Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201700026 Staff Report Special Use Permit 2018-09-12 (8)bk d oil& Mae% Rk 4 Ar. CL rl 9 E % ' powt. CL N L ol th iD El Ito vp 5F, I 1� • I bm if YL i 17 � , � r w hn a 4 It Yb 4 e5 5� 0 Lb f # 1 9I ti J W �k L I i bm f- 1 LINK|ACPS KEEPING OUR COMMITMENT TO OUR CHILDREN Albemarle County Public Schools Department of Learning Engineering, Access, and Design K12albemarle.org 2 Ira Socol Executive Director of Technologies and Innovation Jamie Foreman Director of Learning Technologies Becky Fisher Director of End User Experience Robert Rejonis Assistant Director for Infrastructure and Support Services Mark Leach Assistant Director for Enterprise Applications Gene Osborn Coordinator of Learning Technology Integration LEAD|ACPS K12albemarle.org 3 LINK|ACPS Our Mission The mission of LINK|ACPS is to help build equity of opportunity across the 25 schools and almost 14,000 students that make up the Albemarle County Public Schools. Because of a combination of topography, wealth disparity, and the widely spaced populations in our rural areas, some of our children can go home and continue their learning through broad access to the internet, while others cannot. LINK|ACPS, a combination of dedicated fiber optic connectivity and LTE distribution capacity, is designed to close that home access gap, allowing a greater chance of success for every child. THE MILESTONE TOWER AT WESTERN ALBEMARLE HIGH SCHOOL The Milestone Tower at Western Albemarle High School is an essential part of the commitment our Board of Education has made to provide connectivity to all students. If built at the requested height, this tower will do two critical things: First, it will allow our dedicated LTE signal to reach the homes of approximately 400 students, many of whom currently have no access to broadband. Second, the tower, if high enough to meet commercial needs, will provided a dedicated revenue stream that will help make our network self-sustaining after build out. That revenue will pay for system maintenance, system upgrades, and individual student connectivity devices. K12albemarle.org 4 THE PROMISE OF EQUITY AND OPPORTUNITY “Last spring a junior at Western Albemarle High School described leaving his after school job at 9:00 or 10:00 pm and stopping, on his way home to Whitehall, at a gas station with a WiFi signal in order to do his homework. I know that we can do better for our children.” – Ira Socol, Executive Director of Technologies and Innovation, Albemarle County Public Schools, to the School Board, January 2018 In this century internet connectivity is as essential as electricity to a successful community. Connectivity was one of the key criteria Amazon listed in its search for a second headquarters. Connectivity options are high on the inquiry lists for those buying homes. Connectivity is essential to emergency services and general public safety. Connectivity is a basic part of business relocation choice – if workers cannot work from home as they do ‘at the office,’ many businesses will locate elsewhere. LINK|ACPS is designed to fill another gap – a gap that leaves too many rural children behind, because their ability to explore their world is limited when they leave school. That gap exacerbates the impacts of poverty and rural isolation, and creates a wall that blocks opportunity. The Milestone Tower is thus part of those essential goals of our County Schools, that we create an equitable environment for our children, and that we open every possible opportunity for every child. K12albemarle.org 5 Coverage at 140’ tower height (LINK|ACPS) Propagation maps are based on topography only and do not show impact of trees on signals of the kind used by ACPS. Green = signal strength will likely allow ‘MiFi” type connection (LINK|ACPS) Blue = signal strength will require antenna outside home (LINK|ACPS) On all maps these color references represent coverage using the type of network equipment used by ACPS. K12albemarle.org 6 140’ Tower Height, close up of Crozet, and (below) with student addresses mapped Green = signal strength will likely allow ‘MiFi” type connection (LINK|ACPS) Blue = signal strength will require antenna outside home (LINK|ACPS) Yellow = student home address street locations K12albemarle.org 7 Coverage at 120’ (2nd Commercial Carrier Maximum Height) Green = signal strength will likely allow ‘MiFi” type connection (LINK|ACPS) Blue = signal strength will require antenna outside home (LINK|ACPS) K12albemarle.org 8 Coverage at 100’ (4th Commercial Carrier Maximum Height) Green = signal strength will likely allow ‘MiFi” type connection (LINK|ACPS) Blue = signal strength will require antenna outside home (LINK|ACPS) K12albemarle.org 9 Coverage at 80’ Green = signal strength will likely allow ‘MiFi” type connection (LINK|ACPS) Blue = signal strength will require antenna outside home (LINK|ACPS) K12albemarle.org 10 The Albemarle County Public Schools Pamela R. Moran Superintendent Matt Haas Deputy Superintendent Deborah Collins Assistant Superintendent for Student Learning Dean Tistadt Chief Operating Officer Ira Socol Executive Director of Technologies and Innovation Bernard Hairston Director of Community Engagement LINK|ACPS is a student access service of the Department of Learning Engineering, Access, and Design of the Albemarle County Public Schools. 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 LEAD|ACPS 0 r1 . ■� � , �°•� '$ �■ � \ . � ¥ % 9� -OLDT R 6F n .main.-¢•.. •i � --ss. �r �{`•+ter'-� - - + s maj -. a lov-� View A b, OL b R WAI i mm,,,z IL DR 1 f "�0 -d AL. r Y _ of �'a •, r }A' View A �: . ��r _ ._ � �, �=°,. ��o� M . '!. � ' a + �. _� . .. i.� 9- ! III _ .��.�=�—• _ � - -r - - �.�.t r' ` ' . �� � _ _ fir. f'' - � � � ..a' -~� w _�- Y �f. = J 'r" .f�. t � ._ rt '� "'i� y ��i "r �c°' � f Z _ _ _ _ :.1 ell I.A.'estem Albemarle H.S. 5941 Roddish Gap Tumpike Crozet VA 22932 P6 - View from W. Albernade H.S. Entrance at Rocesh Gap Tpk,, Looking South East Proposed 145'Mono P()b' With 5 Cei rs Zo1a occer I MPIC "RAT", Alp r mi Trim TAW !f,; AWOR�lv �m 4 MID .�Ap f F®R mh tt I S4 �. Q IF View B AMI'll a 100, F# T ft"WrAwl W, V-,f A litT-F Rl 4 1-4 Sr, i- P r',. �40, - ion We k6 Ir W--M' mmff"�ida i 4p RIA Ir AZ ""k*X0, IL AM - -i View D 4.1 L 4- ..'- . I � � 3Ff- 4"" m,j IP ld WE It -pd. 10! .4 rx IMP"- lay., j 16W Ll J� f -,,, I � �:� ,_art •e�is � ►! � _ �- a .Fa,. lei FV d� f y - I [ �A✓ '�}� h ,� t. f C U'q _ - - � ! ii�j�.,yt� ''' � � � �,-�r_if ,'e,,,�.- r =�,`�, '��, t.�+�' � '`t '. - as ''�- ••4,.,-= 4:_i �<:R � �_= �`- View E."',,-, ,t. �a 'r .�r' � f� ��_ l�r R♦' 1� .�`l s�_. r -- . M�= s_1 �w� - a.. (1rrt� .; � �c ,...T � .F" � .� Lo Ewan`_«T. fJ • `� t M i. 4 1 .r View E N M, Epp, IN'Al ��� Imo-: pow 0 ..L. lb.: � New .l y O {mono ri y _ r, � �n � 7 � `t� ..i► � �� y - - � • � +f^t� 1,,A,� a . 4' i A `���WPM 41101 el; i arop secl monopc Ar � *1-1 y 1 F 9 View F 1 1 View F Unmitigated View F (mith plantings) Proposed 145` Monopole With 5 Carriers Western Albemarle H.S. 5941 Rockfish Gap Turnpike Crozet, VA 2292 P5 - View from W. Albemarle H.S Athletic Field Western Fence Looking East MYiN-•�' i4F w�l., �".6��1 - •�`t,�l / / ! '. AAA k _� r., �,,, '- W Z .' - -+��i "r' 1 .+ag4X ♦ 1'�w Fi - ib.;; ;S ^A„ i �.J �,�„ ''d .r a - •=.eti �' 6 Q SITE West-M Albemarle N�qh schoo, iL = J Western Albemarle County H.S. Proposed Monopole !( ËÃ240 ËÃ240 ËÃ240 01250 01250 01250 01250 0125001250 !(Cell Tower 1/3 M ile Bu ffer Visible Tree Canopy Parcels Buildings Prepared by Albemarle CountyDivision of Information ServicesMap created by Kinsey Blumenthal: 4/2/2018 Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only. Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through De cember 31, 2017 Aerial Imagery 2013 Commonwealth of Virginia Document Path: Q:\OOMGAIR\_GDS_Staff\Kinsey Blumenthal\Map Requests\Viewshed\WesternAlbemarle_CellTower\third_mile\western_albemarle_viewshed_print_map_third_mile.mxd µ0 400 800200Feet County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Christopher Perez From: Bill Fritz, AICP Date: March 21, 2016 Subject: SP 2016-04 Albemarle High School Communication Facility If this application is approved it will be impacted by the FCC's action published January 8, 2015 which includes provisions addressing State and Local Review of Applications for Wireless Service Facility Modification. The FCC rule, in part, limits the ability of the County to review additional uses and modifications to wireless facilities. The County's ability to deny additional antenna, modification of antenna and increases in the tower height is limited. The County may only deny changes to the facility if: - The tower is increased in height by more than 20 feet; or - Antenna or other equipment would protrude more than twenty feet from the tower; or - More than four ground based cabinets are added; or - Excavation occurs outside the lease area; or - The change would defeat concealment elements. The Zoning Ordinance defines "concealment elements of the eligible support structure" (this tower if approved would be an eligible support structure): "Concealment elements of the eligible support structure: Any condition of approval, including any applicable requirement of section 5.1.40 in effect at the time of approval, established and imposed on the personal wireless service facility as a concealment technique and which includes conditions or regulations pertaining to antenna size, color of the structure and all equipment, antenna mounting techniques, including the requirement that antennas be flush mounted, maximum tower diameters at the base and top, limitations on tower height relative to a reference tree, screening by trees including the restrictions on removing trees that are screening the tower, siting towers so that they are not skylighted, requirements as to how cables should be located on a tower, and the size, location, design, and screening for ground based equipment." It is recommended that staff identify for the Board what if any features of the facility may be considered "concealment elements of the eligible support structure". If the Board of Supervisors approves this request it is recommended that they identify what, if any, conditions of approval should be considered "concealment elements of the eligible support structure". Without citing any "concealment elements of the eligible support structure" the County will be required to approve any requested changes that do not violate limitations cited above. If you would like something to be prepared as an attachment for the staff report please let me know and 1 will prepare something. Attachment H Citizen Communication about the Proposed Facility Staff received the following communication: A) 12 emails from citizens A1) 11 in favor of the facility for reasons of increased service and finances to the school. A2) 1 opposed to the facility because of visual impacts to the community and that the facility does not comply with the County ordinances for concealment. Additionally, she also mentions health effects caused by the facility. [Emails Attached] B) Additionally, staff received the following discussion points at the community meeting on Dec 20, 2017. B1) There were three nearby households represented at the December 20th community meeting. The Hilles family, whose 21 acre parcel abuts the site (TMP 56-17, 100 Miller School Road), seemed to be in favor of it for the service, which could benefit them. Milestone has a letter of intent from Verizon, who says this site would work in its network to improve service in the area; apparently, lease negotiations are underway. Mr. Cushing (TMP 56-17F, 5861 Rockfish Gap Turnpike) mentioned concern that the trees screening the pole in many of the pictures were not on the school property and may disappear, leaving the pole much more visible that suggested by the photos. The Jacksons (TMP 56-16E, 479 Savannah Court) expressed great concern over visibility. B2) There was a lot of interest in seeing photo simulations with a pole that has 5 sets of antenna arrays on it. Some were concern that the photos did not fully equate to the anticipated visual impact. The height of the facility and associated visual impact were a significant concern to the CAC members. B3) Many questions about whether the pole really needs to be this tall and whether it could still be viable at a lower height with fewer arrays. I didn’t hear anyone suggest a specific reduction, though a couple of people were focused on the height of the Albemarle HS facility. Tom Loach said he would like to see it shorter and asked about economic viability if shorter. B4) There was interest in visual comparisons with the Albemarle HS pole. B5) One concern was raised about possible erosion and sediment control impacts, feeling this was a sensitive area. B6) Concern that the trees screening the pole in many of the pictures were not on the property and may disappear, leaving the pole much more visible that suggested by the photos. B7) Some questions with how important this was to Schools. CAC expressed interest in having someone from School Board or Superintendent’s Office speak to the value seen with this project. Though not specifically said, I took this to mean there was interest in knowing if this was “nice to have” versus an “important to have” facility. B8) Some concerns that there was no way to assure Schools plowed any monies received for the facility back into the local schools versus the school district as large. I took this to mean there was a feeling the impact was local and the benefit should all be local. C) Additionally, staff received the following discussion points at the community meeting on February 21, 2018. C1) 1 in person discussion of opposition from TMP 56-17G1, property owner William Buckon. The citizen caught up with staff in the parking lot to discuss the visual impacts on his property. He states that the facility was highly visible and skylite from his property during the balloon test. He is adamantly opposed to this facility being constructed in his viewshed, because the height of the facility is too great and will destroy their scenic views and vistas from their backyard as well as that of the community as a whole. His son also mention the devastating effects that these facilities have on beehives and bee population collapse in the area. He believes this should be considered and discussed because this area has a lot of farms and orchards, which rely on bees to pollinate their products, as well as ecological health of the area as a whole. C2) Many of the same discussion points from the Dec 20th meeting were reiterated and discussed further. - Questions about whether the pole really needs to be this tall and whether it could still be viable at a lower height with fewer arrays. - There was interest in visual comparisons with the Albemarle HS pole. - One concern was raised about possible erosion and sediment control impacts, feeling this was a sensitive area. - Some concerns that there was no way to assure Schools plowed any monies received for the facility back into the local schools versus the school district as large. I took this to mean there was a feeling the impact was local and the benefit should all be local. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP201700026 — Western Albemarle High Staff. Christopher Perez School — Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility Planning Commission Public Hearing: April 10, 2018 Board of Supervisors Hearing: Tentatively scheduled for May 9, 2018 Owners: County of Albemarle School Board Applicant: Milestone Communications, Cristian Hernandez Acreage: 75 acres Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2(48) Special Use Permit, which allows for (Lease Area: 2,625 square feet) Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District. TMP: Tax Map 56 Parcel 17C By -right use: Rural Areas (RA) and Entrance Corridor (EC) Location: 5941 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet (Western Albemarle High School Magisterial District: White Hall District Proffers/Conditions: No Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA — X Proposal: To install a 145-foot tall steel monopole, five arrays Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural Area 3. of platform -mounted antennas and associated ground - equipment in a 2,625 square foot fenced compound. Character of Property: A large partially developed county Use of Surrounding Properties: To the north is Old Trail development, owned property that is used as a public high school and a high -density mixed -use residential development. Also, to the north is contains many recreational fields void of vegetation (soccer Henley Middle School and Brownsville Elementary School. The rest of fields, football field, baseball field, tennis courts, and other the surrounding land is Rural Area, small lot, residential development. multipurpose fields). [See Attachment A for aerial photographs of the surrounding area.] Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: 1. The applicant has proposed evergreen landscaping as 1. The location, height and design of the monopole, and the method of suggested by the ARB, which will help minimize antenna attachment, does not minimize visibility and defeats visibility from the EC/Scenic Byway. concealment techniques/elements established and relied upon by the 2. Increase wireless coverage in the area allowing people County in siting PWSFs as provided for in section 5.1.40(b) of the to make emergency calls. zoning ordinance and the PWSF Policy/Comprehensive Plan. - Dedicated LTE signal to reach homes of 400 2. The proposal fails to meet section 5.1.40(b)(6) of the ordinance students who do not have access to broadband. because the facility is not adequately screened and sited to minimize its - Provides an alternative revenue source to schools visibility from adjacent parcels. and funds lifetime costs of system. 3. The proposal fails to meet section 5.1.40(b)(2) of the ordinance because the facility does not meet the flush mount provisions of the ordinance. 4. The tower fails to meet section 5.1.40(b)(2) because the facility proposes five arrays instead of a maximum of three. 5. ARB does not support or recommend approval of the facility. 6. Under FCC regulations if approved the monopole would be permitted to increase in height by 20 feet and install antenna extending up to 20 feet from the monopole which would further increase the visibility of the facility. 7. The facility is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations: 1. Included are special exceptions (SE) for Sections 5.1.40(b)(2)(a) (number of arrays), 5.1.40(b)(2)(c) (antenna projection) and 4.2.5 (disturbance of critical slopes). Based on the findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends denial of SP201700026 and the SE to Sections 5.1.40(b)(2)(a) (number of arrays), and 5.1.40(b)(2)(c) (antenna projection). Staff has no objections to the approval of the SE to 4.2.5 disturbance of critical slopes). STAFF CONTACT: Christopher Perez PLANNING COMMISSION: April 10, 2018 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Tentatively scheduled for May 9, 2018 PETITION: PROJECT: SP201700026 — Western Albemarle High School — Tier III Personal Wireless Service Facility MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall District TAX MAP/PARCEL: 05600-00-00-017CO LOCATION: 5941 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet (Western Albemarle High School) PROPOSED: To install a 145-foot tall steel monopole, five arrays of platform -mounted antennas and associated ground -equipment in a 2,625 square foot fenced compound. PETITION: 10.2.2.48 Special Use Permit, which allows for Tier III personal wireless facilities in the RA Zoning District (reference Section 5.1.40). Included are special exceptions (SE) for Sections 5.1.40(b)(2)(a) (number of arrays), 5.1.40(b)(2)(c) (antenna projection) and 4.2.5 (disturbance of critical slopes). ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots), Entrance Corridor - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area 3 - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots) CHARACTER OF THE AREA: Attachment A contains an aerial photograph of the area. The area is a mixture of residential development, forests, and public schools. To the north is Rte. 250, Henley Middle School, Brownsville Elementary School the residential development of Old Trail subdivision, and a 7 lot subdivision. To the east and west are a multitude of residential lots between 3 and 5 acres in size. To the south is an 84-acre partially wooded property owned by Yancy Mills Holding, which is bordered by 1-64, which is 1,600 feet from the southern property boundary of the school. RELAVENT PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: ARB2017-119 WAHS Tier III PWSF - On January 12, 2018 the ARB considered the current proposal. The ARB did not support or recommend approval of the application because of visibility from the Entrance Corridor. They stated that the facility is not sited to minimize its visibility, particularly if visual impacts are to be resolved on site. If off -site wooded areas adjacent to the Rte. 250 were lost then the view of the monopole from the EC would increase dramatically. While the ARB did not support or recommend approval of the application for the monopole they were able to issue a certificate of appropriateness for the ground equipment and base station because these items are not be visible from the EC. [Attachment B] SDP-402 Westside High School — Final Site Plan - The site plan for WAHS, titled Westside High School, was approved in 1975. The plan depicts the football field and consequently, the creation of the critical slopes that are being impacted with the proposed travelway serving the proposed facility. DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL: Request to install a 145-foot tall steel monopole, five arrays of platform -mounted antennas and associated ground - equipment in a 2,625 square foot fenced compound. The facility is located 145 feet north of the football field. The site will be accessed by an existing access road through the school property served by Rte. 250. A short travelway extension will be provided behind the bleachers to link the parking lot to the facility. [Attachment C] The application includes special exceptions to allow standoff distance greater than 18" from the monopole, more than three arrays, and the disturbance of critical slopes onsite. ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: Section 33.8 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission (PC) and Board of Supervisors (BOS) shall reasonably consider the following factors when reviewing and acting upon an application for a Special Use Permit: No substantial detriment The proposed special use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent lots. The primary impact of this facility will be visibility. The facility will not prevent the use of any lots. However, the facility will be highly visible from 4 adjacent residential lots. It will also be visible to approximately 12 other residential locations in the surrounding area; however, the level of visibility to these locations has not been field verified through a balloon test as the views are on private property. Rather the analysis was provided by County run viewshed mapping through GIS. [Attachment F] The 4 residential lots are being exposed to extreme skylit views of facility, in most instances with the upper 45 feet of the monopole above the treeline, visible from these homes, their driveways, and their back yards. Staff opinion is that this level of visual impact is a detriment to the adjacent lots. Character of district unchanzed The character of the district will not be changed by the proposed special use. It is staffs opinion that the character of the district will