HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201700119 Staff Report 2018-01-03ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
Project #/Name
ARB -2017-119: Western Albemarle High School PWSF
Review Type
First Review of a Personal Wireless Service Facility
Parcel Identification
056000000017CO
Location
5941 Rockfish Gap Turnpike. The facility is proposed to be located at the edge of the wooded area just north of the
football field and northeast of the northern bleachers.
Zoned
Rural Areas (RA)/Entrance Corridor (EC)
Owner/Applicant
County of Albemarle School Board/Lori Schweller (LeClair Ryan)
Magisterial District
White Hall
Proposal
To construct a 145' -tall steel monopole with associated equipment. Special exceptions have been requested to allow
more than three (3) arrays, to allow mounting equipment to exceed the maximum standoff distance, and to allow
disturbance of critical slopes onsite.
Context
The subject parcel is located in an area of mixed residential, institutional and commercial development.
Visibility
The facility will be visible from the Rt. 250 Entrance Corridor. (See "Analysis" for additional information.)
ARB Meeting Date
January 8, 2018
Staff Contact
Margaret Maliszewski
SITE HISTORY
In 1998, the ARB completed a review of the parking lot located at the south end of this parcel along Rt. 250, and in 2002 the ARB reviewed field
lighting. Staff attended a balloon test for the current proposal on December 7, 2017.
DETAILS OF PROPOSED PROJECT
• Install a 145' -tall galvanized steel monopole in a 35' x 75' fenced compound located at the edge of a wooded area north of the football field and
approximately 1450' from the EC.
• Allow for 5 antenna arrays. The 145' location would be reserved for school use. The 135' location is for Shentel. Three additional carriers are
illustrated below the Shentel array.
• The top of the monopole would stand at an elevation of 831' AMSL. The top elevations of 8 trees in the vicinity have been provided. They range
from 729.2' to 770.8' — 60' to 102' below the top of the proposed pole. Approximately 65 trees would be removed from the immediate area to
accommodate the pole, ground equipment and related items.
• Six Eastern Red Cedar trees would be added along the south side of the compound.
• As illustrated in the Monopole Elevation Plan, the Shentel array consists of a 12'6" platform with handrail, 9 panel antennas ranging from 5.25' to
8.25' tall (though 6 are listed in the Antenna Details Sheet), I MW antenna, and 9 — 12 RRHs (information varies).
• Five lease areas would be established in the fenced compound. The Shentel lease area would include multiple cabinets on a steel platform and a cable
bridge. A transformer, utility frame, additional cabinets and the monopole would be located in the larger compound.
• Special Exceptions are requested as outlined on the next page.
• Other Relevant Information
o 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 constructed. The County may only deny changes to the facility if
• The tower is increased in height by more than 20% or
• Antenna or other equipment would protrude more than 20' 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.
Please see Attachment A for additional information on this issue.
SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUESTS
Standard Requirement
Special Exception Requested*
Applicant's Reasoning
Staff Comment
5.1.40(b)(2)(a) Number of arrays. The
To allow 5 arrays on the
Increasing pole height and allowing
The five arrays will be highly visible.
total number of arrays of antennas
monopole.
more than 3 arrays would reduce the
Because vertical separation is
shall not exceed three (3). All types of
from the Route 250 Entrance Corridor due to
need for additional poles and would
required between arrays, each
antennas and dishes, regardless of
distance, the topography of the site, and existing
maximize profits for the School
additional array increases pole height
their use, shall be counted toward the
vegetation (on- and off-site).
Board.
and visibility. Increasing pole height
limit of three arrays.
to limit the need for additional poles
is inconsistent with county policy,
which calls for facilities with limited
visual impact.
5.1.40.b(2)(c) Projection shall be no
To permit arrays that will stand
The greater stand-off would permit
The array mounting platform will be
greater than 12" from facility to
off from the monopole greater
optimum service using a single array
highly visible, much more so than if
closest point of back of antenna and
than the referenced
and would make the most efficient
the antennas were flush -mounted.
no greater than 18" to furthest point
measurements.
use of the facility. The desired
The method of antenna attachment is
of back of antenna.
technologies cannot be accommoda-
inconsistent with county policy
ted with flush -mounted antennas.
because it increases visual impacts.
