CITY OF WAYNESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting, Tuesday, August 19, 2014

Transcription

1 CITY OF WAYNESBORO PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting, Tuesday, August 19, :00 pm Council Chambers, Charles T. Yancey Municipal Building 503 West Main Street PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Terry R. Short, Jr. Chair Constance Paradiso Vice-chair Scott Jones Pete Marks City Council Rep. Chris Darden Gregory Bruno Stewart Hall FUTURE SCHEDULED MEETINGS: Planning Commission Workshop Tuesday, September 2, :00 pm City Council Business Meeting Monday, September 8, :00 pm AGENDA 1. Call to order at 7:00 p.m. Pledge of allegiance. 2. Review and approval of minutes of regular meeting held April 22, Review and approval of minutes of regular meeting held May 5, Review and approval of minutes of regular meeting held June 17, Citizen comment period limited to 4 minutes per speaker, for issues not listed as an agenda item. 6. A conditional use permit request by Drew Patterson, agent for Verizon Wireless to allow for a telecommunications tower and facilities at Waynesboro High School, 1200 West Main Street, City Tax Map number 44-3-I. 7. Staff correspondence and communication. 8. Other Business/Commissioners correspondence and communication. 9. Adjournment. Planning Commission Regular Meeting/ Public Hearing Tuesday, September 22, :00 pm Thank you for attending. Citizen comments are invited and welcomed during the meeting s citizen comment period. For those with special needs, please contact the Planning Department at for any accommodations required at least 3 days prior to the meeting you wish to attend. Assistive listening devices available.

2 The Planning Commission of the City of Waynesboro, Virginia, held a regular meeting on the 22nd day of April, 2014, at 7:00 P.M., in Council Chambers, Charles T. Yancey Municipal Building, 503 West Main Street, Waynesboro, Virginia: PRESENT: Commission Members Terry R. Short Jr., Chair Chris Darden Constance Paradiso Greg Bruno Scott Jones (late) Stewart Hall City Planner & Clerk of the Commission: Associate Planner: Absent: Michael D. Barnes, AICP Weixuan Sunny Yang Tim Williams, Council Rep. (excused) 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order by Chairman Short who asked Mr. Darden to lead the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 2. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of a regular meeting held December 17th, 2013 were approved with a 5-0 vote. 3. CITIZEN COMMENTS NOT SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC HEARING: None 4. A REQUEST BY STEPHANIE M. WALLACE FOR A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ANIMAL CARE FACILITIES AND SERVICES PERMITED BY RIGHT IN THE C-B (CENTRAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT IN CHAPTER 98 OF THE CITY CODE, ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 2.4 WITH AN AMENDED USE STANDARD IN CHAPTER 98 OF THE CITY CODE, ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION TO RESTRICT ANIMAL CARE FACILITIES AND SERVICES WITH OUTDOOR RUNS AND OVERNIGHT BOARDING IN THE C-B (CENTRAL BUSINESS) DISTRICT: Mr. Barnes presented the nature of the request, indicating that the change of the ordinance will impact the whole C-B (Central Business) District. He pointed out the limitation of the current ordinance. He then summarized the research result of the zoning ordinances from other localities and the criteria approving a zoning text amendment. He finalized the presentation with a recommendation to approve the zoning text amendment. Ms. Wallace, the applicant, came to the podium to answer questions from the Commissioners. Ms. Paradiso questioned the exact location of the proposed business. Ms. Wallace described the location of the business and expressed her intention of doing the business as regulated. Mr. Short opened the public hearing. With no public comments received, Mr. Short closed the public hearing. Ms. Paradiso made the motion, seconded by Mr. Darden, to recommend that City Council approve the zoning text amendment. The motion passed 5-0. WHEREAS, upon application Stephanie M. Wallace, the Waynesboro Planning Commission finds that the aftermentioned zoning text amendment will meet or exceed all the requirements of state and local law, and further, that the request is consistent with good planning and zoning practice; is justified by the