be negatively affected by the use through a change in visibility. The negative visual impacts of the facility are being concentrated on 4 abutting residential properties. As they are exposed to extensive skylit views of the facility (as noted previously). This impact is inconsistent with the character of the Rural Area. The other 12 residential lots mentioned above are also experiencing a change in visibility; however, the extent of this change in visibility is unknown. But based on similar topography, distance, and tree heights can be assumed some experience similar views as the 4 known effected views. Outside of these 16 properties, the regional impacts of the facility are currently limited based on the extent of the visual impacts as noted above. The ARB stated that the current screening of the monopole is provided primarily by off -site trees outside of the control of the School Board. Should these off -site wooded areas adjacent to the Rt. 250 EC be lost, the view of the monopole from the EC and surrounding areas is expected to increase dramatically. [Attachment E for photographs from the balloon test] Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the "purpose and intent" that is set forth in Sections 1.4.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent of the Rural Areas (Section 10.1). This request is not consistent with either section. Section 1.4.3 states that the zoning ordinance is designed "to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community." The siting of this proposed facility does not create an attractive community for the abutting residential lots whose owners and their families are being burdened with the negative visual impacts of the facility. Section 10.1 states that the Rural Areas district is established with the intent of: "conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources." The siting of this proposed facility does not conserve or preserve the natural/scenic views and vistas of the area for these abutting residential lots. Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district The proposed facility will not restrict by -right uses within the RA, Rural Areas district. Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the regulations in Sec 5 as applicable The location, height and design of the monopole, and the method of antenna attachment does not minimize visibility from adjacent properties and defeats concealment techniques/elements established and relied upon by the County in siting PWSFs as provided for in Section 5.1.40(b) of the zoning ordinance and the PWSF Policy/Comprehensive Plan. (See below for in depth review of compliance with section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance) Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the public health, safety and eeneral welfare. The proposed facility may be in harmony with the public health and safety due to the fact that it does provide coverage allowing people to make emergency calls. The top array may be used by local emergency service providers. The proposed facility is not in harmony with the general welfare as the location, height and design of the monopole, and the method of antenna attachment does not minimize visibility from adjacent properties and defeats concealment techniques/elements established and relied upon by the County in siting PWSFs as provided for in Section 5.1.40(b) of the zoning ordinance and the PWSF Policy/Comprehensive Plan. (See below for in depth review of compliance with section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The use will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this area as Rural Area 3. This designation includes preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, and open space, and natural historic and scenic resources. The siting and design of the proposed facility does not conserve or preserve the natural/scenic views and vistas of the area. The negative visual impacts of the facility are being concentrated on abutting residential properties. As they are exposed to extensive skylit views of the facility (as noted previously). This impact is inconsistent with the character of the Rural Area. Additionally, while the regional impacts of the facility are currently limited based on the extent of the visual impacts as noted above. The ARB stated that the current screening of the monopole is provided primarily by off -site trees outside of the control of the School Board. Should these off -site wooded areas adjacent to the Rt. 250 EC be lost, the view of the monopole from the EC and surrounding areas is expected to increase dramatically. Furthermore, the County adopted the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy as a component of the Comprehensive Plan. The Policy was put in place to ensure that the construction of new facilities have limited visual impact on the community. The proposed facility does not meet the following principles of the policy: 1) Be designed to minimize visibility - the location, height, and design of the facility fails to minimize visibility to abutting properties. 2) Utilize existing structures where possible — The football field has many existing wooden light poles around the football field. County staff suggested the applicant collocate their arrays on these poles. The applicant responded that the existing wooden poles would not be sufficient strength to hold the antenna nor of adequate height. Staff suggested that replacing/swapping out the wooden light poles for multiple monopoles of comparable height and then mounting single antenna array at the top and the lights below may provide a sufficient collocation option. The applicant did not submit a response to the suggestion nor submit such a request. No applications for alternative sites or design have been submitted. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of personal wireless services. 3) Mount antennas close to the supporting structure — the extent of the SE request to the flush mount provisions of the ordinance fails to meet this principle. As the applicant has requested the farthest point of the back of the antenna be approximately 65 inches from the monopole, which is 47 inches further than the 18-inch maximum permitted by the ordinance. 4) Not be located on ridgetops or along the ridgeline, and be provided with an adequate backdrop so that they are not skylined — as previously stated in this report and will be discussed in more detail below, the facility will be visible from adjacent residential lots. The facility is highly skylit from abutting properties. 5) Not adversely impact scenic resources - the siting and design of the proposed facility adversely impacts the scenic views and vistas of the abutting residential lots. Rte. 250 carries a Scenic Byway designation; however, the Scenic Byway as an avoidance area is not triggered by this application because the facility is not within 200 feet of the Scenic Byway. In this circumstance, the Scenic Byway is 1,450 feet north of the proposed facility. Regardless, the tower's visibility from the Scenic Byway is still a relevant factor and the ARB stated that visibility of the pole from the portion of the EC adjacent to the school property can be reduced with the addition of evergreen trees in the lawn area adjacent to the chain link fence and the retention of existing trees (and replacement of trees that die) in this area. The applicant has proposed evergreen landscaping as suggested by the ARB, which will help minimize visibility from the EC/Scenic Byway. While the regional impacts of the facility are currently limited based on the extent of the visual impacts as noted above. The ARB stated that the current screening of the monopole is provided primarily by off -site trees outside of the control of the School Board. Should these off -site wooded areas adjacent to the Rt. 250 EC be lost, the view of the monopole from the EC and surrounding areas is expected to increase dramatically. Compliance with Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance Each Tier III facility may be established upon approval of a special use permit issued pursuant to section 33.4 and 33.8 of this chapter, initiated upon an application satisfying the applicable requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a), and it shall be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter and the following: 1. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b), 5.1.40(c), 5.1.40(d), 5.1.40(e), and 5.1.40(f) — 0) of the ordinance unless modified by the board of supervisors during special use permit review. 2. The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit. The applicable requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) application for approval and the requirements of section 33.4 uniform procedures for special use permits have been met. The requirements of subsection 5.1.40(c) applicability of other regulations in this chapter have been met. The County's specific design criteria for Tier III facilities set forth in section 5.1.40(b) are addressed as follows: [Ordinance sections are in bold italics] Subsection 5.1.40(b): Development requirements. Each facility or transmission equipment may be established upon approval as provided in subsection (c) provided that the application satisfies the applicable requirements of subsection (a) and demonstrates that the facility or transmission equipment will be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter, and the following: 1. General Design. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: (a) guy wires are prohibited (b) Outdoor lighting for the facility shall be permitted only during maintenance periods; regardless of the lumens emitted, each outdoor luminaire shall be fully shielded as required by section 4.17; provided that these restrictions shall not apply to any outdoor lighting required by federal law. (c) Any ground equipment shelter not located within an eligible support structure or an existing building shall be screened from all lot lines either by terrain, existing structures, existing vegetation, or by added vegetation approved by the agent. (d) A whip antenna less than six (6) inches in diameter may exceed the height of the facility, the eligible support structure, or the existing building. (e) A grounding rod, whose height shall not exceed two (2) feet and whose width shall not exceed one (1) inch in diameter at the base and tapering to a point, may be installed at the top of the facility, the eligible support structure, or the existing building. The monopole does not require the installation of guy wires, nor will it be fitted with any whip antennas. No lighting is proposed with the facility. The ground equipment is screened by an 8-foot tall slatted chain link fence that surrounds the 2,625 square foot fenced compound as required by the ARB. All requirements of the above section have been met. 2. Antennas and associated equipment. Antennas and associated equipment that are not entirely within a proposed facility, an eligible support structure, or an existing building shall be subject to the following: (a) Number of arrays. The total number of arrays of antennas shall not exceed three (3). All types of antennas and dishes, regardless of their use, shall be counted toward the limit of three arrays. (b) Size. Each antenna proposed under the pending application shall not exceed the size shown on the application, which size shall not exceed one thousand four hundred (1400) square inches. (c) Projection. No antenna shallproject from the facility, structure or building beyond the minimum required by the mounting equipment, and in no case shall the closest Point of the back of the antenna be more than twelve (12) inches from the facility, structure, or building, and in no case shall the farthest Point of the back of the antenna be more than eighteen (18) inches from the facility, structure, or building, and (d) Color. Each antenna and associated equipment shall be a color that matches the facility, structure or building. Five arrays are currently proposed on the 145' monopole. The uppermost array, at 140' AGL, is intended to be dedicated to the school system. The next array down, at 130' AGL, is designated to Shentel. Naas SPAM a The other three are respectively located at 120', 110', and 100' AGL `M SO W.� h lay' 140' and are not currently assigned to any providers at this time. However, " a OPM (s) vam vMQ the applicant has received letters of interest from both T-Mobile and µm«At (1) Ma MINA AND 130' Verizon Wireless indicating that they have evaluated the location of the WTM ON A "' �"�°"M proposed PWSF and have determined that it would meet future goals ofLOW am PMU ;A� 120' such company's wireless networks. Lease negotiations for collocation V.. are underway. The applicant also believes that AT&T would have N A interest in this site because of numerous dropped calls in this area and 110, the County Schools use of AT&T. Final designs for the lower three arrays and the uppermost school array have not been determined or ,D.NNi ANI1�� UIIAS m"'UV A 'N h loo' finalized at the time of the application, however, antenna array parameters for these 4 arrays shall not exceed maximum dimensions being considered for Shentel's array. PRYOU >a CARIS M90C "PM All antennae will be painted to match the color of the monopole. The 111;111,,— a .......AS proposed panel antennas are within the 1,400 square inch size limit The applicant requests a special exception to section 5.1.40(b)(2)(a) to ME, EDUND allow five arrays instead of three as the ordinance permits. Increasing the number of arrays to five, increases the bulk and the mass of the arrays at the top of the monopole, which increases its visibility. In order to mount numerous arrays, vertical separation is required between each array, each additional array increases pole height and visibility. Increasing pole height to limit the need for additional poles is inconsistent with county policy, which calls for facilities with limited visual impact. Additionally, as part of the request the applicant stated that the 145 feet height being requested is required for the school to reach the homes of approximately 400 students; however, their rational fails to provide numbers of students who would be served if the max height of the facility was 130', 120' or 110'. The height justification is provided without comparison and therefore is not useful in determining required height to benefit ration for Board of Supervisor consideration. Staff recommends denial of the special exception. Source: Attachment C, Sheet Z-6.0 The applicant requests a special exception to section 5.1.40(b)(2)(c) of the ordinance to increase the permitted mounting distances of the antennas from the monopole for all five (5) arrays. They request the closest point of the back of the antenna be approximately 43.75 inches from the monopole, which is 31.75 inches further than the 12-inch maximum permitted by the ordinance. They also request the farthest point of the back of the antenna be approximately 65 inches from the monopole, which is 47 inches further than the 18-inch maximum permitted by the ordinance. In order to mount the antennas at these distances from the monopole the facility utilizes a platform design. While platform designs are not specifically addressed in the ordinance, the county regulations for projection are intended to limit antenna projection from the monopole, the mass and bulk of the platform should be considered during review of the special exception request. For this tower the array mounts are 8 feet long on three sides, and 4 feet long on the other three sides. [Attachment C] As the intent of 5.1.40(b)(2)(c) is to insure minimal visibility of antennas on a monopole, a modification of this provision is generally discouraged. The array -mounting technique will be highly visible, much more so than if the antennas were flush -mounted. The method of