97SN0205
-
-
April 15, 1997 crc
June 17, 1997 crc
July 23, 1997 BS
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
97SN0205
RCTC Wholesale Corp., d. b. a. Cellular One
Bermuda Magisterial District
Northeast quadrant of East Hundred Road and Route 1-295
REQUEST: Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a 190 foot communications tower
in an Agricultural (A) District.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A 190 foot communications tower and associated improvements are planned.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS ON PAGES 2 AND 3.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reasons:
A. The proposed tower site does not conform to the locational criteria outlined in the
Public Facilities Plan which suggests that communication towers should generally
be located to take advantage of existing mature vegetation to mitigate the visual
impact of the tower from high visibility areas such as the intersections of major
arterial roads. Specifically, given the denuded condition of the proposed tower
location, the tower would be highly visible to the East Hundred Road/Route 1-295
interchange. The tower should be located so as to reduce its visibility from these two
(2) heavily traveled major arterials.
B. A more suitable tower location might exist on adjacent, agriculturally zoned
property to the north or 1-2 property north of the site. These properties are densely
wooded with mature trees. Locating the proposed tower on a densely wooded site
away from the East Hundred Road/Route 1-295 interchange, could satisfy the tower
siting criteria of the Public Facilities Plan and mitigate the visibility of the tower
from these roads.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER
CONDITIONS. THE CONDmONS 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 ONLY A "CPC" ARE
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.)
CONDITIONS:
(CPC)
(CPC)
(CPC)
(CPC)
(CPC)
1.
The base of the tower shall be enclosed by a minimum six (6) foot high
fence, designed to preclude trespassing. A plan depicting this requirement
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (CPC)
2.
In conjunction with site plan submission, the owner/developer shall submit
documentation as to whether FAA approval is required for the erection of
the tower. If FAA approval is required, prior to release of a building
permit, a copy of FAA approval shall be submitted to the Planning
Department. (CPC)
3.
The tower and equipment shall be designed and installed so as not to
interfere with the Chesterfield County Public Safety Trunked System. At
the time of site plan review, the owner/developer shall submit information
as deemed necessary by the Chesterfield County Communications and
Electronics staff to determine if an engineering study should be performed
to analyze the possibility of radio frequency interference with the County
system, based upon tower location and height, and upon the frequencies
and effective radiated power generated by tower mounted equipment. Prior
to release of a building permit the study, if required, shall be submitted to,
and approved by, the Chesterfield County Communications and Electronics
staff. (CPC)
4.
The developer shall be responsible for correcting any frequency problems
which affect the Chesterfield County Public Safety Trunked System caused
by this use. Such corrections shall be made immediately upon notification
by the Chesterfield County Communications and Electronics staff. (Cpe)
5.
The treatment of the tower shall be as follows:
a. The tower shall be of a monopole design of a minimal diameter,
and further shall be gray or another neutral color.
b. If lighting is required by FAA, such lighting during daylight hours
shall be limited to medium intensity strobe lights with upward
reflection and lighting during night time hours shall be limited to
soft blinking lights.
2
97SN0205/WP/JUL Y23K
-
(CPC)
(CPC)
(CPC)
Location:
-
c. Antennas and other tower-mounted equipment shall be spaced,
placed and be of colors and of minimal dimensions, or be otherwise
treated, so as to minimize the visual impact of such structures.
d. As an alternative to a. and c. above, the tower, antennas and other
tower-mounted equipment may incorporate masking devices or
other design features which disguise the utilitarian appearance of the
tower.
The exact design and treatment of the tower, antennas and other tower-
mounted equipment shall be approved by the Planning Department. (CPC)
6.
With the exception of the tower and tower-mounted equipment, any
building and/or mechanical equipment shall comply with Section 19-595 of
the Zoning Ordinance relative to architectural treatment of building
exteriors and screening of mechanical equipment. (CPC)
7.
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. (CPC)
8.
In conjunction with the approval of this request, a forty (40) foot exception
to the 150 foot height limitation for towers in Agricultural CA) Districts
shall be granted. (CPC)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Northeast quadrant of East Hundred Road and Route 1-295. GPIN 822-649-Part of Parcels
4385, 5179,6672, 8054, 8844, 9217, 9336 and 9700; 822-650-Part of Parcels 7008 and
7804; and 823-648-Part of Parcel 0190 (Sheet 15).
Existin~ Zonin~:
~:
A
0.39 acres
3
97SN0205/WP/JUL Y23K
Existin~ Land Use:
Public/semi-public (VDOT storage facilities) and vacant
Adjacent Zonin~ & Land Use:
North - A; Vacant
South - A and 1-1; Vacant
East - A; Public/semi-public (VDOT storage facilities)
West - A; Vacant
UTILITIES
The tower and associated equipment will not require the use of the public water and
wastewater systems and will not impact these systems.
