01sn0163-Oct24k.pdf STAFF'S'
REQUEST ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDATION
l/l~,,.,~h ON ONN1 f~I)t~
S~te~r 2fi, 200! BS
October 24, 2001~BS
01PD0171
Sprint PCS
Midlothian Magisterial District
South line of Robious Road
REQUEST: Appeal' of Planning Commission's Substantial Accord Determination that a
communications tower at this location fails to comply with the County's
Comprehensive Plan. This appeal was submitted in conjunction with Conditional
Use, Case 01SN0163.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A.135 foot communications tower and-associated improvements are planned. The
tower is planned to give the appearance of a flagpole.
(NOTE: IN ORDER FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THIS REQUEST. AT THEIR
OCT. OBER PUBLIC HEARING, THE $250.00 DEFERRAL FEE MUST BE PAID,)
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE COUNTY'S'
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
STAFF RECOMMENDA~ON
Recommend that the Commission's determination be upheld for the following reason:
The proPosed tower does not conform to the locational criteria of the Public Facilities Planl
which suggests that communications towers should generally be located so as to minimize
impacts .on existing and future areas of development.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE Community Through Excellence in Public Service
GENERAL INFORMATION.; PUBLIC FACII.ITIES; AND LAND USE
For details, refer to "Request Analysis and Recommendation" for Case 01SN0163.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed tower does not conform to the locational criteria of the Public Facilities Plan which
suggests that communications towers should be located so as to minimize the impact on existing and
future areas of development. Specifically, the request site is located near an established residential
neighborhood of single family residences in Briarwood Subdivision.
Given the visibility of the proposed tower from area residences and public roads, denial of this
request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting O/20/01):
At the request of the applicant, the Commission deferred this case to May 15, 2001.
Staff(3/21/01):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information should
be submitted no later than March 29, 2001, for consideration at the Commission's May 15,
2001, public hearing. Also, the applicant was advised that a $150.00 deferral fee must be
paid 'prior to the Commission's public hearing.
Staff (4/13/01):
The deferral feewas paid..
Planning Commission Me6ting (5/15/01):
The applicant did not accept the Commission's decision. There was opposition present.
Concerns were expressed that the tower site does not cOnform to the recommendations of the
Public Facilities Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Gecker stated that the proposal does not conform to the recommendations of the Public
Facilities Plan or the guidelines for siting towers; that the use would encroach, into a stable
2 01SN0163/WP/OCT'24SA1
residential neighborhood; and that other, sites exist in the area which are more suitable for the
proposed use.
On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded by Mr. Gulley, the Commission determined that the
proposal does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
AYES: Unanimous.
Applicant (5/22/01):-
The applicant filed this appeal to the Commission's determination.
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (6/20/01): .~
At the request of the applicant, the Board deferred this case to July 25, 2001.
Staff (6/21/01):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information should
be submitted no later than June 26, 2001, for consideration at the Board's July 25, 2001,
public heating. Also, the'applicant was advised that a $250.00 deferral fee must be paid prior
to the Board's ~ublic hearing.
Staff (6/29/01):
The. deferral fee was paid.
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (7/25/01):
On their own motion, the Board deferred this request to August 22, 2001.
Staff (7/26/01):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised ~ormation should
be submitted no later than July 31, 2001, for consideration at the Board's August 22, 2001
public hearing.
3 01SN0163/WP/OCT24 SA 1
Staff(8/10/01):
To date, no new information has been submitted.
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (8/22/01):
On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to September 26, 2001.
Staff (8/23/01):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information
should be submitted no later than August 29, 2001, to be considered by the Board at their
September 26, 2001, meeting.
Staff (9/4/01):
To date, no new information has been received.
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (9/26/01):
At the request of the applicant, the'Board deferred this case to October 24, 2001.
Staff (9/27/01):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information should
be submitted no later than October 1, 2001, for consideration at the Board's October 24,
2001, public hearing. Also the applicant was advised that a $250.00 deferral fee must be
paid prior to the Board's public hearing.