antenna attachment and standoff distance from the monopole is inconsistent with county policy because it increases visual impacts. Staff recommends denial of the special exception. Staff does not support either of the two special exception requests; Section 5.1.40(b)(2)(a) and Section 5.1.40(b)(2)(c), because they defeat concealment elements established by section 5.1.40 of the ordinance by deviating from the County's number of permitted arrays and by deviating Source: Attachment C, Sheet Z-7.0 from the County's preferred mounting technique/requirement that antennas be mounted closer to the monopole. Both of these requests go against the County's most important principle for siting PWSF, as mentioned in the PWSF policy, minimizing visibility. Cl Source: Attachment C, Sheet Z-7.0 3. Tree conservation plan; content Before the building official issues a building permit for the facility, the applicant shall submit a tree conservation plan prepared by a certified arborist The plan shall be submitted to the agent for review and approval to ensure that all applicable requirements have been satisfied The plan shall specify tree protection methods and procedures, identify all existing trees to be removed on the parcel for the installation, operation and maintenance of the facility, and identify all dead and dying trees that are recommended to be removed In approving the plan, the agent may identify additional trees or lands up to two hundred (200) feetfrom the lease area to be included in the plan. As part of the request to locate the monopole and the ground equipment, 71 trees are to be removed. In an effort to maintain existing onsite screening, the applicant proposes to preserve existing trees on the school property within 180 — 200 feet radius of the facility. However, the southern half of the radius lacks any existing vegetation to preserve due to the presence of athletic fields. The nearest tree stand southward of the facility is 450 feet away, near the southern most property line. [Attachment C, Sheet Z-0.1] On the northern and eastern most abutting parcel, TMP 56-17 & TMP 56-16D, is a stream with a 200 foot WPO buffer that is required by County code. Based on County code this area is to remain wooded and is not to be disturbed. This offsite environmental feature provides an additional 200 feet of permanent screening on offsite properties, which is regulated by County code. [Attachment A] The ARB did not support or recommend approval of the application because of visibility. They stated that the facility is not sited to minimize its visibility, particularly if visual impacts are to be resolved on site. If off -site wooded areas adjacent to the Rte. 250 were lost then the view of the monopole from the EC would increase dramatically. Planning staff agrees with this finding. Additionally, if abutting or nearby wooded properties used their full by -right potential and fell trees to develop their properties further, possibly to put an addition onto their home or to build a first home on a vacant lot) the visibility of the tower from the district as a whole may be dramatically increased. 4. Creation of slopes steeper than 2:1. No slopes associated with the installation of the facility and its accessory uses shall be created that are steeper than 2:1 unless retaining walls, revetments, or other stabilization measures acceptable to the county engineer are employed No 2:1 slopes are proposed to be created with the installation of the facility. S. Ground equipment shelter; fencing. Any ground equipment shelter not located within an existing building shall be fenced only with the approval of the agent upon finding that the fence: (i) would protect the facilityfrom trespass in areas of high volumes of vehicular or pedestrian traffic or, in the rural areas, to protect the facility from livestock or wildlife; (ii) would not be detrimental to the character of the area; and (iii) would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. The ground equipment is screened by an 8-foot tall slatted chain link fence that surrounds the lease area. Screening the ground equipment are seven (7) new plantings of agent approved evergreen screening trees (Eastern Red Cedar) that shall be 6 - 8 foot tall at the time of planting. [Attachment C, Sheet Z-4.0] Staff has determined that a fence is necessary because of the proximity to the school and associated playing fields. The fence will aid in preventing trespass. The fence is not expected to be visible from adjacent residential properties or from Rte. 250 due to existing vegetation and distance from the roadway. The fence and ground equipment has received a certificate of appropriateness from the ARB. 6. Screening and siting to minimize visibility. The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibilityfrom adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their distance from the facility. The facility also shall be sited to minimize its visibility from any entrance corridor overlay district, state scenic river, national park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent to the district, river, park or forest If the facility would be located on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, or adjacent to a conservation easement or open space easement, the facility shall be sited so that it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the deed of easement A balloon test' was conducted on Thursday, December 7, 2017. During the balloon test staff traveled Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Rte. 250), Old Trail Drive, Gold Drive, Ashlar Ave, Addler Hill Road, Claremont Lane, Woodbourne Lane, Woodbourne Court, Beechen lane, Fielding Run Drive, Forest Glen Drive, Savannah Court, Millers School Road (Rte. 635), Crozet Avenue (Rte. 240), Emerald Lane, Hillsboro Lane (Rte. 797), Half Mile Branch Road (Rte. 684) to observe the visibility of the balloon from these streets as well as adjacent parcels. The balloon was visible on Rte. 250, the Entrance Corridor, north of the facility from three prominent locations: 1) At the entrance of Old Trail subdivision, listed in Attachment E as "view A". 2) Along the frontage of the WAHS property/TMP 56-17C, listed in Attachment E as "view Al". 3) Along the frontage of TMP 56-17F (5861 Rockfish Gap Turnpike) a property that abuts the site, listed in Attachment E as "view B". To enhance onsite screening of the facility from locations 1 and 2 listed above, the applicant proposes a double - staggered row of 22 Eastern Red Cedar trees along the frontage of the WAHS property/TMP 56-17C. [Attachment C, Sheet Z-0.2] These plantings are approximately 1,700 feet away from the facility and are anticipated to sufficiently reduce visibility of the monopole from these viewpoints due to elevation and distance of the plantings to the monopole. Prior to planting, staff requests that the two rows of landscaping be shifted away from the overhead utility lines. The view of the monopole from location 3 listed above remains unmitigated (TMP 56-17F, 5861 Rockfish Gap Turnpike), listed in Attachment E as `view B". The balloon was also visible, north of the facility, from TMP 56-17G1 (5805 Rockfish Gap Turnpike), listed in Attachment E as "view C". The balloon was visible from Savannah Court, east of the facility, fronting TMP 56-16E, 479 Savannah Court, listed in Attachment E as "view D". As you enter the property the balloon becomes highly visible and extends over the roofline of the home. The balloon was visible from Emerald Lane, south of the facility, which fronts TMP 56-1917, 5860 Emerald Lane, listed in Attachment E as "view E and view F".. In an attempt to screen the facility along the southern view of the property the applicant proposes two rows of Eastern Red Cedars. The first row is provided directly adjacent to the facility and contains 7 plantings, and the other row is provided 400 feet away from the facility and contains 6 plantings on the other side of the football