3 public necessity, convenience, and general welfare; and is in accord with the general goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan of this City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Waynesboro Planning Commission, by a vote of 5-0, that a recommendation be forwarded to City Council that the request of Stephanie M. Wallace, for a zoning text amendment as following, be approved, in accordance with the application (#14-128), and the staff report dated April 22, Article 2, Section 2.4 Use Table of Chapter 98 of the Code of the City should be amended to include Animal care facilities and services as a by-right use in the C-B (Central Business) District. 2. Article 4, Section of Chapter 98 of the Code of the City should be amended to add the following use standard: E. Animal care facilities and services with outdoor runs and overnight boarding shall not be allowed in the C-B (Central Business) District. 5. A REZONING REQUEST BY THE CITY OF WAYNESBORO TO CORRECT ERRORS ON THE ZONIGN MAP ADOPTED ON NOVEMBER 8, 2010, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2011: Mr. Barnes described the nature of the request, stating that the purpose of the rezoning is to correct zoning map errors which occurred when the old hand-drawn map was converted to the current digital map. He presented images of the three proposed changes, summarized the history and background of each map error to be corrected, and concluded the presentation with the staff s recommendations. Mr. Bruno asked if there were any objections from the property owner who owns the large land at the end of Sherwood Avenue. Mr. Barnes stated that he had spoken with the property owner and he understood it to be zoned RS-7 (Single Family Residential) District. Mr. Short opened the public hearing. With no public comments received, Mr. Short closed the public hearing. Mr. Short questioned why Bryant Drive in Pratts Run subdivision was not built as shown on the approved preliminary plat. He was concerned about the traffic condition at the Lowe s intersection and suggested tabling the request of Pratts Run for a 30-day clarification time period. Mr. Hall agreed with Mr. Short and moved as Mr. Short suggested, but the motion failed with no one to second it. Mr. Darden made the motion, seconded by Ms. Paradiso, to recommend that City Council approve the rezoning request for all three locations as proposed. The motion passed 3-2 (with Ms. Paradiso and Messrs. Darden and Bruno voting aye, Messrs. Short and Hall voting nay). WHEREAS, upon application of the City of Waynesboro, the Waynesboro Planning Commission finds that the aftermentioned rezoning will meet or exceed all the requirements of state and local law, and further, that the request is consistent with good planning and zoning practice; is justified by the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare; and is in accord with the general goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan of this City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Waynesboro Planning Commission, by a vote of 3:2, that a recommendation be forwarded to City Council that the request of the City of Waynesboro, for

4 rezoning the following properties, be approved, in accordance with the application (#14-130), and the staff report dated April 22, (1) Rezone a 11.4-acre tract from RS-12 Single Family District to RG-5 General Residential District, and a 5.4-acre tract from RS-12 Single Family District to RS-7 Single Family District, both tracts being portions of a 59-acre parcel, Tax Map Number D, located on Lew Dewitt Boulevard, Waynesboro, Virginia, and rezone one parcel located at 201 Paige Street, Tax Map Number from RS-12 Single Family District to RS-7 Single Family District. (2) Rezone a 7.4-acre tract from RS-12 Single Family District to RG-5 General Residential District, the tract being portion of a 97.8-acre parcel, Tax Map Number , and rezone sixteen (16) parcels located on Ridge Crest Terrace and Spring Run Lane, Tax Map Numbers to 161, to 171, and to 167 from RS-12 Single Family District to RG-5 General Residential District. (3) Rezone three (3) parcels located at 1009, 1020, and 1006 Sherwood Avenue, Tax Map Number , , and , from RG-5 General Residential District to RS-7 Single Family Residential District. 6. STAFF CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATION Distribution of Draft Brownfield Redevelopment Strategy Plan Mr. Barnes distributed the draft brownfield redevelopment strategy plan to the Planning Commissioners. He then gave a brief presentation summarizing the key components in the plan. Mr. Barnes suggested the Planning Commissioners read through the documents and have a May work session to further discuss the plan. Comprehensive Plan Update Process Mr. Barnes stated that the City s Comprehensive Plan shall be revisited every five years according to the state law and now it is time to do so. He noted that the Planning Department has requested budget funds to hire a consultant to help with working on the update. Mr. Short suggested drafting a letter to the Council emphasizing the importance of updating the Comprehensive Plan. His proposal received a consensus from the Planning Commission. Mr. Short presented his intention to work on the City s Comprehensive Plan and to organize community public forums to get inputs from the general public. Mr. Scott and Ms. Paradiso concurred with the idea. Mr. Barnes confirmed with the Planning Commission that a work session will be held at 6:30 p.m. on May 5 th, OTHER BUSINESS/COMMISSIONERS CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATION: None. Meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm. Michael D. Barnes, clerk

5 The Planning Commission of the City of Waynesboro, Virginia, held a regular meeting on the 5th day of May, 2014, at 6:30 P.M., in Council Chambers, Charles T. Yancey Municipal Building, 503 West Main Street, Waynesboro, Virginia: PRESENT: Commission Members Terry R. Short Jr., Chair Constance Paradiso Greg Bruno Scott Jones Stewart Hall Tim Williams, Council Rep. (arrived late) City Planner & Clerk of the Commission: Recording Secretary: Absent: Michael D. Barnes, AICP Kay Roetto Chris Darden 1. CALL TO ORDER AT 6: 30 P.M. AT THE INTERSECTION OF ARCH AVENUE AND MAIN STREET FOR A PLANNING COMMISION SITE VISIT: Chairman Short called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. at the intersection of Arch Avenue and Main Street for a Planning Commission site visit regarding a possible downtown flood study RECONVENE AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY CHAMBERS: The commissioners were reconvened in the City Chambers around 7:00 p.m. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Short asked Mr. Jones to lead the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 4. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING HELD APRIL 22, 2014: Deferred to the next meeting. 5. CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD LIMITED TO 4 MINUTES PER SPEAKER, FOR ISSUES NOT LISTED AS AN AGENDA ITEM: None. 6. DISCUSSION ON THE DRAFT BROWNFIELD REDEVELOPMENT STRATEGY PLAN: Mr. Barnes opened the discussion to receive comments on the draft Brownfield Redevelopment Strategy Plan. The commissioners had comments and discussions over flooding, marketing, and other downtown revitalization strategies. 7. DISCUSSION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS: Mr. Short stated that the letter to the Council for the Comprehensive Plan update was written but not endorsed yet. He also mentioned about a program You Plan Waynesboro for the Comprehensive Plan update. The intention of the program is for the commissioners to go to different places to get public inputs on focused topics to be accomplished in the Comprehensive Plan update. 8. STAFF CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATION: None. 9. OTHER BUSINESS/COMMISSIONERS CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATION: None.

