The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSP201700026 Presentation Special Use Permit 2018-06-26 SP201700026 Western Albemarle High School - Tier III PWSF Planning Commission - Public Hearing June 26, 2018 To install a 145-foot tall steel monopole,three flush mounted antenna arrays, and associated ground-equipment in a 2,625 square foot fenced compound. 1) SE to allow the disturbance of critical slopes onsite for the entrance road 2) SE to the flush mount provisions of the ordinance to allow the closest point of the back of the antenna to project more than the permitted 12 inches from the monopole. However, all arrays will still comply with the 18 inch maximum standoff distance for the farthest point of the back of the antenna. 3) SE to allow antenna size to exceed the 1,400 square inch size limit. The tower is located behind the bleachers adjacent to the football field on the eastern side of the parcel. 1 ' 1 The County received 58 emails from the community. Staff spoke with 3 adjacent neighbors at the community meeting. 18 citizens are in favor of the facility 43 citizens are opposed to the facility Subtracting out those who mention health effects as a primary reason for opposition 37 citizens remain opposed to the facility. Additionally, staff received a signed resolution from the Crozet Community Advisory Committee (CCAC) against the proposed facility. The County received 58 emails from the community. Staff spoke with 3 adjacent neighbors at the community meeting. 18 citizens are in favor of the facility 43 citizens are opposed to the facility Subtracting out those who mention health effects as a primary reason for opposition 37 citizens remain opposed to the facility. Additionally, staff received a signed resolution from the Crozet Community Advisory Committee (CCAC) against the proposed facility. To be clear, staff went through all the emails, those who mentioned health effects as the sole reason for denial were put in a separate category. Those who mentioned health effects along with impacts the County can consider, such as: visual impacts, wireless policy...etc. those where split into half a vote in each column. 2 r .I, ..1 7 rZi - v T 14 r�I .... ,- e r^--,61 2 ` G O RR':rY FARM S 1" mwmm�� . (+ '..` ya Ne BYMIEEIe}R�:elf �H< HR "SC I .�. L 1 n 2� 1 y AlwT sv11{{t, I T A Ij, ` -- -1g Ly � . f. .R IX-kIMG P1Wn Riil q r] f 1}En Na ,0Ly%w5w41IF L .,A i ' MNTW IN f�' ii , hopNem nro kare" r ` BROWN S. IL E tle allSq • Wesle Alblgdc 1 _t I _a ,' }Y YL Rrgn nRotl t- .. . .,I I �I al -.f. /,I�X . L-r 1 ' FRALG FOREST 'A. "' ' FOREST GLEN I : EM�NI: old V" �'�. n , w ' 4Noe � i}. n J v -1, Y , N The WAHS property is TMP 56-17C A 75 acre parcel Partially developed county owned property that is used as a public high school and contains many recreational fields void of vegetation. The parcel is zoned RA and is in the Entrance Corridor. To the north is Old Trail development, a high-density mixed-use residential development (Neighborhood Model District). Also, to the north is Henley Middle School and Brownsville Elementary School (zoned R- 1). The rest of the surrounding land is Rural Area, small lot, residential development. 3 t� i -. 1 u \; ►��! a _' l r ,1 r Wit.. 1 5: I i -_, �)ram: `.. - . ; rter O' i S `1 T i a _ O 1 V A'7 i_— _ e This shows the location of the tower on the property. 4 S , \ 04 .•••'--- \ .. \ ,,-- C) . . -s"- 0 -----.--- i.• Tau" Nara DitiSoa , lot oe .1 MeV Ora • .. Sin*MO • .,_„. vin .• scone lid sa irai —.„.. , 1.----------—1 lin Liatie MGM.osrzt , i 0 1 \ . ottlin i i I 1 i ee•.7,-t--------t,• •1 ilarwasm_._ei____.---c___ ...---, -...,__ , •4:ail-jr..2„..„.,..st_.1 ...41%.- ---a-4 L-1 ,a...4 iirs -09, espeAk 1 -- ) vonciastei_I Pm\ IPS% ta / ail, ; 1St:. pacm.-- (----- 0071110Nisca gai no'An \,... --/--' -it / ONLInasza 1 , Den uslo aro+ .-- taarmasaw Da Inr:0011 k ‘ MOST) AM DI AI Al di MIMI—.,' pod 2csDa `.... I ( j I.[MVX;r-Agier"3 ® \ 7 Sty Watt:3Ciniuri '.101,Socr 103 aer, Merl V.62.sti ar.0.10ild . — • ,---,, I "---' i ; 1 _.A.