Staff(10/3/01):
To date, no new information has been received, nor has the deferral fee been paid.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, October 24, 2001, beginning, at 7:00 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
4 01 SN0163/WP/OCT24SA1
R.40
R-MF
R-40
0-2
BRIARWOOD HEARTH
'R-7
6O0
600 Feet
'0-;
.I-1
01PD0171
SUBSTANTIAL ACCORD
Sheet #: 2.
T.... ~ '3C~/'~1 1~(s
T~,.,1,~. '")~ ~1'~1 '1~
October 24, 2001 BS
STAFF'S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
01SN0163
Sprint PCS
Midlothian Magisterial District
South line of Robious Road
REQUEST: Conditional Use Planned Developmem to permit a communications tower with
height exception in a Residential (R-40) District.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A 135 foot communications tower and associated equipment is proposed. The
tower is planned to give the appearance of a flagpole.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND DENIAL.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reasons:
The propos, ed tower does not conform to the locational criteria of the Public
Facilities Plan which suggests that communications towers should be located so as
to minimize impacts on existing and future areas of development.
In accordance with the Guidelines for Review of Substantial Accord Determination
and/or Zoning Approval for Communications Tower Locations, if a tower is to be
located in the vicinity of existing or planned areas of' development, the tower
'should be architecturally incorporated into the design of an existing structure.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE Community Through Excellence in Public Service
Co
While the tower is intended to be designed to give the appearance of a flagpole, it
is not architecturally incorporated into the design of the building; as suggested by
the policy. The tower will be substantially taller than any other Structures or
vegetation in the immediate area.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PROFFER
CONDITIONS.)
GENERAL INFORMATION
Location:
South line of Robious Road, across from Robious Crossing Drive. Tax ID 738-714-Part of
6361 (Sheet 2).
Existing Zoning:
A with Conditional Use and Conditional Use Planned Development to permit various
recreational uses.
Size:
1.8 acres
Existing Land Use:
Commercial
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North - R-MF with Conditional Use Planned Development; Multi-family residential
South - R40 with Conditional Use and Conditional Use Planned Development;
Commercial
East - 0-2 with Conditional Use Planned Development; Office and commercial
West R-40 with ConditiOnal Use and Conditional Use Planned Development and R-15;
Commercial and 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.
01 SN0163/WP/OCT24G
ENVIRONMENTAL
Drainage and Erosion:
The proposed use will have no affect on these facilities. If the area of construction exceeds
2,500 square feet, to include the access road, a land-disturbance permit must be obtained
from the Environmental Engineering 'Department.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
Fire Service and Transportation:
The proposed amendment will have no impact on these facilities.
COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS
The current 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 erection of the proposed communications tower.
A preliminary review of this proposal has indicated that the facility will not interfere with the
County's communication system; however, as a further 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 County Communications 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 proposal indicates that, given the approximate location and elevation
of the proposed installation, it appears the tower will not adversely affect the Chesterfield County
Airport.
LAND USE
Comprehensive Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Northern Area Land Use and Transportation Plan which'
suggests the property is appropriate for residential use of 1.5 to 4.0 units per acre.
3
01 SN0163/WP/OCT24G
Area Development Trends:
Properties along this portion of Robious Road, west of Huguenot Road, are characterized
by a mix of commercial, office and multi-family residential zoning and land uses
transitioning to single family residential zoning and land uses, west of the request site. It
is anticipated that these land use patterns will continue.
Zoning History_:
On May 23, 1968, the Board of Supervisors approved a Conditional Use to permit a
private recreational club on the request property as well as on the adjacent R-40 property.