6 Meeting adjourned at 8:25 pm. Michael D. Barnes, clerk

7 UNAPPROVED MINUTES The Planning Commission of the City of Waynesboro, Virginia, held a regular meeting on the 17 th day of June, 2014, at 7:00 P.M., in Council Chambers, Charles T. Yancey Municipal Building, 503 West Main Street, Waynesboro, Virginia: PRESENT: Commission Members: Constance Paradiso, Vice-Chair Greg Bruno Chris Darden Stewart Hall Scott Jones Tim Williams, Council Rep. City Planner & Clerk of the Commission: Recording Secretary: Absent: Michael D. Barnes, AICP Kay Roetto Terry R. Short Jr., Chair (excused) 1. CALL TO ORDER: Meeting was called to order by Vice-Chair Paradiso who asked Mr. Bruno to lead the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 2. CITIZEN COMMENTS NOT SUBJECT OF A PUBLIC HEARING: None 3. CONSIDERATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BY DONALD L. SIBOLE TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES AT 305 EAST MAIN STREET, CITY TAX MAP PARCEL A: Mr. Barnes summarized the request and staff report, giving some history of the building and explaining reasoning for the two conditions for his recommended approval. He reviewed parking regulations for various uses based on use and square footage as listed in the zoning ordinance and the various ways parking spaces are allowed. He reviewed staff s proposal for utilization of on-street public spaces in the rights of way within a 300 foot radius of the building, totaling approximately an additional 15 available spaces in addition to the 13 available spaces onsite. He also addressed his recommendation that the owner provide sufficient documentation to the City Engineer from a design professional to insure that the proposed parking spaces will meet the street parking standards of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Barnes explained other options that may be available to the applicant such as obtaining a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals based on hardship, or to apply for rezoning to C-B (central business/downtown) district which is exempt from parking requirements as public parking is provided on street and in parking lots. Staff does not recommend these two options and recommended the application pursue this CUP request. Mr. Donald Sibole, 17 Featherstone Drive, Lyndhurst, addressed the Commission concerning his application and to answer questions from the Commissioners. He stated he was able to measure distance from his building parking lot to the entrance of Constitution Park which is 1088 feet or just over 1/5 th mile which is about the same as to the city building. He explained he has inquired several times about purchasing the vacant parking lot adjacent to his building to the east and they do not want to sell so that is not an option at this time. He indicated potential uses for the building include an antique mall, a microbrewery, and a culinary school, all of which are on hold until this issue is resolved. He also doesn t feel he should bear the expense of hiring a design professional to designate potential on-street parking.

8 UNAPPROVED MINUTES Ms. Paradiso opened the public hearing. With no public comments received, Ms. Paradiso closed the public hearing. Discussion ensued regarding potential uses of the property. Mr. Williams expressed that in his opinion this area should be included as part of the downtown district and would not object to extending the radius area. Regarding the possibility of leasing the adjacent parking lot to the tenant, Mr. Sibole indicated this is not a good idea in his opinion if the owner were to rescind the lease in the future. Mr. Barnes discussed rezoning issues and stressed that the commission s main focus should be the parking issue at hand. He disagrees with the applicant s argument that people park in Constitution parking lot to come to the Yancey municipal building as there is plenty of parking closer. He emphasized that the key reasoning for minimum parking requirements as outlined in the zoning ordinance is so that people do not park in other private parking areas without permission. He admitted this is a complex issue and agrees we all would like to resolve the issue so that the building can be utilized as desired by the owner and become a viable and active part of the entrance corridor to the city. Asked as to what disadvantages there are to extending the allowable radius to Constitution Park, Mr. Barnes responded he does not feel people will walk that distance to the building and you may find folks potentially parking in closer private parking lots without permission which may cause conflict. Mr. Jones made the motion, to recommend that City Council approve the request as recommended and conditioned by staff. Motion failed due to lack of a second. Following discussion there was general consensus among commissioners, with the exception of Mr. Jones, that Mr. Sibole should not be required to bear the expense of hiring a design consultant regarding parking in the city public right of way. Mr. Williams then made motion to recommend approval but to amend staff s conditions to read that all parking spaces within the public right of way from the building to Arch Avenue intersection as measured in a straight line from the edge of the building shall count towards the minimum parking requirement for 305 East Main Street, and to delete staff s second condition to require the building owner to bear expenses of hiring a design professional for determining that the proposed parking spaces meeting the street parking standards of the zoning ordinance. Motion was seconded by Mr. Darden. Following further discussion, the Commission voted by a 4 to 2 vote (with Ms. Paradiso, Messrs. Darden, Hall and Williams voting aye, Messrs. Bruno and Jones voting nay), the following recommendation: WHEREAS, upon application of Donald Sibole, owner and applicant, the Waynesboro Planning Commission finds that the aftermentioned conditional use permit is included specifically as one of the permitted conditional uses in an L-B (Local Business) District in which it is proposed to be located; that the proposed use will have no more adverse effect on the health, safety, or comfort of persons living or working in the area and will be no more injurious, economically or otherwise, to property or improvements in the surrounding area than would any use generally permitted in such District; and, further, that the request is consistent with good planning and zoning practice; is justified by the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare; and is in accord with the comprehensive plan of this City; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Waynesboro Planning Commission, that a recommendation be forwarded to City Council that the request of Donald Sibole, owner and applicant, for a conditional use permit to allow the elimination or reduction in the amount of required parking for the structure located at 305 East Main Street in the L-B Local Business District, City Tax Parcel # A, by allowing a waiver from City Zoning Ordinance Section 5.1.4, be approved, in accordance with the application (#13-119) and staff report dated June 17, 2014, but further subject to the following amended condition:

