer, on the request Site..Wi~ ~x~q$~ the a~Pli~ant
is"Seeking approval to c°nstruer a second toWer onthe pr°perty:~!at~.
this request is approved, .all other ,conditions of Case 02S-N0166 ~w°~?~m~'~'ieffect.;
These c°nditions have a note indicating that the applicanti
Conditional Use Planned DeVeloPments 95SN0239 and 96sN0 li85'!.ftre~bVe ~theifi~t ifo~ a
to Wet on the adjacent proPerty 'a~d i.to concurrently seek apPrOval'f°r::.a-se~tnd': to
subject Propert37. The apl~lic~itis now seeking ai~pr°Val J?~ra secolidi~)~eron theSubjeet
propert37 b~t is not seeki~"t°rem°Ve the fight for the toWer.onthe adjacent pr°pe~/:
Site Design: ~ . - ....
The request property lies.within.a'PoSt Development Area. The de~eloPmentistandardsiare
intended to promote ren°vati°n and. improvement of areas which!have,~e~idYexp~eneed
deVeloPment. However, beeaUSethe requeSt property isz°ne~-!~gri
required to meet the development standards-for a!
should this case be approved, Consideration should'bt, gi~en.to~.imposing -apPr0Pfiate
development standards.
nfl , · -' ~-:-.'."
The proposal does not eo . orm.-to the County s towersitmg.entena;/- While. the poliey
suggests that towers are appropriately located in indUstrifl ~areas~e ~delines als° SUggest
that .'towers should be l~eaied~-~a~ay from ~ existing
devel°Pment; high visibility areassUeh as. maj°r,-:rOa~ and:th~ J~6~i~;Ri~eri':'-~dip~ks;
recreational areas and Similar 'faCilities and that ithe-vit~
Should be minimizedi: 'The criteria suggests that W0odtd;~ar~..!~3Ovideapp~opfiate~
separation and screening from ;ftitUre residential.: neighbOrho0!ds;;h0~e~er;,, t°Wer~
th~se tyPiCal criteria apply'arepr0p0sed ata height leSsi-th~ 200:~eet:~:i~.-In
request site lacks sufficient V~gttation or'toPograPhieat;ifea~es:it°pr~°~de'.seree~g~or~
mitigate-views of the proposed 540. foot tower from :theseid~ntified~i~:res°urees~
re%e lOCation would ; PPr0Priate. ' ': '"
Lighting: ' '
Proffered Condition 7 of Case.02SN0166 addresses the typical; Standards requkedi.for
other xoWers in the County that ..will be. lit, except tha~- S~bbe!Aight~g during :daylight"
hours is requested as oppoSed to;medium intensity strobe li~tsi-aS ~ugg~ested by:the'.tOWe?i;
siting' guidelines. As ~ated ab0ve~'the existing .tOwer~sitin~!.Critefiai~ieallyapPlit~:ml.
towers prOposed at a height leSS than 200 feet.'TheSe ~ieal'~dards".!will '~tt ~ifigate.:
views ofthe proposed 540 foot tOWer. ' · '
Architecture: - .
The communications tower-located on property to the east of:the req¢est..Property~was.;,.:
approVed with a conditi°n :to require complianCe: withEmer~g:)G-r°~,:iArea. ~dards;i
relative to architectural, treatment--°f buildings: and screening: :Of !meC~ca1 .equiPment..
6 03SN0283:AUGUST'27;BS
These requirements applied to the equipment building for the above referenced tower, not to
the tower or tower-mounted equiPment. As previously noted, if this request is to be
approved, consideration shOuld be given to imposing, a similar condition.
COnsiStent with past actions on similar facilities,-and to. enSUre that 'the tower does inot
become a maintenance problem or an eyesore, if. approved, Proffered Condition 8 of Case
02SN0166 provides that the tower should be removed at.such:time' that it ceases to be used
for Communications purposes.