� 'li✓I' III - ' a, .....,t........m. _ Ind ' _Ai 1.,,, _ — This shows a profile of the proposed tower and one plan view of an array. • The applicant has proposed 3 arrays. 6 SE to allow antenna size to exceed the 1,400 square inch size limit. II 11 _m �u�ill ' SE to the flush mount provisions of the ordinance. 3E••EEl i oar 111:r4lr..,slmis E UC ,ir II _ As part of the request the applicant seeks 3 special exceptions: 1) SE to allow antenna size to exceed the 1,400 square inch size limit. Antenna Rad Center is 1,375 square inches 3 remote radio heads combined to be = 988 square inches For a total of 2,388 square inches in size For the purposes of measuring antenna size the RRHs are counted towards the antenna size, as they are needed for the antenna to function. Because the size of the antenna is larger than the ordinance the antenna shall either be counted as 2 arrays or a SE to size is needed. Because this array serves a single provider it was logical to seek the SE to size. Staff does not recommend approval of this SE because it increases the bulk and mass atop of the tower, increasing visibility. 7 2) SE to the flush mount provisions of the ordinance to allow the closest point of the back of the antenna to project more than the permitted 12 inches from the monopole. However, all arrays will still comply with the 18 inch maximum standoff distance for the farthest point of the back of the antenna. Staff recommends approval of this SE because it maintains the flush mounting of the antenna and has no effect on visibility. 7 SE to allow the disturbance of critical slopes onsite for the entrance road. �_ �•�( t ) CAS, iss.,...�1 � Areas Acres Total Site Disturbed 0.28 acres of a 75 acre property approximately Critical Slopes Disturbed 0.04 14%of disturbed area is critical slopes 3) SE to allow the disturbance of critical slopes onsite for the entrance road. These slopes are man made slopes from the creation of the football field. As such staff has no objection to the approval of this SE. 8 T l ql ♦c °1st-inn:, i 8 X i Balloon Test Photos ' wr- r. �4 t ; i I .he ,L I Yellow—Mitigated View I.`1• 'lc, . .�' R° VI Red—Unmitigated View .1 , • c. w 1. • 4' ) yI J{ 4 v,r' �. •IIr ' , f 4...-. ';Art e q r r '' ' lr,, i As.. -._ ...La_i_cs _.ma_J....._ve- _. i_ J A balloon test was conducted on Thursday, December 7, 2017. Mitigated View View A - Entrance of Old Trail subdivision View Al -Along the frontage of the WAHS property/TMP 56-17C Unmitigated View View B &View B1 -from Rte. 250 (the EC) fronting TMP 56-17F (5861 Rockfish Gap Turnpike) View C-from TMP 56-17G1 (5805 Rockfish Gap Turnpike) View D -from Savannah Court, from TMP 56-16E (479 Savannah Court) View E and F -from Emerald Court, from TMP 56-19F (5860 Emerald Lane) 9 $ . v --,. - • Opp TRAi� N_ , __ , 4 i " \ itv �if S 1- � f' . ref RI I '' t. �� 'r. Mitigated View View A- Entrance of Old Trail subdivision 10 1 F��, :1-:rf';::::%:::,'C'f961? rr .} r i`4. . i'.“ :S$rta' a tYr n-. tii �q b' , -,4 L irI.W `.ll '' -r..; - :: �--1 k..'. ,,,, s _ -'rye • '--fi 'fie" .. Ii --. q w.i a� ,. • - A ..it .- e X {. . :=�tail -01 Srd !?? eNAI. 4* n�P;- d i i ce:, 1.m�ms"r ; JJf%. rot k h ,. ...1' .}';S$vAO $ !+a"tS. 4` .T' Gf — -:t-_ f Mitigated View View Al -Along the frontage of the WARS property/TMP 56-17C 11 • • t — — — — �poccd s ,* —_ v .,. -' �: WM3cemen n ` . IpM`f i t � 1 �l �� 1 �`,,. '[ i s{.l\ .Y•1, _ ese� Y e f L ✓• "�f'ti.61[l P.'bl ter,.0a �i i � T • • : /4•11,'•17Y n• ifi%ar,�sre crew `v ,,.::.. ,es iretatri q�i • dry fliiKe .... rq�r•-N.7tlffsgp �• 1} vie\ elm 1 -qi _Y :{S! l& m w; 'ro +t��" ,, •r�(...FFF999 r; .dl'iti 1 mat • ti. . 71 • ' �rf• ,�r Unmitigated View View B &View B1 -from Rte. 250 (the EC) fronting TMP 56-17F (5861 Rockfish Gap Turnpike) 12 U': 1 k' i'1 r -r '.6 wn;„' `. 111 w�r�� JI {' 1 y rt 11 4 1r (1' ,ry •yxy . r l ,b 4 ti 1 e., r a e. d,• r • s ., 1 / / / I I \\1 ' mi- ..l _ i Unmitigated View View B1 - driveway of 5861 Rockfish Gap Turnpike. 13 • `y_.� 0:1 r� U�p1�4;1( �!J{_6t{��, (., . j 1 , B�' ,wir€,,4 .ate T .411,410P ant 1u i�"i" tR'i i �ST I` Ntko- r/ `" Lill. a lf' ! t �' /� �VF " �j '✓'lC.;'Ci.