9 UNAPPROVED MINUTES 1. For any future uses within the building as it exists at the time of approval of this conditional use permit, any parking space that is within a public right of way as measured in a straight line from the edge of the building westward to the intersection of West Main and Arch Avenue) shall count towards the minimum parking requirement for 305 East Main Street. 4. STAFF CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATION: Mr. Barnes informed the commission that work on the downtown flood study will begin in the next few weeks Mr. Barnes confirmed with the Planning Commission that a regular meeting will be held July 22, 5. OTHER BUSINESS/COMMISSIONERS CORRESPONDENCE AND COMMUNICATION: None. Meeting adjourned at 8:00 pm. Michael D. Barnes, Clerk

10 CITY OF WAYNESBORO, VIRGINIA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STAFF REPORT CUP August 19, 2014 Applicant: Address/Legal Description: SUMMARY SHEET Drew Patterson, agent for Verizon Wireless 4435 Waterfront Drive, Suite 100 Glen Allen, VA Waynesboro High School 1200 West Main Street Waynesboro, VA Total Acreage: Tax Map Number: TM 44-3-I Real Estate Waynesboro School Board Owner of Record: 301 Pine Avenue, VA Current Zoning: RG-5 General Residential District Comprehensive Plan Medium Density Residential Designation: Attachments: 1. Application 2. Letter from the Applicant 3. Letter from School Superintendent 4. Conceptual Site Plan 5. Photo-simulation & Map Flood Plain: Enterprise Zone: Action Requested: Authorizing City Code Section(s): Summary Recommendations: No No A conditional use permit request for a telecommunications tower and facilities in the RG-5 (General Residential) District Section 2.4 (Use Table) and Section (Telecommunications Tower and Facilities) Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The tower may be increased in height from 115 feet to 130 feet to accommodate another co-location position if all other aspects of the applicant s proposal and conceptual site plan remain the same, except for an expansion of the fenced compound as may be required to accommodate any additional equipment; 2. Maximum luminance levels for the tennis court lights shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles at the property boundary; 3. The tennis court lights shall be downward directed in order to minimize the amount of light spillage into the night sky and not visible form adjacent residential properties or street right of ways; 4. As part of the building permit for the tennis court lights, a lighting plan shall be provided with sufficient enough detail to the Zoning Administrator to make a determination of compliance with these conditions; and, 5. Normal operation of the tennis court lights shall not extend beyond 10 p.m.

11 1. Nature of Request Drew Patterson, representative agent for Verizon Wireless, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for a 115-foot monopole telecommunications tower and related facilities at 1200 West Main Street, which is the Waynesboro High School property. The applicant will lease the site from the Waynesboro School Board. The applicant has provided a conceptual site plan (Attachment 4) and a structural analysis report from a certified engineer. The proposed tower is a 115-foot monopole tower designed with space for two cellphone providers as well as lights which might be used in the future to light the adjacent tennis courts at the high school. Verizon Wireless will be the tower owner and occupy one of the two cellphone antenna positions. The purpose of the tower is to provide improved service to Verizon Wireless s customers in the City of Waynesboro, especially those at Waynesboro High School, along West Main Street and to the surrounding neighborhoods and commercial businesses. 2. Background The subject property contains the Waynesboro High School and is zoned RG-5 (General Residential) District, which accommodates traditional, small lot neighborhoods primarily characterized by singlefamily detached dwellings and other specific, as well as compatible housing types. Adjacent properties are zoned RS-5 (Single Family Residential) District, RG-5 (General Residential) District and L-B (Local Business) District. Tree Streets Historic District is located to the south and east of the subject property. The proposed cellphone tower site is located in between the high school s football stadium, its tennis courts, and a parking lot that serves the track and is accessed from Locust Avenue. (See Attachment 4 for Tree Street Historic District

