Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201000002 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2010-03-29AA WILLIAMS MULLEN Direct Dial: 434.951.5701 kcarmichael @williamsmulten.com March 29, 2010 VIA EMAIL: bnelsonnn albemarle.or Mr. Brent Nelson Design Planner Albemarle County Architectural Review Board 401 McIntire Road Albemarle County, VA 22902 Re: ARB 2010 - 02: Singleton (AT &T Site CV 326 Dear Brent On behalf of our client New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC d/b /a AT &T, I appreciate the opportunity to provide additional background information about AT &T's proposed wireless telecommunications facility known as "CV 326 Singleton" in connection with its review by the Board of Supervisors on May Stn AT &T has identified a need for improved wireless telecommunications coverage along Route 250 in the Ivy area where there is a gap in its coverage that causes its customers to drop existing calls, and also prevents them from initiating calls. AT &T has also identified the need to improve its service in the residential neighborhoods along Owensville Road, Dick Woods Road, Martha's Way, and Morgantown Road where coverage is either non - existent, unreliable or insufficient for so- called "in- building" coverage. AT &T also desires to provide wireless telecommunications coverage to the businesses located along Route 250 in the Ivy area. The proposed wireless telecommunications facility would be no more than 10 feet above the reference tree. Based on the height of the reference tree, this would result in a facility that is no taller than 69 feet. Because the proposed lease area is surrounded by a grove of trees, the proposed facility is substantially hidden from view of the County's Entrance Corridor (the "EC") except for the top of the facility. An effective wireless telecommunications network requires radio signals to travel from one facility to another to create an interconnected network of seamless coverage. The antenna panels at the top of the pole must extend above the height of the trees for the signal to be effective in connecting to an adjacent facility. In fact, that is why this particular facility is needed — when the network was originally designed several years ago, it was expected that the signal would connect between the two facilities on either side. Unfortunately, however, AT &T has discovered through testing its network, and also through a high volume of customer complaints, that its wireless coverage is not consistent along this portion of Route 250. A Professional Corporation NORTH CAROLINA • VIRGINIA • WASHINGTON, D.C. • LONDON 321 East Main St., Suite 400 Chulotte ille, VA 22902 -3200 Tel: 434.951.5700 Fax: 804.783.6507 or 434.817.0977 www.williamsm ullen. tom AA WILLIAMS MULLEN March 29, 2010 Page 2 This proposed facility is designed to bridge the gap between existing facilities in its network and eliminate the gap in its coverage to ensure consistent and reliable service for its customers and for emergency personnel who might rely upon it. Because it is vital that the antenna panels extend above the tree tops to enable the signal to reach the other facilities in the network, the entire facility cannot be made invisible, as that would render the facility useless and prevent the establishment of high quality, reliable service. The proposal provides a facility which is substantially mitigated by its design and through existing tree cover and the Applicant's proposed installation of landscaping at the base of the facility. From the EC of Route 250, the visibility of the majority of the facility is mitigated by existing vegetation, and only the top few feet of the facility will be visible. As demonstrated by the two balloon tests we have conducted for the County staff, the top few feet of the proposed facility, which is where the antenna panels are located, are only visible along one brief point along Route 250 upon entering the Ivy area when traveling west. The span of visibility is only 650 feet, which takes a mere ten seconds to drive when traveling at the posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. The facility is not visible when traveling east along Route 250. The balloon test did demonstrate that the facility would be visible below the height of the trees, through the trees, in the winter months when viewed from the commercial areas along Route 250, but staff has determined that this visibility is not a concern, for the facility will be fully screened by vegetation during the other three seasons. The brief point along the EC where the top of the facility is visible through a gap in the existing trees when traveling west is mitigated by (1) the design of the facility; (2) the surrounding vegetation, including a number of tall evergreen trees; and (3) numerous other visual distractions along the EC. The proposed facility complies with all design criteria contained in section 5.1.40 of the zoning ordinance which helps mitigate the brief periods of visibility of the facility from the EC. For example, the proposed facility does not exceed the diameter limitations for the pole, the panel antennas are "flush- mounted" to the pole and do not extend above the top of the pole, the lightning rod meets the size limitations, the cables are run interior to the pole, the entire facility will be painted Java Brown to blend in with the surrounding area, and the height of the pole will not exceed ten feet above the top of the "reference tree." The visibility of the facility is further mitigated by the existence of a number of tall trees beyond the 25 -foot radius of the pole that are significantly taller than the proposed facility, and that lie between the facility and the EC. Several of these taller trees are evergreen trees, as is shown in the photosimulations. This vegetation and other existing trees surrounding the facility serve to sufficiently screen the facility from the EC by mitigating its visibility, subject to the inherent limitations of wireless AA M[ I WILLIAMS MULLEN March 29, 2010 Page 3 telecommunications facilities that require that the panel antennas be located above the trees (or in this case at least be located within a gap in the existing trees). The portion of the facility that is visible from the EC for a short distance in only one direction will be mitigated by its design (height, color, flush - mounted antennas) and by the fact that it is surrounded by trees that are taller than it. Finally, there are numerous visual distractions along this span of the EC that further mitigate any visibility of the proposed