01SN0163-July25h.pdf~-~ ~ ~ CPC
July 25, 2001 BS
STAFF'S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
01SN0163
Sprint PCS
Midlothian Magisterial District
South line of Robious Road
REQUEST: Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a communications tower with
height exception in a Residential 0~-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 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 impacts on existing and future areas of development.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE Community Through Excellence in Public Service.
Bo
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 imo the design of an existing structure.
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,Developmem; Multi-family residential
South - R-40 with Conditional Use and Conditional Use Planned Developmem;
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 residemial
2 01 SN0163/WP/JULY25H
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:
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 Chesterfield County Public Safety Trunked 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.
3 01 SN0163/WP/JULY25H
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.
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, 1985, 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
4 01 SN0163/WP/JULY25H
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
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 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 addition, in accordance with the Guidelines for Review of
Substantial Accord Determination and/or Zoning Approval for Communications Tower Locations
5 01 SN0163/WP/JULY25H
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
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 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 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.
6 01SN0163/WP/JULY25H
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.
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.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, July 25, 2001, beginning at 7:00 p.m., will take under
consideration this request.
7 01SN0163/WP/JULY25H
R-40
R-MF
R-40
0-2
BRIARWOOD HEARTH
-2
R-7
600
0 600 Feet
RD
01SN0163
C.U.P.D.
Sheet #: 2
EXISTING TREE-./
(TYP.)
EXISTING
WELLNESS CENTER
'--EXISTING ASPHALT
WALKWAY
'PROPOSED SPRINT : oo
I O"-X, I0' FL-...~,GPOLE.~ I
,AREA= 100 ~ ,
..... .
PROPOSED ~' X/.,O'
WIDE UNDERGROUND
CABLE EASEHENT
/
/
/
/
/
FLAGPO.~LE
/
~ / /
/
/
ANll~NNA
PROPOSED FUTURE
~E~^S (mr OmERS)
PROPOSED135.'
EXISTING
TREZ (TYP,) ~
............. ',. ~ .....- .. '~':~. .
., ~,.-, ........ ....... ,~ .................. . ............ ]....
-- 2' ...... ;Y ~ - .- -'.,. . ,,~ .. ...--., :,,.~
PR~O~
SCREEN
PROPOSED
PROPOSED ~
CONDUIT TREN{:"t '"-~- \