12 the site plan). Surrounding Uses North: Commercial uses including Cavalier ECR, Carrier Heating and Cooling, & Laundromat; the historic site Plumb House front along Main Street and back up to the project site. They are zoned L-B (Local Business) District. South: A row of single family houses, which front on 12 th Street, back up to the site. These homes are zoned RS-5 (Single Family Residential) District. East: Waynesboro School Board administrative office and the Valley Program for Aging Service adult day care center are in an RG-5 (General Residential) District. This property is owned by the City. Portions of this property (i.e. the School Board Office) are also part of the Tree Streets Historic District. West: Waynesboro High School building and parking lot are in an RG-5 (General Residential) District. 3. Zoning Requirements The Zoning Ordinance s Section governs Telecommunication Towers and Facilities and contains the following regulation/ standards are used to determine whether the proposed placement, design, siting, and operation of cellphone towers is in conformance with the City s goals and intend for such structures: Section A. Purpose The purpose of this section is: 1. Encourage provision of adequate telecommunications facilities in nonresidential areas where the adverse impact on the city is minimal. While the proposed telecommunications tower is located in the RG-5 (General Residential) District, the high school is not a residential use and therefore the propose tower is not considered by staff to be within a residential area. The closest residential use is about 500 feet away on 12 th Street. 2. Encourage co-location and use of telecommunications sites and facilities, and minimize the total number of telecommunications sites; and The proposed tower will allow for an additional co-location possibility, and the applicant has expressed their willingness for co-location. It should be noted that up until this past week, staff was under the impression that, because the tower was designed to accommodate lights for the adjacent tennis court, that the tower could not accommodate three cellphone antennae as typically required by Section L.3 (co-location). Now staff understands that increasing the tower height by 15 feet, that an additional antenna array could be accommodated. If the Planning Commission or Council desires to approve the tower as proposed at 115 feet in height, it may be advisable to increase the height to 130 feet because the nominal visual impacts resulting from a 15 foot height increase are outweighed by the potential of avoiding the need for yet another tower in the area at some point in the future. 3. Minimize the adverse visual impact of such towers and facilities. The applicant has provided photo simulations of the tower from multiple locations (Attachment 5). The tower is designed to resemble the existing, nearby light poles which illuminate both the high school s track and football field. The proposed cellphone tower is 30 feet higher than the closest light pole and much higher than surrounding trees, buildings and structures. The proposed

13 tower also has a wider diameter than the existing light poles. For these reason, the proposed tower could be considered more visually impactful relative to the existing light poles. It should be noted that two other cellphone towers are within several blocks of the proposed location (one on the top of Fishburne Military School and the other behind the Arby s on Rosser). Both of these towers are camouflaged to resemble flag poles. The applicant has indicated that: (A) the configuration requirements of the technology that they wish to use; (B) the coverage area that they hope to achieve; and, (C) the potential for lighting of the tennis courts are factors which limit their tower from being camouflaged as a flag pole. Further, if there is a preference for a flush mounted design, i.e. one where the cellphone antennas rest immediately adjacent to the pole, then Verizon would have to use two of the co-location positions. In other words, instead of the 6 cell receivers being spread out at a single co-location height, there would be 3 receivers flush mounted at one co-location height and another 3 receivers flush mounted at the lower colocation height. The net effect would be less visual mass at the top of the monopole, but it would also result in the lost potential that another cellphone company could co-locate on this monopole. The result might be a second request by another company for a tower in this general vicinity of the City. The Planning Commission and Council will need to weigh the services that proposed tower will provide and the Ordinance s stated desire to promote co-location opportunities on cell towers against the visual impacts resulting for this tower s prominent height. Section C. Location and Construction 1. New telecommunications facility site shall not be permitted unless the applicant demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the City that existing telecommunications facilities or alternative telecommunications structures cannot accommodate the applicant s proposed antenna. The proposed tower is a new facility. The applicant has indicated (Attachment 2) that there is no possibility of co-locating on a nearby, existing towers or structure. The applicant first looked to collocate on one of the existing light poles at Waynesboro High School. However, none of the existing light poles are structurally adequate to hold the proposed equipment. The applicant also investigated three nearby cellphone tower within one mile of the high school, [The tower at Fishburne (225 South Wayne Avenue), the tower at the rescue squad building (201 West Broad Street), and the tower behind the Arby s (317 South Linden Avenue)]. All three of these towers are either short of equipment space or capacity and thus are unsuitable for collocation. The applicant also looked into a potential structure, the water tower behind the Wayne Hills School (937 Fir Street). The distance from the primary coverage objective eliminates that location as a viable option. As a result, to build out their service network, the applicant indicates that the new tower is required to be this height, configuration, and in this general location to accomplish all of their needs. 2. Telecommunications towers shall either maintain a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any applicable standards of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), be painted so as to reduce visual obtrusiveness. Dish antennas will be of a neutral, non-reflective color with no logos. The applicant indicates that the proposed light pole will be galvanized steel finish that will match the existing light poles on site. 3. At the telecommunications facility, the design of the buildings and related structures used in conjunction with telecommunications facilities shall, to the extent possible, use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping that will blend the telecommunications facilities with the natural setting and the built environment.