(Case 68-37C)
On December. 30, 1974, the Board of Supervisors approved the operation of a restaurant at
the recreational facility. (Case 74S159)
On September 28, 1977, the Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to Case 68-37C
to permit a freestanding sign to identify the recreational facility use. (Case 77S173)
On October 24, 1979, the Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to Case 68-37C to
allow expansion of recreational facilities. (Case 79S171)
On December 11, 1.985, the Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to Case 79S171
to permit further expansion of recreational facilities plus Conditional Use Planned
Development to permit exception to the nUmber of reqUired parking spaces for this
expanded use. (Case 85S148)
On April 28, 1999, the Board of Supervisors,. upon a favorable recommendation from the
Planning Commission, approved an amendment to Case 85S148 to permit a physical
therapy clinic, exceptions to freestanding sign limitations and parking requirements and
additional outdoor recreational facilities. (Case 98SN0283)
Site Design:
The request property has been developed for a fitness center with associated restaurant,
outdoor recreational facilities and parking areas. Access is provided via a driveway to
Robious Road which is shared with office and commercial development to the east and by a
service'driveway to Murray Hill Drive. Access to the proposed communications tower is
to be via the existing driveway to Robious Road.
The location of the proposed tower would be east of the existing building located on the
property, away from the residential area to the west. The applicant has indicated that the
4
01SN0163/WP/OCT24G
tower will be located within a wooded area and that measures will be taken to insure the
preservation of the stand of trees surrounding the tower site. It should be noted that the
application does not guarantee the preservation of the trees.
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 any such lighting does not adversely affect existing and future area residential
development.
Architectural Treatment:
The request property lies within an Emerging Growth Area. Given the existing area
development, 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 actions
on similar facilities, the tower should be removed at such time that it ceases to be used for
communications purposes to insure that the tower does not become a maintenance problem
or eyesore.
The application proposes construction of a 135 foot communications tower "disguised" as
a flagpole. The applicants have indicated that a flag will be flown on the tower. The
proposed tower/flagpole will be substantially higher than any structure or vegetation in the
area. The applicants have indicated that a 135 foot structure would accommodate two (2)
carriers~
In accordance with the "Guidelines for Approval of Communications Towers" if a tower is
to be located in the vicinity of existing or planned areas of develOpment, the tower should
be architecturally incorporated into the design of an existing structure, or possess design
features that mask the utilitarian nature of the tower. Staff is of the opinion that this
application fails to meet this standard.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed tower does riot conform to the locational criteria of the Public Facilities Plan which
suggests that communications towers shOuld be located so as to minimize impacts on existing and
future areas of development. In addition, in accordance with the Guidelines for Review of
Substantial Accord Determination and/or Zoning Approval for Communications Tower Locations
if a tower is to be located in the vicinity of existing or planned areas of development, the tower
should be architecturally incorporated into the design of an existing structure or posses design
features that mask the utilitarian nature of the tower.- While the tower is intended to be designed to
give the appearance of a flagpole, it is not architecturally incorporated into the design of the
building, as suggested by the policy. Further, the tower is substantially taller than other structures
01 SN0163/WP/OCT24G
or vegetation in the area and therefore will not be "masked" in such a way as to disguise the
structure as a communications tower.
Staff has discussed several potential alternate sites in the area for this proposed use; however, to
date, the applicants have not expressed an interest in applying on those alternative locations.
Given these considerations, denial of this request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (3/20/01):
At the request of the applicant, the. Commission deferred this case to May 15, 2001.
Staff (3/21/01):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information should
be submitted no later than March 29, 2001, for consideration atthe Commission's May 15,
2001, public hearing. Also, the' applicant was advised that a $150.00 deferral fee must be
paid prior to the Commission's public hearing.
Staff (4/13/01):
The deferral fee was paid.
Planning. Commission Meeting (5/15/01):
The applicant did not accept the recommendation. There was opposition present.
Concerns were expressed that the tower would not be architecturally incorporated into an
existing structure and therefore detract from the neighborhood and that the tower would be
highly visible from area roads and neighborhoods.
Mr. Gecker stated that the proposal does not conform to the recommendations of the Public
Facilities Plan or the guidelines for siting towers; that the use would encroach into a stable
residential neighborhood; and that other sites exist in the' area which are more sUitable for
the proposed use.