4.2.5(1)(3)(d) Critical slopes.
To allow disturbance of critical
A critical slopes waiver is needed for
The area of critical slopes is not
slopes.
grading related to temporary
visible from the Entrance Corridor.
construction access behind the
bleachers.
*Note that the applicant has withdrawn the request for the monopole to retain its gray galvanized color and would now like to paint the pole the standard
brown color, explaining that the brown color will camouflage the pole better when the leaves are off the trees and will coordinate with the ball field pole
lights which are made of wood.
ANALYSIS REGARDING THE GROUND EQUIPMENT
A Certificate of Appropriateness from the ARB is required for the base equipment portion of a proposed telecommunications facility in the Entrance
Corridors. The ARB may impose conditions on the Certificate of Appropriateness, based on the EC Guidelines, and consistent with Section 5.1.40 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Ref
Guideline
Issues
Recommendations
Accessory structures and equipment
17
The following should be screened to
The ground equipment is not expected to be visible
Because it is not expected to be visible
eliminate visibility from the Entrance
from the Route 250 Entrance Corridor due to
from the Entrance Corridor, staff
Corridor street:
distance, the topography of the site, and existing
recommends approval of a Certificate of
e) Mechanical equipment
vegetation (on- and off-site).
Appropriateness for the ground equipment.
ANALYSIS REGARDING VISIBILITY OF THE FACILITY
The ARB may act in an advisory capacity to the Agent as to whether the facility is being sited to minimize its visibility.
Ref
Guideline
Issues
Recommendations
33
The
During the December 7 balloon test, Route 250 West was traveled in the vicinity of the high school to
As viewed from
relationship of
assess visibility of the proposed monopole from the EC. The balloon was visible from two locations on
the EC, screening
buildings and
this day: 1) near the intersection of Rt. 250 with Old Trail Drive near the entrance to the high school, and
of the monopole is
other
2) between 5801 and 5861 Rockfish Gap Turnpike in front of Brownsville Elementary School. In both
provided primarily
structures to
locations, the balloon was visible for approximately 400' along the EC and the balloon was
by off-site trees
the Entrance
approximately 1300' or more away from the EC. There was no wooded backdrop for the balloon when it
outside of the
Corridor street
was visible. The balloon was sky -lit.
control of the
and to other
School Board.
development
Near the Old Trail Drive intersection and the entrance to the school property, the balloon was visible well
Consequently, the
within the
above the distant trees. (See photos 1 and 2.) The view was over the chain link fence that runs parallel to
facility is not being
corridor
the EC and between trees located in the grass area near the fence. Just west of the fence, on site trees, and
sited to minimize
should be as
possibly some trees in the right-of-way, blocked the view of the balloon. (See trees at left end of photo 1.)
its visibility if
follows:
West of the school parcel, near Brownsville Elementary School and the driveways to 5801 and 5861
visual impacts are
f. The
Rockfish Gap Turnpike, the balloon was again visible above the distant trees. (See photos 3 and 4.) The
to be resolved on
placement of
view was through and beyond overhead utility lines and amidst trees on the residential properties and
site. Visibility from
structures on
possibly in the right-of-way. Without these trees on the residential parcels, the view of the balloon would
the EC can be
the site should
have been significantly greater. The view would have been more direct and more sustained. The School
reduced, but not
respect
Board does not have control over the trees on these residential properties.
eliminated, with
existing views
the addition of
and vistas on
In both cases where the balloon was visible, the relatively short view window along the EC, the distance
evergreen trees in
and around the
between the EC and the balloon, and leaves on the trees helped mitigate the view. However, the amount
the lawn area
site.
of monopole that will be visible above the adjacent wooded area is pronounced, the diameter of the pole
adjacent to the
is significantly greater than that of the string from which the balloon was flown, the visibility of the
chain link fence.
platform mounting for the antennas will be significantly greater than that of the balloon, and it will be
repeated for a total of 5 arrays. Furthermore, offsite wooded area is contributing significantly to the
reduction in visibility. Should that wooded area be lost, the view of the monopole from the EC would
increase dramatically.
