Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-08 PC Staff Report - October 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT #09-08 SHENANDOAH MOBILE COMPANY Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: September 16, 2008 Staff Contact: Mark R. Cheran, Zoning Administrator This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this request. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 09/03/08 Tabled 45 days by Planning Commission Planning Commission: 10/01/08 Pending Board of Supervisors: 10/22/08 Pending LOCATION: This property is located at 1203 Redbud Road (Route 661). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Stonewall PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 55-A-129A PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: Zoned: RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District Land Use: Residential ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & USE: North: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential South: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential East: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Vacant West: RA (Rural Areas) Land Use: Residential PROPOSED USE: This application is for a 195-foot Commercial Telecommunications Facility. . REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Department of Transportation: The application for a Conditional Use Permit for this property appears to have little measurable impact on Route 661, the VDOT facility which would CUP #09-08, Shenandoah Mobile Company September 16, 2008 Page 2 provide access to the property. Prior to operation of the business, a commercial entrance must be constructed to our standards to allow for safe egress and ingress of the property. Any work performed on the State’s right-of-way must be covered under a land use permit. The permit is issued by this office and requires an inspection fee and surety bond coverage. Fire and Rescue: Plan approval recommended. Inspections Department: Building permit required for construction of telecommunications tower. Structure shall comply with The Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, use group U (Utility and Miscellaneous) of The International Building Code 2003. Structured plans submitted for permit application shall be sealed by a VA Licensed Design Professional for antenna attachment. Please note the requirements in Chapter 17 Special Inspections for this type structure, soils, concrete, bolts, etc. Note: All Chapter 1 VUSBC min. inspections shall be conducted by the Frederick County Inspections Staff. Request to utilize a third party inspection agency that complies with the Frederick County policy shall have prior approval granted by the Building Code Official. Winchester Regional Airport: We reviewed the FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation dated March 12, 2008 in which the FAA has stated that marking and/or lighting will not be required by their agency. However, due to air medivac operations throughout the County and given that the site is within the Winchester Regional Airport’s airspace, the Winchester Regional Airport Authority is requesting that lighting be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1K Change 2 as a condition for approval of this CUP. Applicant is required to file with the Virginia Department of Aviation and applicant should send a copy of the FAA Aeronautical Study and a quadrangle map showing the proposed tower location for their review and comment. Federal Aviation Administration: This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following conditions(s), if any, is(are) met: Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking and/or lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 K Change 2. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency (ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studies structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the sale and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of CUP #09-08, Shenandoah Mobile Company September 16, 2008 Page 3 compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance or regulation of any Federal, State or local government body. A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission if the structure is subject to their licensing authority. Historic Resources Advisory Board: HRAB considered several of the potential benefits and impacts of the proposal, including the tower’s possible impact: as related to the designated Scenic Byway as indicated on the FCC coverage map; on the entire area’s viewshed; as related to the potential increase in coverage area as indicated on the FCC coverage map; as related to the potential increase in coverage levels and capacity within the area surrounding the tower, as shown on the applicant’s coverage analysis map. The group also considered the applicant’s explanation for ruling out possible co-location sites within the wider area, and the aesthetic measures that the applicant had recommended for mitigating the visual impact of the proposed tower. Ultimately, the HRAB felt that the benefits, in terms of additional coverage levels as shown in the applicant’s coverage map, did not warrant the cost of the proposed tower’s impact on the area’s viewshed. Planning and Zoning: This Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is for a proposed 195 foot monopole-type commercial telecommunication facility. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance allows for commercial telecommunication facilities in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved CUP. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance specifies that commercial telecommunication facilities may be subject to additional performance standards in order to promote orderly economic development and mitigate the negative impacts to adjoining properties, land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic values. The 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County provides additional guidance when considering Conditional Use Permits. (See map 1) This proposed commercial telecommunication facility is located outside the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) and Urban Development Area (UDA), but is located within the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) as indicated in the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County. The NELUP component of the Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSA) located adjacent to and surrounding this site. The objectives of NELUP, as related to Developmentally Sensitive Areas, are to indentify appropriate locations, to protect potentially significant historic resources as identified by the Frederick County Rural Landmarks Survey, and to ensure the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) reviews all land development proposals which impact the identified DSA. This proposed site is located along Redbud Road (Route 661), which has been designated as a Virginia Byway, approved by the Board of Supervisors on June 9, 2004. The designation of this road as a byway takes into consideration the scenic landscape, historic civil war battlefields, and environmentally significant nature of the area. The general surrounding area of this