14 The applicant indicates that the proposed 115-foot tall tower will be designed similar to the existing light poles, which are roughly 80 feet tall. 4. If an antenna is installed on an alternative telecommunications structure, the antenna and supporting electrical and mechanical equipment must be of a color that is identical to, or closely compatible with, the color of the alternative telecommunications structure so as to make the antenna and related equipment as visually unobtrusive as possible. The applicant indicates that the antennas and array will be grey in color, which will appear similar to the proposed galvanized steel light pole. The coax and supporting electrical equipment will be installed within the light pole to the extent possible. 5. A telecommunications facility or telecommunications tower shall not be artificially lighted, unless required by the FAA or other applicable authority. If lighting is required, the City may review the available lighting alternatives and approve the design that would cause the least disturbance to the surrounding views. The applicant indicates that the top of the light will not be lighted. The light installed to serve the tennis court will be installed in compliance with FAA. Section 5.5 of the City Zoning Ordinance regulates outdoor lighting. However, this section exempts athletic field light from this regulations. There is a concern that light spill over from the proposed tennis court lights on the cellphone tower could negatively affect adjacent properties. There are four recommended conditions which should mitigate and resolve any potential spillover effects. 6. No advertising of any type may be placed on the telecommunications facility, or other structures associated with the telecommunications facility, except that a sign shall be required displaying the name, registration number and emergency contact number of the tower owner. The sign not exceed four square feet in size and shall be located on the security fence or other approved location. The applicant indicates that there will be no advertising of any type installed on the tower or fenced compound. Section D. Structural 1. Prior to the use or extension of a telecommunications tower, the owner shall have obtained approval of the structural integrity by a qualified engineer and a copy of such report shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator. A report prepared and stamped by a qualified tower engineer was submitted and reviewed by the City engineer. No adverse comments were received regarding the report. 2. To ensure the structural integrity of a telecommunications facility or telecommunications tower, the owner or operator of a telecommunications facility or telecommunications tower shall ensure that it is maintained in compliance with standards contained in applicable Federal, State and local Building Codes and regulations. The applicant has demonstrated in the analysis report that the structure meets all regulations. A building permit, if this conditional use permit is approved, will be required by Building and Zoning Department before construction to assure that the proposed structural modification meets all applicable ordinances and regulations. Section E. Required Yards (Setbacks) and Separation 1. Telecommunications towers shall be setback a minimum of 110 percent of the height of the telecommunications tower from any off-site structures used for human habitation, provided this

15 provision shall not apply to monopole towers certified by a structural engineer. Such monopole towers shall comply with the setbacks of the underlying zoning district for principal structures. The proposed tower will be 115 feet high. The closet building/structure is about 180 feet away and the closest residential structure is about 500 feet away. As a result, the tower exceeds the minimum setback requirement set in the ordinance (110% of the tower height is feet). Therefore, the proposed structure will not increase hazards to the neighboring properties. 2. Security fencing, equipment and accessory facilities must comply with setback requirements applicable to primary structures. As shown on the conceptual site plan, all structures and facilities meet the setback requirements in the RG-5 District. Section F. Security Telecommunications towers and facilities shall be enclosed by security fencing not less than six feet in height and equipped with an appropriate anti-climbing device, unless otherwise approved by the City. The telecommunications tower and the facilities are enclosed in an 8-foot high timber fence. Section G. Perimeter Buffer A Class A buffer shall be provided around the perimeter of telecommunications towers and facilities in accordance with Section A.2 (a), unless otherwise approved by the City. Minimum standards for Class A buffer are 10 foot wide strip containing 2 canopy trees, 2 understory tree, and 12 shrubs plants per every 100 linear feet. The School Superintendent had concerns regarding a landscaped buffer around the proposed tower (Attachment 3). His concerns summarized as follows: A. The school prefers not to use understory trees or shrubs on the campus for safety and security reasons (i.e. persons or items not allowed on school property could be hidden within the landscaped buffer). B. Space is limited around the compound due to the location of the parking lot, tennis courts and very steep topography. C. The site is mostly located internal to the school campus and the wooden fence is appropriate. The Zoning Administrator has reviewed the School Superintendent s letter and believes that the proposed wooden fence sufficient under these circumstances and meets the Ordinance s screening requirements. Section I. Local Government Access Owners of towers shall provide the city with co-location opportunities as a community benefit to improve radio communication for City departments and emergency services provided it does not conflict with the co-location requirements of this Chapter. The applicant indicates that Verizon will provide the City with co-location opportunities as required. Section J. Federal Requirements All telecommunications towers and antennas must comply with or exceed current standards and regulations of the FAA, the FCC and any other agency of the Federal government with the authority to regulate such facilities. If such standards and regulations are changed, the owners of telecommunications towers and antennas governed by this Chapter shall bring such towers and antennas into compliance with such revised standards as required. Failure to bring