field. However due to the proximity of the screening trees to the facility and their similar topographic elevations in comparison to the lower elevation of Emerald Lane, these plantings are anticipated to only screen the lower 30 feet of the facility. [Attachment E] As a result, the southern view of the monopole remains unmitigated. ' A balloon test consists of raising one or more balloons from the site to a height equal to the proposed facility (County Code § 18- 5.1.40(a)(6)(c)). In summary, based on the balloon test the proposed monopole will be highly visible from the following locations: 1) Northern view— from Rte. 250 the EC fronting TMP 56-17F (5861 Rockfish Gap Turnpike), "view B" 2) Northern view— from TMP 56-17G1 (5805 Rockfish Gap Turnpike), "view C" 3) Eastern view— from Savannah Court, from TMP 56-16E (479 Savannah Court), "view D" 4) Southern view — from Emerald Court, from TMP 56-19F (5860 Emerald Lane), "view E and view F" While it is not expected that facilities of this nature be totally concealed, staffs opinion is that the level of visibility from adjacent properties is significant. Additionally, staff has prepared a viewshed map 2, Attachment F. This map utilizes the height of the tower provided by the applicant, the County's data on topography and tree heights and canopy to estimate where the tower will be visible. Based on the balloon test staff has high confidence in the accuracy of this map. It shows that the tower would be visible from 12 additional nearby_ properties to the north, east, south, and west of the site, as depicted on the map in red. The map does not identify the level of visibility from these locations, but merely references that the tower is visible from these location. The maps were developed after the balloon test and staff does not have photographs from all of these locations, as many are in the middle of private properties. This map is merely another tool to consider visual impacts of the facility on surrounding properties. 7. Open space plan resources. The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the natural resources chapter of the county's comprehensive plan and the parks and green systems chapters in any county masterplan. The siting and design of the proposed facility has limited impact on the Entrance Corridor and the Scenic Byway designation. The Scenic Byway (Rte. 250) designation as an avoidance area is not triggered by this application because the facility is not within 200 feet of the Scenic Byway. In this circumstance, the Scenic Byway is 1,450 feet north of the proposed facility. Regardless, the tower's visibility from the Scenic Byway is still a relevant factor and the ARB stated that visibility of the pole from the portion of the EC adjacent to the school property can be reduced with the addition of evergreen trees in the lawn area adjacent to the chain link fence and the retention of existing trees (and replacement of trees that die) in this area. The applicant has proposed evergreen landscaping as suggested by the ARB, which will help minimize visibility from the EC/Scenic Byway. 11. Color of monopole, antennas, and equipment Each monopole shall be a dark brown natural or painted wood color that blends into the surrounding trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole shall be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground equipment shelter, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not closely match the color of the monopole if they are enclosed within a ground equipment shelter or within or behind an approved structure, fafade or fencing that. (i) is a color that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the area, and (iii) makes the ground equipment, ground equipment shelter, and the concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other parcel or a public or private street The applicant meets the requirements of this section. 13. Special use permit conditions. All conditions of approval of a special use permit The facility shall comply with all conditions of approval of the special use permit. Section 704(a) (7) (b) (I) (II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996: This application is subject to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides in part that the regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentality thereof (1) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; (11) shall notprohibit or have the effect ofprohibiting the provision ofpersonal wireless services.47 U.S.C. In order to operate this facility, the applicant is required to comply with the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions that are intended to protect the public health and safety. Neither the Comprehensive Plan nor the Zoning Ordinance prohibits the provision of personal wireless services. However, both do implement specific policies and regulations for the sighting and design of wireless facilities. In its current state, the existing facilities and their mounting structure all offer adequate support for providing personal wireless communication services. The applicant • ' The elevation surface used to create the viewshed was derived from LiDAR data flown in late 2015. This accounts for the height of buildings/vegetation/etc. at the date of acquisition. • The land cover data used to identify tree canopy is from the statewide land cover dataset created by Worldview and organized by VON. In Albemarle, they used aerial photos from 2013. • Building footprints, parcels, and everything else on the map is from the county. has not provided any additional information regarding the availability, or absence of alternative sites that could serve the same areas that would be covered with the proposed antenna additions at this site. No applications for alternative sites have been submitted. Therefore, staff does not believe that the special use permitting process nor the denial of this application would have the effect of prohibiting or restricting the provision of personal wireless services. Other Relevant Information A) FCC regulations would apply to a tower constructed as proposed in this application. The regulations would limit the County's ability to review additional uses and modifications to the facility once approved. The County may only deny changes to the facility if. - The tower is increased in height by more than 20 feet; or - Antenna or other equipment would protrude more than 20 feet from the tower; or - More than 4 ground -based cabinets are added; or - Excavation occurs outside the lease area; or - The change would defeat concealment elements. Simply stated, if the County approves this monopole at 145 feet, the applicant can administratively apply for a one time increase in height by 20 feet for a total height of 165 feet. It also means that if the county approves the special exception request to increase the standoff distance of the antenna, the applicant can administratively request an increase in standoff distance to a maximum of 20 feet. [See Attachment G for additional information on this issue.] It is staff's opinion that any administrative increase in height or antenna standoff would further increase the negative impacts of the facility. B) Citizen Communication about the Proposed Facility [Attachment H] C) Special Exception request to allow disturbance of critical slopes As proposed the facility relies on the disturbance of critical slopes for access. Installation of the proposed travelway requires 2,870 SF of critical slopes to be impacted. In order to permit this disturbance a special exception is required under Section 4.2.3(b) and Section 4.2.5(2)(3) of the Zoning Ordinance. The topography provided on the site plan was field run by the Timmons Group in September 2017 and depicts different areas of critical slopes than those provided on the County topography depicted on the GIS. Field run topography is more accurate than County topography and is permitted to be used on development applications. The Board of Supervisors may grant a special exception upon consideration of whether: (Ordinance language is in bold. Staff comment is in plain text) Areas Acres Total site 0.32 acres approximately Critical slopes 0.065 20% of site Critical slopes disturbed 0.065 1 100% of critical slopes Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: This disturbance is not exempt. Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18-4.2: "movement of soil and rock" Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of soil. "excessive stormwater runoff' Less than approximately 25% of the critical slopes to be disturbed will be converted to a gravel drive aisle and the remaining will remain critical slope. This will not result in excessive stormwater runoff. "siltation" VSMP permitting, inspections and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability. "loss of aesthetic resource" This area is not wooded and the proposed grading will not change the character of the slopes once the slope is revegetated with grass. The critical slopes were created during the grading for the football field and track. "septic effluent" Not applicable to towers. The amount of proposed grading is minimal and there are no known septic effluent issues in this area. Based on the review above, there are no engineering concerns, which prohibit the disturbance of the critical slopes as shown. Planning staff reviewed the following factors under Section 4.2.5(a)(3) to be considered for this special exception: a. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare; b. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; c. Due to the property's unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent properties; d. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived. It is staff s opinion that the proposed disturbance of critical slopes would favorably satisfy factor (a) above because the proposed disturbance would not be of a determent to public health, safety or welfare and the development, as proposed. Staff finds that the critical slopes proposed to be disturbed are manmade and were created during the development of the football field as depicted on SDP-402 Westside High School — Site Plan approved by the County in 1975. There are no Planning or Engineering concerns with the proposed critical slope disturbance request and resulting development. Staff opinion is that grating this special exception is appropriate. SUMMARY: Staff has identified factors that are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal: Factors favorable to this request include: 1. The applicant has proposed evergreen landscaping as suggested by the ARB, which will help minimize visibility from the EC/Scenic Byway. 2. Increase wireless coverage in the area allowing people to make emergency calls. - Dedicated LTE signal to reach homes of 400 students who do not have access to broadband. - Provides an alternative revenue source to schools and funds lifetime costs of system. Factors unfavorable to this request include: 1. The location, height and design of the monopole, and the method of antenna attachment, does not minimize visibility and defeats concealment techniques/elements established and relied upon by the County in siting PWSFs as provided for in section 5.1.40(b) of the zoning ordinance and the PWSF Policy/Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal fails to meet section 5.1.40(b)(6) of the ordinance because the facility is not adequately screened and sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels. 3. The proposal fails to meet section 5.1.40(b)(2) of the ordinance because the facility does not meet the flush mount provisions of the ordinance. 4. The tower fails to meet section 5.1.40(b)(2) because the facility proposes five arrays instead of a maximum of three. 5. ARB does not support or recommend approval of the facility. 6. Under FCC regulations if approved the monopole would be permitted to increase in height by 20 feet and install antenna extending up to 20 feet from the monopole which would further increase the visibility of the facility. 7. The facility is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of SP201700026 and the SE to Sections 5.1.40(b)(2)(a) (number of arrays), and 5.1.40(b)(2)(c) (antenna projection). Staff has no objections to the approval of the SE to 4.2.5 (disturbance of critical slopes). If the PC recommends approval of this application, staff recommends the following conditions: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The development of the site, and any modifications to the arrays, shall be in general accord with the plan titled "Western Albemarle High School Cell Tower Zoning Drawings Albemarle County Public Schools" dated 2/19/18 (hereafter "Conceptual Plan"), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, including but not limited to all concealment elements, concealment technique, and concealment elements of the eligible support structure, as shown and described on the Conceptual Plan and mentioned below: a. Color (equipment and monopole — Sherwin Williams — Java Brown) b. Tower height c. Location of ground equipment d. No tree removal on the entire property except as shown on the Conceptual Plan Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. 2. The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b), 5.1.40(c), 5.1.40(d), 5.1.40(e), and 5.1.40(f) - 0) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance unless modified by the board of supervisors during special use permit review. 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit a VSMP permit will be required. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit revised landscape plans depicting a slightly modified location of the double -staggered row of Eastern Red Cedars being planted along the frontage of the WAHS property in order to avoid interfering with the overhead lines. ARB staff shall review and approve this modification. Motions (Two Separate): Motion One for Special Exceptions: The Planning Commission's role is to recommend approval or denial of the Special Exceptions to section 5.1.40(b)(2)(a) (number of arrays) and section 5.1.40(b)(2)(c) (projection) and section 4.2.5 (disturbance of critical slopes) of the Zoning Ordinance. A. Should the Planning Commission choose to follow staffs guidance and recommend denial of the SE to sections 5.1.40(b)(2)(a) (number of arrays) and section 5.1.40(b)(2)(c) (projection) and approval of the SE to section 4.2.5 (disturbance of critical slopes I move to recommend denial of the Special Exceptions to Sections 5.1.40(b)(2)(a) (number of arrays) and section 5.1.40(b)(2)(c) (projection) and approval of the Special Exception to section 4.2.5 (disturbance of critical slopes) for the reasons outlined in the staff report. (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial) B. Should the Planning Commission choose not to follow staffs Guidance and recommend approval of all Special Exceptions: I move to recommend erantine the Special Exceptions to sections 5.1.40(b)(2)(a) (number of arrays) and section 5.1.40(b)(2)(c) (projection) and section 4.2.5 (disturbance of critical slopes) Motion two for Special Use Permit: The Planning Commission's role in this case (SP201700026) is to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal wireless service facili : I move to recommend denial of SP201700026. (Planning Commission needs to give a reason for denial) B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III personal wireless service facili : I move to recommend approval of SP201700026 with the conditions outlined in the staff report. ATTACHMENTS: A) Aerials, Parcel and Location Maps B) Architectural Review Board action letter C) Site Plan D) Applicant's information packet E) Photos from the balloon test & photo simulations F) Viewshed Analysis Map G) Memo from Bill Fritz discussing FCC rules related to eligible support structures H) Citizen Communication about the Proposed Facility