proposed site contains sites of significant historical importance. These sites include the Third Winchester Battlefield, Hackwood, and Milburn Road. All three of these sites are approximately one mile CUP #09-08, Shenandoah Mobile Company September 16, 2008 Page 4 from this proposed 195 foot monopole-type commercial telecommunication facility and may have a negative scenic impact on the aforementioned properties. This proposed use may also have a negative impact along Redbud Road Virginia Byway, the proposed Redbud Trail Greenway and within the Redbud Agricultural and Forrestal District, which includes this property. Frederick County has traditionally a higher expectation for land use actions with regards to properties located in its rural areas, scenic areas, along byways, and adjacent to DSA’s. These performance standards are to ensure that scenic areas and properties of significant historic values are not negatively impacted. Staff would note the subject property where this proposed 195 foot monopole-type commercial telecommunication facility will be located may not be consistent with the goals of the 2007 Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan; specifically, land use goals identified and established by the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP). Careful consideration of this CUP may be warranted in maintaining the goals set forth of NELUP plan. Background: The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance requires the applicant to provide confirmation that an attempt to collocate on an existing telecommunication facility and possible collocation structures in the proposed service area. This proposed 195 foot monopole-type telecommunication facility will be located on a 33 acre site on Redbud Road (Route 661). The applicant has provided an inventory of existing telecommunication facilities and possible co- location structures in the area. (See maps 2 - 4) Staff does not concur with the applicant that there are eligible existing facilities, or appropriate structures available for collocation in this general area. Staff has identified possible collocation sites within a three (3) mile radius of this proposed site. (See map 5) These possible sites may demonstrate satisfactory coverage in this area of the County. Therefore, the maps provided within the application, analyzing coverage need in this area may be insufficient to determine the adequacy of the search area, existing coverage, co-location structures, and capacity of the licensee holder in the vicinity of the proposed facility. STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 09/03/08 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: This request is not in conformance with 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan of Frederick County and the impacts associated with this request cannot be mitigated. However, should the Planning Commission find this use appropriate, this proposed commercial telecommunication facility will be in conformance with Section 704 of the Telecommunication Act of 1996. Staff would recommend the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for co-locating personal wireless services providers. 3. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County. CUP #09-08, Shenandoah Mobile Company September 16, 2008 Page 5 4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within twelve (12) months of abandonment of operation. 5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within twelve (12) months of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit, the CUP will be deemed invalid. 6. A certified Virginia engineer shall provide verification that the tower is designed and will be constructed in a manner that, should the tower collapse for any reason, the collapsed tower will be contained in an area around the tower, with a radius equal to or lesser than the setback, measured from the center line of the base of the tower. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY AND ACTION OF THE 09/03/08 MEETING: The applicant’s representatives spoke about the collocation issue and they would prefer to collocate when they are able; they commented that construction of a tower is a huge investment and involves leasing and operating expenses. They noted the various structures within this area where they are currently collocating. The applicant’s representatives considered the school site mentioned by the staff, but stated that it did not propagate well enough to meet their needs. They contended there was a demonstrated need for cell phone and broad band improvements in this particular area. Two adjoining property owners and one nearby resident spoke during the public comment portion of the public hearing. The concerns raised included health issues, the destruction of the viewshed along a designated Virginia Scenic Byway, the proposed location was within the Red Bud Agricultural and Forestal District, the local residents already have good cellular phone usage, the fact that local residents have gone to great lengths to preserve the rural nature of their community and this structure will not be in keeping with the rural and scenic nature of this part of the County. Members of the Commission believed the proposed tower location was too close to the DSA and a designated Virginia Byway; they agreed with the recommendations from the HRAB that the benefits in terms of additional coverage levels as shown on the applicant’s coverage map did not warrant the cost of the proposed tower’s impact on the area’s viewshed; they also agreed with the staff’s conclusions that the request was not in conformance with the Comprehensive Policy Plan, and the impacts cannot be mitigated. Commission members also mentioned the applicant had not provided convincing evidence that the tower was a necessity at this location. A motion recommending denial was made and seconded, but the motion failed due to the following tie vote: YES (TO REC. DENIAL): Unger, Watt, Manuel, Ruckman, Kriz NO: Ambrogi, Wilmot, Thomas, Kerr, Mohn CUP #09-08, Shenandoah Mobile Company September 16, 2008 Page 6 ABSTAIN: Oates A new motion was made and seconded to recommend approval with an amendment to Condition #6 correcting the terminology of the text to, “A Virginia registered professional engineer…,” instead of, “A certified Virginia engineer…” This motion failed, however, due to the following tie vote: YES (TO REC. APPROVAL): Ambrogi, Wilmot, Thomas, Kerr, Mohn NO: Unger, Watt, Manuel, Ruckman, Kriz ABSTAIN: Oates A Commission member commented that many of the concerns that were raised centered on the fact that the applicant had not proven the tower is needed and given the opportunity to address this issue, some of the votes may change. Therefore, a motion was made and seconded to table 45 days to provide the applicant the opportunity to gather further information on this issue. This motion passed by a majority vote, as follows: YES (TO TABLE): Ambrogi, Manuel, Wilmot, Thomas, Kerr, Mohn NO: Unger, Watt, Ruckman, Kriz ABSTAIN: Oates (Note: Commissioners Ours and Triplett were absent from the meeting.) Following this public meeting, it would be appropriate for the Planning Commission to offer a recommendation concerning this application to the Board of Supervisors.