16 telecommunications towers and antennas into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the removal of the telecommunications towers and antennas at the owners expense. The applicant indicates that the proposed telecommunications facility will comply with or exceed current standards and regulations of the FAA, the FCC and any other agency of the Federal government with the authority to regulate such facilities. Section L. Supplemental Information The following supplemental information shall be required before the City will consider an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a telecommunications facility, telecommunications tower or for siting an antenna on an alternative telecommunications structure: 1. Inventory of Applicant s Existing Sites Each applicant for a telecommunications facility, telecommunications tower or antenna shall provide the Zoning Administrator with an inventory of its existing facilities that are within the city or within five miles of the border thereof, including specific information about the location, height and design of each tower. The City may share such information with other applicants apply for approvals or Conditional Use Permits under this Chapter or other organizations seeking to locate antennas within the city, provided however, that the City is not, by sharing such information, in any way representing or warranting that such sites are available or suitable. The applicant provided a map showing other Verizon Wireless facilities in the area. Verizon currently is on two towers within the City. The first is on the tower above the former landfill (330 North Winchester Road). The second is on the tower adjacent to the Ntelos offices off Shenandoah Village Driver. The applicant did not provide a detailed inventory of the height and design of each tower. This additional information was deemed to not to be germane at this time. 2. Site Plan A scaled site plan including site topography and topography within a 400-foot radius of the proposed tower, a scaled elevation view and other supporting drawings, calculations, and other documentation, signed and sealed by appropriate licensed professionals, showing the location and dimension of all improvements including radio frequency coverage, tower height, setbacks, parking, security fencing, landscaping, proposed ingress and egress, adjacent uses including proximity to residential uses and residential district boundaries. The applicant submitted a conceptual plans for the general parcel, the tower site, and the tower structure and the proposed supporting facilities. Staff finds the site plans as submitted are sufficient for the conditional use permit application review. Also, more detailed information will be required during the site plan and building permit review process. (Attachment 4) 3. Co-Location The applicant shall encourage co-location by providing the following information: an engineering report, certifying that the proposed telecommunications tower is compatible for a minimum of three similar users including the primary user; information demonstrating that antennas, telecommunications towers, and telecommunications facilities for possible co-locator antennas are no higher in elevation than necessary; co-location policy which outlines policy regarding company s willingness to co-locate on other company s telecommunications towers and company s willingness to accept other users on its telecommunications towers. The design of the tower is for a 115-foot light pole with one addition collocation possibility. The applicant also provided VZW s collocation policy, which indicates willingness to accept other users on the proposed telecommunication towers.

17 As stated earlier, staff was under the impression that, because the tower was designed to accommodate lights for the adjacent tennis court, that the tower could not accommodate three cellphone antennae as typically required by Section L.3 (co-location). Now staff understands that increasing the tower height by 15 feet, that an additional antenna array could be accommodated. If the Planning Commission or Council desires to approve the tower as proposed at 115 feet in height, it may be advisable to increase the height to 130 feet because the nominal visual impacts resulting from a 15 foot height increase are outweighed by the potential of avoiding the need for yet another tower in the area at some point in the future. 4. Design Standards (a) Applicant shall indicate design of the telecommunications facility and telecommunications tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusion. The applicant originally proposed a 130-foot tower. It was advised to reduce the height to 115 feet to appear more compatible with the existing light poles on site. The tower design is similar to the existing light poles in color and shape; however it is wider than the existing light poles. The most significant difference is height. The proposed tower is roughly 30 feet taller than the existing light poles. The Planning Commission and Council will need to weigh the proposed tower s visual obtrusive against the high school s existing light poles. (b) Applicant shall provide actual photographs from the site showing adjoining properties and other relevant views and stimulated photographic images of the proposed telecommunications tower from the perspective of adjoining properties. The applicant does provide photographic images of the proposed tower taken at various locations (Attachment 5). According to the rendering, the tower can be clearly seen at various surrounding locations, especially as seen from areas around Main Street and Broad Street. 4. Review with Respect to the Comprehensive Plan The City s 2008 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan designates the subject property as institutional use. The proposed use does not appear to conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Analysis The Conditional Use Permit allows for a case-by-case review of uses which may be, but are not always, compatible with neighboring uses. In order to approve the Conditional Use Permit the Council must find that the proposed use is consistent with good zoning practice and will have no more adverse effect on the health, safety or comfort of persons living or working in the area and will be no more detrimental, economically or otherwise, to property or improvements in the surrounding area than would any use generally permitted in the district. The City Council may attach conditions to the permit to ensure compatibility. Development of Wireless Service: The City Zoning Ordinance does encourage provision of adequate telecommunications facilities in the nonresidential areas with minimum adverse impact. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed location and height of the tower are important and necessary in the design of the Verizon Wireless network as it will provide coverage and connecting services to existing adjoining sites. The applicant states that requested height of 115 feet is necessary due to foliage, structures, topography and the distance between adjacent sites. Further, if the Commission and/ or Council are inclined to support a 115-foot tower, it is recommended that they consider increasing that height to 130 feet so as to accommodate an additional co-location position.