Along the EC frontage near the chain link fence on school property, the addition of a few trees in the
lawn area adjacent to the fence (Photo 5) could nearly eliminate visibility of the pole from this vantage
point. Committing to retaining all on-site trees (and replacing those that die) south of the soccer field
would help maintain certainty of the view from this vantage point into the future. The School Board does
not control the frontage of other parcels along the EC, so there is no guarantee that visibility of the facility
will not increase in the future in these areas.
ca
. lk, Isovs SWI
M'p fjof) i
2rr_F pq7'°OA "`p09 2012 STATE CHAMPIONS
STATE CHMIOI
,gyp a pi
jto!
SYS
13V
OUNTR-t
LMPIONS
- `vii
ITY G0Ar
e Champions
., '.:.yam.. _ `�: �y��,� "`' �,��. .. t i� Aie �E -k'� �:
- � r i�ti�jtr � o m,
3
i
�'s"'�p
i''�!
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding the Certificate of Appropriateness for the ground equipment and base station:
Because the ground equipment is not expected to be visible from the Entrance Corridor, staff recommends approval of the Certificate of
Appropriateness, as proposed, for the ground equipment and base station.
Regarding visibility of the monopole:
Staff recommends that the ARB forward the following recommendations to the Agent:
As viewed from the EC, screening of the monopole is provided primarily by off-site trees outside of the control of the School Board. Should
that off-site wooded area adjacent to the Rt. 250 EC be lost, the view of the monopole from the EC is expected to increase dramatically.
Consequently, the facility is not being sited to minimize its visibility, particularly if visual impacts are to be resolved on site. Visibility of the
pole from 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 special exceptions requested for the number
of arrays and the standoff distance would further contribute to the visibility of the pole and, therefore, are not supported.
TABLE A This report is based on the following submittal items:
Sheet #
Drawing Name
Revision Date
Z0.0
Cover Sheet
10/30/2017
Z0.1
Adjoiners Exhibit
10/30/2017
Z0.2
Surrounding Topography Exhibit
10/30/2017
Z1.0
Notes and Details
10/30/2017
Z2.0
Existing Conditions & Tree Survey
10/30/2017
Z2.1
Demolition Plan
10/30/2017
Z3.0
Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
10/30/2017
Z4.0
Site Plan
10/30/2017
Z5.0
Compound Plan
10/30/2017
Z6.0
Monopole Elevation Plan
10/30/2017
Z7.0
Shentel Antenna Details
10/30/2017
Z8.0
Shentel Radio Head Details
10/30/2017
Z9.0
Shentel Equipment Layout Plan
10/30/2017
Z10.0
Shentel Fiber Distribution and PTC Cabinet Details
10/30/2017
Z11.0
Shentel Equipment Cabinet Details
10/30/2017
Z12.0
Compound Details
10/30/2017
Applicant's narrative and project description
CSN L/y�
r.
Count• of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
lfemorandum
To: Christopher Perez
From: Bill Fritz, .ICP
Date: March 21, 2016
Subject: SP 2016-01 .Ibemar•le 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 tole, in pact, 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 hntited. The County may only deny changes to the facility if-
The
f
The tower is increased in height by more than 20 feet or
Antenna or other equipment would protrude more than twenty feet front 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 `conceahtent 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 inchuhng any
applicable requirement of section 5.1.30 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 s" lighted.
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 staffidentify for the Board what if anv 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 "conceahnent elements
of the eligible support structure'. Without citing any "concealment elements of the eligible support struct re' the
Couaty 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 I will
prepare something.
ATTACHMENT A
10