wireless facility. A significant number of above- ground utility poles and utility lines are located immediately adjacent to the EC, and several sets of overhead utility lines even cross over the EC. There are numerous other distractions along this commercial area, including several businesses, multiple signs, a flag pole, and the large railroad trestle bridge, among others, which further serve to mitigate the minimal visibility of the proposed facility. The short span of visibility is portrayed in the photosimulations provided to the ARB staff, which are based on several balloon tests conducted in both the summer and winter months. In each of the photosimulations, the existing utility poles and lines, signs, businesses, and the railroad trestle (with its black and white striped paint) are all visible. Regarding the existing utility poles, it is significant that they are numerous, located directly adjacent to the EC, most are not located within or even near existing vegetation, and they are not painted a dark brown color to help them blend in when they are located near trees. The photosimulations demonstrate that the minimal visibility of the top few feet of the proposed wireless facility for such a short period of time, and given the character of the surrounding area, will not adversely impact the EC. In addition to the fact that the minimal visibility of the facility is mitigated by its design, it is important to note that the proposed facility also complies with all of the Architectural Review Board (the "ARB ") Design Guidelines. At the ARB meeting on March 15th, several of the Board members were particularly focused on the one view of the proposed facility when traveling westbound on Route 250 entering the Ivy area. Members stated that the facility was objectionable because the top of the facility would be seen straight on by drivers entering Ivy for 30 to 60 seconds, rather than being visible to the side of the EC, and rather than being visible for only "about five seconds." First of all, the facility would not be visible for 30 -60 seconds as stated, but rather for only approximately ten seconds when traveling at the posted speed limit. Furthermore, neither the ARB Design Guidelines, nor any other County ordinance or policy includes any prohibition or guidelines against a facility being visible straight ahead of a driver traveling along an EC. Nor do they include any time or distance of visibility beyond which a proposed facility would be deemed to be non - compliant with the Design Guidelines. The reality is that our roads do not maintain a straight line in all areas. Especially in the rural areas of the County, the roads curve and vary in elevation, as does the topography of the area adjacent to the roadways. In many instances, as a vehicle approaches a curve in the road, areas on the side of the road will briefly appear to be right in front, until the vehicle passes through the curve itself. AA [I WILLIAMS MULLEN March 29, 2010 Page 4 In this case the roadway curves and descends as one travels west, and, as a result, for approximately ten seconds, a driver would be able to look ahead and view the very top of the facility. But the portion of the facility that will be visible straight ahead will be brown and will only be visible among a grove of trees, enabling it to blend in with the surrounding area. This visibility will be broken up by all the other visual distractions within the immediate area (utility poles, signs, buildings, and the railroad trestle bridge, among others). And just a few feet further down the roadway, the facility disappears from view entirely. The ARB Design Guidelines do not contain any provisions that prohibit a wireless facility from being visible straight on for any period of time from the EC. Nor is there any official policy in the Albemarle County Code specifying that a wireless facility may only be visible for a certain time period or for a certain distance, or only off to the side. Instead, the County zoning ordinance, through the design requirements of Section 5.1.40 of the zoning ordinance, and in recognitions of the fact that wireless facilities must be somewhat visible to be technologically effective, works to ensure that any visible portions of the facility (whether viewed straight ahead or off to the side of the EC) will be mitigated through its design and siting in a grove of a trees. Through its design (brown pole, flush mounted antennas, limited height, etc.) and its siting around a number of trees, the Applicant has ensured that any visibility of the facility from the EC will be sufficiently mitigated. As such, this specific proposed facility meets all of the requirements outlined in the Albemarle County Code and in the ARB's Design Guidelines, regardless of the distance or time of visibility of the facility. Finally, if AT &T's proposal is approved, it will be able to achieve its coverage objectives and avoid the need for two to three additional facilities on Route 250 and in the adjacent rural and residential areas to provide the necessary coverage. If AT &T's proposal is not approved, AT &T will need to construct a new facility on Route 250 and, more than likely, one to two other facilities in the residential areas surrounding Route 250 to ensure quality, reliable coverage. Each of these other facilities would need to be 7 -10 feet above the top of the trees to be functional, and would thus have some level of visibility from the EC. We contend that the aggregate increase in visibility from the EC will be minimized by this single proposed personal wireless facility as compared to having two or three additional wireless facilities in the area. We respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors approve AT &T's proposal. The proposed facility is designed such that the portion of it that will be visible will enable it to blend in with the surrounding vegetation, such that it will not result in a significant increase in visibility or adverse impact on the EC, especially given the character of the area surrounding the facility. At the same time, it will avoid the need for the two or three other facilities in the area that could result in a greater overall level of visibility from the EC. AA M[ I WILLIAMS MULLEN March 29, 2010 Page 5 Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request. Should you have any questions, please contact me at 951 -5701 or kcarmichael @williamsmullen.com. Since r armich 1 cc: Valerie W. Long, Williams Mullen Tara Brewer, AT &T Eric Nicholds, SAI Communication Gerry Sharpe,SAI Communications 111-7Z MC