18 Impact on Community Facilities: The proposed tower and facilities have no impacts on public utilities or the local transportation system. A tower in this location should enhance local telecommunications service. Impact on Surrounding Properties: The primary impact of this facility is a visual one. Existing light poles are approximately 81 feet tall. The proposed light pole tower will be 115 feet tall. Adjusting for differences in ground elevation, the proposed tower will be approximately 30 feet taller than the closest light pole. The applicant conducted photo stimulations at various locations to show the visibility of the tower. Photos were taken at 16 locations in the vicinity of the proposed site, the tower can be seen at 11 of the 16 locations, primarily along West Main Street and Broad Street, and in the residential neighborhood close to the school. An attempt has been made to reduce adverse visual impact by reducing the tower height (from 130 feet to 115 feet). While this effort is commendable, it may prove unsatisfactory since the height of the light pole exceeds the height of the existing light poles and the surrounding structures. Its high visibility could be determined to generate visual obtrusion to the surrounding neighborhoods, especially as seen from the Tree Street Historic District. Environmental Considerations: Questions regarding the effects of radio frequency waves are sometimes raised during discussion of telecommunications facilities. However, the sole jurisdiction for regulating radio frequency emissions lies with the Federal Communications Commission. Section 704(B) of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 stipulates that No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the (FCC s) regulations concerning such emissions. 6. Conclusion and Recommendations The applicant has provided all of the information required by the Ordinance and demonstrated the need for a tower in this location which will provide for multiple co-location options as well as lighting for the high school s tennis courts. As part of the applicant s information packet, a series of photo simulations have been provided which show the tower to be visible from several surround locations. The potential visual impacts must be weighed against the demonstrated need for the tower, the fact that there are other tall light poles in the vicinity, and its other benefits as part of the Planning Commission s and Council s consideration. With that said, because the applicant has met the requirement of the Ordinance and demonstrated a need for the tower, staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The tower may be increased in height from 115 feet to 130 feet to accommodate another colocation position if all other aspects of the applicant s proposal and conceptual site plan remain the same, except for an expansion of the fenced compound as may be required to accommodate any additional equipment; 2. Maximum luminance levels for the tennis court lights shall not exceed 0.5 foot candles at the property boundary; 3. The tennis court lights shall be downward directed in order to minimize the amount of light spillage into the night sky and not visible form adjacent residential properties or street right of ways; 4. As part of the building permit for the tennis court lights, a lighting plan shall be provided with sufficient enough detail to the Zoning Administrator to make a determination of compliance with these conditions; and, 5. Normal operation of the tennis court lights shall not extend beyond 10 p.m.

19 cc: Drew Patterson, Agent for Verizon Wireless D. James Shaw II, Deputy City Manager Todd Wood, City Engineer Joe Honbarrier, Zoning Administrator File

20 Attachment 1

21

22 Attachment 2

23 Attachment 2

24 Attachment 3 August 4, 2014 To Whom It May Concern: This correspondence is to address my concerns regarding a buffer to be developed around the proposed Verizon lighting/cell tower on Waynesboro High School property. I request that consideration be given to not requiring this buffer for the following reasons: 1) The school system does not use understory trees or shrubs as landscaping on our campuses. Shrubs and understory trees are a source of major safety and security concerns as they provide hiding places for persons and for items not allowed on school property. This concern will be especially true for the lease area as it adjoins a parking lot and athletic facilities behind the main school building. 2) The lease area may not be large enough to accommodate the buffer. I am not sure that the location will allow for increasing the lease area and I am not interested in increasing the lease area. The current lease area lays between the tennis courts, a parking area, and the football stadium so increasing the lease area is not desirable, if it is even possible. 3) The lease area is located in an internal part of the school campus, surrounded on three sides by several hundred feet of school property. The fourth side is bordered by an alley across from which lays a vacant lot owned by the City of Waynesboro and the Waynesboro School Board Maintenance Shop. While I find the proposed wood fence buffer to be appropriate, the landscape buffer just does not seem to be appropriate for this area. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please contact me at if you need additional information or would like to discuss this important topic further. Sincerely, Jeffrey Cassell, Ed.D. Superintendent

25 Attachment 4 General Site Plan Enlarged Site Plan

26 Elevation View

27 Attachment 5 Photo Simulation Location Map Fishburne Parking Lot

28 Main Street Fishburne Parking Lot - Balloon West Broad Street - Balloon Main Street Fishburne Parking Lot - Tower West Broad Street - Tower

29 Pine Avenue - Balloon Cherry Avenue - Balloon Cherry Avenue - Balloon Pine Avenue - Tower Cherry Avenue - Tower

30 Pine Avenue - Tower Cherry Avenue - Tower Oak Avenue - Balloon South Magnolia Avenue - Balloon Oak Avenue - Tower South Magnolia Avenue - Tower

31 Rosser Avenue - Balloon New Hope Road - Balloon Rosser Avenue - Balloon New Hope Road - Balloon New Hope Road - Tower Rosser Avenue - Tower New Hope Road -Tower

32 Poplar Avenue - Balloon Church Street - Balloon School Board Building - Balloon Poplar Avenue - Tower Church Street - Tower

33 School Board Building - Balloon Florence Avenue - Balloon School Board Building - Tower Florence Avenue - Tower

34 Locust & 13th Not Visible South Magnolia & Rosser Not Visible 12 th & Poplar Not Visible Maple Avenue Not Visible