ENVIRONMENTAL
Draina~e and Erosion:
The request property drains via tributaries to Johnson Creek. East Hundred Road in the
vicinity of the tower site is subject to flooding. However, no additional on- or off-site
drainage or erosion problems are anticipated with the planned improvements to
accommodate the proposed tower.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Fire Service:
The proposed tower and associated equipment will have a minimal impact on these
facilities.
Transportation:
The proposed tower and associated equipment will have a minimal impact on the existing
transportation network.
COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS
A preliminary review of this tower proposal has indicated that the facility will not interfere
with the County's communication system; however, as afurther precaution, if this request
is approved, a condition should be imposed to ensure that the tower is designed and
constructed so as not to interfere with the Chesterfield County Public Safety Trunked
4
97SN0205/WP/JUL Y23K
-
-
-
System. Once the tower is in operation, if interference occurs, the owner/developer
should be required to correct any problems.
COUNTY AIRPORT
A preliminary review of this tower proposal has indicated that the facility will not interfere
with the operation of the County Airport; however, as a further precaution, if this request
is approved, any necessary FAA approvals for this facility should be obtained prior to the
release of a building permit.
LAND USE
General Plan:
The request property lies within the boundaries of the Meadowville Area Plan which
suggests the property is appropriate for mixed use transitional uses.
Area Development Trends:
The request property is located on property owned by VDOT, and is occupied by VDOT
road maintenance storage facilities or remains vacant. Properties in the vicinity of the
request site, at the intersection of East Hundred Road and Route 1-295, are zoned and/or
designated on the General Plan for a mix of office, commercial and industrial uses that
could take advantage of the regional access offered by this intersection.
Site Desi~n:
The request property is denuded and is currently vacant or occupied by VDOT storage
facilities. Access is to East Hundred Road.
The Federal Aviation Administration may require lighting and/or markings of the tower
to minimize possible air traffic hazards. If approved, conditions should be imposed to
insure that such lighting does not adversely affect existing and future area development or
vehicles traveling along adjacent roadways.
Consistent with past actions on similar facilities, the.base of any tower approved on the
property should be secured with a fence to discourage trespassing.
Architectural Treatment:
The request property lies within an Emerging Growth Area. Given the potential for future
development in the area, if the tower is approved a condition should be imposed to
require compliance with Emerging Growth requirements relative to architectural treatment
of buildings and screening of mechanical equipment. In addition, consistent with past
5
97SN0205/WP/JUL Y23K
actions on similar facilities the tower should be removed at such time that it ceases to be
used for communications purposes to ensure that the tower does not become a maintenance
problem or an eyesore. If a tower is to be approved, consideration should be given to
requiring a design to mask the utilitarian appearance since the tower will be highly visible
from adjacent roadways.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed tower site does not conform to the locational criteria of the Public Facilities
flaIl which suggests that communication towers should generally be located to take
advantage of existing mature vegetation to mitigate the visual impact of the tower from
high visibility areas such as the intersections of major arterial roads. Specifically, given
the denuded condition of the site, the tower would be higWy visible to the East Hundred
RoadIRoute 1-295 interchange. The tower should be located so as to reduce its visibility
from these two (2) heavily traveled major arterials. As noted herein, a more suitable tower
location might exist on adjacent, agriculturally zoned property to the north, portions of
which are densely wooded with mature trees or property to the north which is zoned 1-2.
Locating the proposed tower on a densely wooded site away from the East Hundred
Road/Route 1-295 interchange, could satisfy the tower siting criteria of the Public Facilities
f.lml and mitigate its visibility from these roads.
Given these considerations, denial of this request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (4/15/97):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case for sixty (60) days.
Staff (4/17/97):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information must
be submitted no later than May 5, 1997, for consideration at the June public hearing. The
applicant was also advised that a $50.00 deferral fee was due.
Staff (5/28/97):
To date, no new information, has been submitted nor has the $50.00 deferral fee been
paid.
6
97SN02051WP/JUL Y23K
-
-
-
Applicant (6/6/97):
The $50.00 deferral fee was paid.
Planning Commission Meeting C 6/17 (97):
The applicant accepted the Planning Commission's recommendation. There was no
opposition present.
Mr. Cunningham ~ndicated that the area is designated on the adopted flan for a mix of
non-residential uses and that with imposition of conditions he felt the tower would be
appropriate.
The Commission found the tower to be in Substantial Accord with the Ban.
On motion of Mr. Cunningham, seconded by Mr. Marsh, the Commission recommended
approval of this request subject to the conditions on pages 2 and 3.
AYES: Unanimous.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, July 23, 1997, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take under
consideration this request.
7
97SN0205/WP/JUL Y23K
IDI
Ie 4-
-I..
A
-- ,
/
.I ,........
-
\
\
/\
SITE~
~
~
~
.....
~
~
0\
\
N
/'
Cf7SN020S-1