Buffers and Screening:
The request property lies in a highly visible area near the intersection of Interstate 95 .and
Chippenham Parkway, is in close proximity .to' the' James River and is adjacent to a
significant historic resourcel Falling Creek Ironworks,-and.its related-PublicPark. The
to'vet siting criteria suggests that'towers should be located as remOtel~ as possible froTM
these areas.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposal .fails to conform to the Jefferson Davis-COrridOr Plan, the Public .Facilities Plan'and.
the Guidelines for Review of Substantial Accord Determination 3nd/or, Zoning APprOVal:for
Communications Tower Locations. The Jefferson Davis:Corridor Plan Suggests that. measures
should be taken to .improve the appearance of the COrridor.:and protect the' appearance of one .(t): of.
the "Gateways." Residential and commercial development exists and is propOSed along Jefferson
Davis Highway within the view shed of the proposed tower. The site is approximately 1,500.feet
from Jefferson Davis Highway. The Plan.recognizes the importance of enhancingthe appearance of
the Corridor to the area's livability and vitality. The 540. foot-tower located on the property
adjacent to 'the request property is highly visible :froTM commercial' and residential areas
Jefferson Davis Highway as well as from the intersection of Jefferson Davis. Highway and
Chippenham Parkway ("Gateway"). Dwellings in proximity to the site are shown~on an
attachment. It is important to note. that residential structures are :placed based on 1994 aerial ~
photographs and may not, therefore, represent 'all residential structures. An additional tower will
nnpact on the. Corndorand one (1) of its Gateways.
The Public Facilities Plan indicates that communications tOwers should be located away. from~
certai~ i-d--een[ified Co-~~---~ 'resources.. The Plan provides' that When toWers are proposed in the
vicinity of these resources, the tower should be architecturally~incorporated in the design of an
existing structure, such as a church or office building, ~or POssess design 'featureS.that mask:the
utilitarian nature of the tower. The masking, of a' 540' foOt c°mmurdeations tower is virtuallY
impossible. The Plan states that towers should generally be located away fromexisting:Or planned'
areas Of.residential development, other high visibility areas such as .major traffic corridors, flyers,
villages, Schools, parks, community recreational facilities and :similar..!development. The request
property is located adjacent to, or in close proximity of, several ~of these identified resources and is
highly visible from the intersection of Interstate 95 and' Chippenham Parkway. It is in Close
proximity to the James River, and is adjacent to a significant.historic resource; Falling Creek
Ironworks, and its-related public Park, as well as near areas-of existing-residential development.
7 03SN0283~AUGUST 27'BS
The proposed-tower Will be located approximately 1,100-feet from-bothlnterstate 95 and
Chippenham Parkway and their jUnction northeast of the request pr0perty...i ..The:tower :would be
highly visible from these roadw,a,yfi as.Well as from the interchange~foi~ P°6ohontas~.P~ay.-
This interchange will represent a' GateWaY'' into the CoUnty where'the~vis~!apPearaUeeiSh0Uld
be protect,e,.d. An additional toWer located on the reqUest' prOperty i~negat]¢~lY 'impact ~this-
"Gateway. ' ....: :_ ~ ~'';~'' · ~: .iI ~ '
Given these considerations, denial of this request is recommended:. ' : .:........
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (7/15/03):
The applicant did not accept staff's recommendation, but~didaccePt!thelP!~g
Commission's recommendation.
A representative from the Bensley Area Community Association .and a rePresentative'
from the Jefferson Davis Association each spoke in support oflthe.request2 ' ~ :: ~-':' '
Mr. Cunning)tm notedthat a letter of support for the requeSt ~had.alSo been.receNed:friSm ~
the Falling Creek'Ironworks Association. He added that'duet6 chang~S':in thearea,'Siich:
as the Construction of. the Pocahontas Parkway bridge, Whichlis:lighted:at ~night;i.:he :i:
sUpPOrted the request. "
On motiOn of Mr. Cunningham, seconded by Mr. Stack,. the Co~S~i°n.re¢ommended .'
approval and acceptance Of the proffered condition on page 2. "
AYES: Unanimous.
The Board of Supervisors, on: Wednesday, August 27, 2003, beginning at 7:00 p..-m.~'will take
Under consideration this request: - ' '
03SN0283~AUG27-'BS
m m