08SN0184~~tF~EI,p ~~:,
~ a~a',,
~! ~ ',~
~ti, I rY~ ry ! ~;li .,,i~
l,,
Ir~RGSI~1.P!!~
STAFF' S
REQUEST ANALYSIS
AND
RECOMMENDATION
08SN0184
Pegasus Tower Company, Ltd
Clover Hill Magisterial District
South line of Reams Road
March 12, 2008 BS
RE UEST: Conditional Use to permit a communications tower in an Agricultural (A) District.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
A communications tower and associated improvements are planned. Since the
tower would not meet the restrictions for towers in an Agricultural (A) District, a
Conditional Use permit is required.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMEND DENIAL.
AYES: MESSRS. GULLEY, BASS, BROWN AND HASSEN.
ABSENT : MR. WALLER.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend denial for the following reasons:
A. The proposal does not conform to the Public Facilities Plan which suggests that
communications tower locations should generally be located to minimize the
impact on existing or future areas of development and that locations adjacent to
planned or existing residential development are to be minimized.
Providing a FIRST CHOICE community through excellence in public service
B. The proposal does not conform to the Tower Sitin.~ PolicX which suggests that
towers should generally be located away from existing or planned areas of
residential development.
(NOTE: CONDITIONS MAY BE IMPOSED OR THE PROPERTY OWNER(S) 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 ONLY A
"CPC" ARE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION.)
PROFFERED CONDITIONS
1. There shall be no signs permitted to identify this use. (P)
2. 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 so as to provide
sufficient room between the fence and the property line to accommodate
evergreen plantings having an initial height and spacing to provide screening of
the base of the tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment or structures from
adjacent properties. A detailed plan depicting these requirements shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final site
plan review. (P)
3. The color, design and lighting system for the tower shall be as follows:
a. The tower color shall blend with surrounding vegetation, as acceptable to
the Planning Department.
b. The tower shall not be lighted.
c. The tower shall be a monopine structure. (P)
4. Any building or mechanical equipment shall comply with Sections 19-595 and
19-570 (b) and (c) of the Zoning Ordinance relative to architectural treatment of
building exteriors and screening of mechanical equipment. (P)
(NOTE: Section 19-570 (b) and (c) would require the screening of mechanical
equipment located on the building or ground from adjacent properties and public rights of
way. Screening would not be required for the tower or tower-mounted equipment.)
5. The tower shall not exceed a height of 154 feet. (P)
2 08SN0184-MAR12-BOS-RPT
6. 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.
~P)
GENERAL INFORMATION
T ,n~ati nn
South line of Reams Road, west of South Arch Road. Tax ID 750-701-Part of 5112.
Existing Zoning:
A
Size:
0.3 acre
Existin Land Use:
Vacant
Adjacent Zoning and Land Use:
North, South, East and West - R-12, R-7 and A; Single-family residential
UTILITIES; ENVIRONMENTAL; AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
The requested amendment will have no impact on these facilities.
COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS
The Zoning Ordinance requires that any structure over eighty (80) feet in height be reviewed by
the County's Public Safety Review Team for detrimental impacts the structure could have on the
County's Radio Communications System microwave paths. This determination must be made
prior to construction of the communications tower.
COUNTY AIRPORT
A preliminary review of this proposal indicates that, given the approximate location and
elevation of the proposed installation, there will be no adverse affect on the County Airport.
3 08SN0184-MAR12-BOS-RPT
T A NTl T TCF
Comprehensive Plan:
Lies within the boundaries of the Northern Area Plan which suggests the property is
appropriate for medium density residential use of 1.51 to 4.0 units per acre.
The Public Facilities Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, suggests that
communications towers should generally be located to minimize the impact on existing or
future areas of development and that locations adjacent to planned or existing residential
development are to be minimized.
Area Development Trends:
Area properties are zoned Residential (R-12 and R-7) and Agricultural (A) and are
occupied by single-family residential uses in The Colony and Kingswood Subdivisions or
on acreage parcels. It is anticipated that single-family residential uses will continue in
the area, as suggested by the Northern Area Plan.
Development Standards:
The request property lies within an Emerging Growth Area. The purpose of the
Emerging Growth District standards is to promote high quality, well-designed projects.
However, because the request property is zoned Agricultural (A), development is not
required to meet the development standards for Emerging Growth Areas. Should this
request be approved acceptance of Proffered Condition 4, requiring compliance with
Emerging Growth Area requirements relative to the architectural treatment of the
proposed equipment building would be appropriate.
The proposed communications tower would be designed as a tree intended to mask its
appearance (Proffered Condition 3). Specifically, a 154 foot structure designed as a pine
tree to be located within a stand of existing trees is planned. The height of the proposed
structure far exceeds the height of the existing tree line and in staff's opinion does not
mask the visual impact of the structure in this area.
The height of the tower would not exceed 154 feet (Proffered Condition 5). Access to the
tower site would be via a proposed driveway to Reams Road. Should this request be
approved, the applicant has proffered the base of the tower should be secured with a
fence to discourage trespassing and that the area would be landscaped to minimize the
view of the tower and associated equipment from ground level. (Proffered Condition 2)
To ensure that the tower does not become maintenance problem or an eyesore, the
applicant has offered the tower would be removed at such time that it ceases to be used
for communications purposes. (Condition 6)
4 08SN0184-MAR12-BOS-RPT
CONCLUSION
The Public Facilities Plan suggests that communications tower locations should generally be
located to minimize the impact on existing or future areas of development and that locations
adjacent to planned or existing residential development are to be minimized. In addition, the
Tower Sitin.~ Policy suggests that towers should generally be located away from existing or
planned areas of residential development.
This site is in an existing and increasingly developing residential area, contrary to both the Plan
and the Pow with regards to where towers should be located. while the applicant's propose to
erect a structure having the appearance of a pine tree, given the height of the structure in
comparison to the surrounding forested area, the structure is out of character with surrounding
vegetation. Hence, the tower has not been masked to minimize the visual impact.
Given these considerations, denial of this request is recommended.
CASE HISTORY
Planning Commission Meeting (2/19/08):
There was no one present to represent the case. It was noted that the applicant had
requested a deferral.
Mr. Gulley indicated that he had spoken with the applicant's representative advising him
of his intention to act on the case as he saw no benefit to a deferral. He explained that the
representative indicated he had another commitment and would not be present at the
meeting.
There was opposition present expressing concerns relative to the visibility of the tower
and safety should the tower collapse.
Mr. Gulley indicated that the proposal does not conform to the Plan or the "Siting
Policy".
On motion of Mr. Gulley, seconded by Mr. Bass, the Commission recommended denial
of this request.
AYES: Messrs. Gulley, Bass, Brown and Hassen.
ABSENT: Mr. Waller.
The Board of Supervisors, on Wednesday, March 12, 2008, beginning at 6:30 p.m., will take
under consideration this request.
5 08SN0184-MAR12-BOS-RPT
This page is blank.
~~ ~8~b~ ~
/ m
~+
42~ Mnnnn~n~~~
U
~\
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
33H~1yN3 '
^
1
~5
W
V
Q
J
h
Z
t