�la�}a. �'��Qt p "Vd�"fYlpe:rj'A," o '�' „� i` � l\�//t +k.i efaly�Y v,Y,Ya;tko ,.� ,b; _ ,fr , ,, z ';�, ate+ •2 4 " is llig i 1q 4w7rV/ti Wilti r altimiOlivitheakrrillitiN isj cci tif r Aithrp17,1gre Pjatifilifigi Ili lT��,1` iAt e..'S\1. Y p'a1, 41 4'1 1'_. 1.1 1 Ff i. t-ii hi �... - e''�G[ 0' ' ..0.1.i.Al IA g. I.f. ct. a ' `ilI l 1 i -.J it'd raj '�r�A- 44 I. � r ' 04;-ILA'.ky ; F-ti 1'T v :t t A"A tNgw l t' 3 'i ce \'J,1 rf}}.c`(( •'—,� Pr' {.''roc - ' 1r rs4l-ki I-Jr r ei `' 'y1� (�1R / k �� r,1 o7�� e+I •• iJrr ~•+.:• I.6 -- _ .h`�-- ti9 ,• 1< r ; a - iPr 11 ;, ) Unmitigated View View D -from Savannah Court, from TMP 56-16E (479 Savannah Court) 14 - t ) 1 .,; 41` i" I .. fk 1 x ) r i1 It r �7 { l �y ~ { y) oIt` ' '" C '`R,es - -- S ri -,' C�' �( Mr�l .y -'V "KM� MMtA Y f -'.. P�'" 1*6k--- ' `` r Gr ,.+'i>.c• r ..xf t .Pfrve lOYY P . st 1` i' w ,_ ^ ., +- fir' s`' ' l k.a. ../. , • ,(jam,, Unmitigated View View E -from Emerald Court, from TMP 56-19F (5860 Emerald Lane) 15 4 irelgliibtt!r. �gy. fi:Pry \ ' t ar )_ { Yam. '114* p� a r=KC • ..• il..., is- v.. ;, ,/se:J.-in,,., fr. .00.., ., ,, 'It ,.....,_ '. .,,,, — .i., i. r r. - -"' ;.. 1 . 11,0 ` ix yb e • • waT� r.. c e.'( �� n + � v F. � - w4 f { k ...... T - i I. ) f[ 1 Views 't �1 ' ..4\ _ '. if ?� ''' V• . Unmitigated View View E -from Emerald Court, from TMP 56-19F (5860 Emerald Lane) 16 A �ffl/i . :7 k 1 ( lx\ . 6 ;(//rr 1t `fi' r f 4 • , I,, . d /; jry { • P '\ ' 7 •Sa . 1• •i ( • /0 l 1i • ti .,. .1d i i i,' j f. . -fed. 'f A+ E ----- View_F Vic-' _ r 1 _�..-j '_ .J -�T ---'-.-._ I L._ 1 r �,c `. 1 Unmitigated View View F -from Emerald Court, from TMP 56-19F (5860 Emerald Lane) 17 4 i'`- ICJ � u.,m Um pw l3 p3A,_. .\ i�J 1\dd6trikyk S'."• • i,Cri b j iy� +1� ai' lik ! Qe {'— a P: Tifter lilk i lea® _ a� 1 61 O Cell Tower C Not Visible d Buildings I 3 Cal mile Buller Visible OTree Cover .Sinewy � d �County Boundary CI Parcels le _� This viewshed/heat map was developed by the County. It utilizes: - Height of the tower - County's data on topography - Tree heights and canopy To conservatively estimate where the tower will be visible. Based on the balloon test staff has high confidence in the accuracy of this map. Staff does not have photographs from all of these locations, as many of these locations are in the middle of private properties. The map shows that tower would be visible to dwellings to the north; east, south of the site. In summary staff is recommending denial because it is our opinion that the facility would be highly visible from streets and properties in the areas. 18 _) The special exceptions for the size of the antenna increase that visibility. This request is not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan (wireless policy relies on many smaller less visible towers; rather, than single large towers that serve many carriers). Thus we recommend denial. -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 VGIN. In Albemarle, they used aerial photos from 2013. - Building footprints, parcels, and everything else on the map is from the county. • 18 �, M Q il f‘fr 0.0 0 d est � o ' .r 1. e9i`� 53, Q ---7 \) ;`-.1 1,t,v # , :1/4, ‘f 0 (.91° -P. ;if, ‘, ° F~ W�r` 3 �� Ll rr I a l o` i 6 ® c y / 0 Cell Tower Tree Canopy � ;&' p ( Ql/3 Mile Buffer O Parcels : �� ,/ C 1 i: M Visible d Buildings This viewshed/heat map was developed by the County. It utilizes: - Height of the tower - County's data on topography - Tree heights and canopy To conservatively estimate where the tower will be visible. Based on the balloon test staff has high confidence in the accuracy of this map. Staff does not have photographs from all of these locations, as many of these locations are in the middle of private properties. The map shows that tower would be visible to dwellings to the north, east, south of the site. In summary staff is recommending denial because it is our opinion that the facility would be highly visible from streets and properties in the areas. 