6
01 SN0163/WP/OCT24G
On motion of Mr. Gecker, seconded.by Mr. Gulley, the Commission recommended denial
of this request.
AYES: Unanimous.
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (6/20/01):
At the request of the applicant, the Board deferred this case to July 25, 2001.
Staff. (6/21/01):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information should
be submitted no later than June 26, 2001, for. consideration at the Board's July 25, 2001,
public hearing. Also, the applicant was advised that a $250.00 deferral fee must be paid
prior to the Board's public hearing.
Staff (6/29/01):
The deferral fee was paid.
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (7/25/01):
On their own motion, the Board~deferred this request to August 22, 2001.
Staff (7/26/01):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or revised information should
be submitted no later than July 31, 2001, for consideration at the Board's August 22, 2001
public hearing.
Staff (8/10/01):
To date, no new information has been submitted.
01 SN0163/WP/OCT24G
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (8/22/01):
On their own motion, the Board deferred this case to their September 26, 2001, meeting.
Staff (8/23/01):
The applicant was' advised that any significant new or revised information should be
submitted no later than August 29, 2001, for consideration at the Board's September 26,
2001, meeting.
Staff (9/4/01):
To date, no new information has been submitted.
Board of Supervisors' Meeting (9/26/01):
On their own motion, the Board deferred this request to October 24, 2001.
Staff (9/27/01):
The applicant was advised in writing that any significant new or. revised information should
be submitted no. later than October 1, 2001, for consideration at the Board's October 24,
2001, public hearing.
Staff (!0/3/01):
To date, no new information has been submitted.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, October 24, 2001, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take under
consideration this request.
01SN0163/WP/OCT24G
R.40 .
R-MF
R-40
0-2
,600
BRIARWOOD HEARTH
0 600 Feet
'-2
¸1-1
· RD
01SN0163
C.U.P.D.
Sheet #: 2
RIVERSID[
WELLNESS CENTER
EXISTING
(TYP.)
t
PROPOSED SPRINT ~
27'Xl7' LEASE AREA
W/O'X15'
WALKWAY
-:
SPRINT ' ' '; "':'.~ .....
IO~XlO' ~:-~AGPOLE ~l [' '":' ":"";" "::"" :~' '"" '['' ' /
..... I00-~ i "-, '".'.'..-'" -':" :~'- ' "'-' :- /
· -,- ' '" ~ .... ~.-' i .-."' ' ,-
'' -'"~' '::'I ":' / ....... ' ' / '
; " . . ,," ,.--~ = ~ ...... ~:'._ '~.. ..-: .'..... ....
. -~...-~ .~.: - ~. ~'_ .:.. '.... -: ,, -:, .: ..
, :.:~ .... ../.... ......., .,":.\~ .. ........ ....I
1 ~.~.,:'"'-": ..;'":' · .' :.'.,%')-:-:?: :i..',~.. ':~ '~ .:',-:.: .-:--'
:.'-":. ~.'"_/..._-_....,..:..-~ ........ .. > \..:.~.,',' . / , /
~:;.-;. :'..- .... ... .'.:: .... ..,_..."-; .'--- ~._ PROPOSED/155
:~.,.~.:!..: ,::"~' .-: :..: ...,-...;::~.. ,. :-..~°'~'/~ / ~
ll;"i /
IN PROPOSED 5 X/.,.O, .:", :.:i"-:':,~,:?'::: "'.'~': :' .-/.' - / / //
! ~'-/~ WIDE UNDERGROUI~ID. """"'":;-.: '.'-"'""/,..:-.." '.'i. / 49 //
! ~ CABLE EASE~?t ';".'-.,'~.... :......'" .-:' ': .'- ~ //
-
PROPOSED FUTURE
A~T~NAS (~Y OTHERS)
PROPOSF. O
~'~J_-n.i TOWER
PROPO~D
SCRI~/
PROPOSED
~PRINT I
EX~I1NO GRA[}E '