19 • r 1 The special exceptions for the size of the antenna increase that visibility. This request is not consistent with the Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan (wireless policy relies on many smaller less visible towers; rather, than single large towers that serve many carriers). Thus we recommend denial. -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 VGIN. In Albemarle, they used aerial photos from 2013. - Building footprints, parcels, and everything else on the map is from the county. 19 s S I Summary and Recommendation Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: 1. The applicant has proposed evergreen landscaping as 1. The proposal fails to meet section 5.1.40(b)(6)of the ordinance suggested by the ARB,which will help minimize because the location and height of the monopole does not visibility from the EC/Scenic Byway. provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility is 2. Increase wireless coverage in the area allowing people not sufficiently sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent to make emergency calls. parcels. 2. The proposal fails to meet section 5.1.40(b)1,2)(b)of the ordinance because the size of the Shentel antenna is larger than 1,400 square inches.This increases the bulk atop the tower, which increases visibility of a highly visible tower. 3. ARB does not support or recommend approval of the facility. 4. 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. 5. The facility is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION:Staffreconunends denial of SP201700026 and the SE to Section 5.1.40(b)12)(b)(size)based on the unfavorable factors noted above.Staff has no objections to the approval of the special exceptions for Section 5.1.40(b)(2)(c)(antenna projection),and Section 4.2.5(disturbance of critical slopes). ',the PC recommends approval of this application,staff recommends the following conditions; • 20 I' m ) Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. The development of the site,and any modifications to the arrays,shall be in general accord with the plan titled "Milestone Counmtaications — Rhein& at Western Albemarle High School 5921 Rock Gap Turnpike Croset, VA 22932"dated 6/06/18(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. Tower height(125 feet tall) b. Color(equipment and monopole—Sherwin Williams—Java Brown) c. Flush mounting of antenna(18 inch maximum standoff distance) d. Tree preservation areas e. Location of ground equipment 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. 21 1 1$ Recommended Conditions of Approval: 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)—(j)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. The VSMP plan shall depict both County provided topography from the County GIS and the field run topography used for the concept plan.Each shall be labeled appropriately. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall submit revised landscape plans depicting a slightly modified location of the 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. 22 . • • y 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)12)(b)(size)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)(21(b)(size)and recommend approval of section 5.1.40(b)(21(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)(b) (size) and recommend approval of section 5.1.40(b)(2)(c)(protection)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 stairs guidance and recommend approval of all Special Exceptions: I move to recommend granting the Special Exceptions to sections 5.1.40(h)(21(bl (size) and section 5.1.40(b)(2)(c)(protection)and section 4.2.5(disturbance of critical slopes) 23 I • . w 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 servicq facility: I move to recommend denial of SP201700026.(Planning Commission needs to given reason for denial) B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this Tier III personal wireless service facility: I move to recommend approval of SP201700026 with the conditions outlined in the staff report. 24