HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201000002 Review Comments Preliminary Site Plan 2010-04-27ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
Project #: Name
ARB: 2010 -02: Singleton (AT &T)
Review Type
Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan
Parcel Identification
Tax Map 58A1, Parcel 40F1
Location
2856 Morgantown Road (SR 738), approximately 600' from the intersection
of Morgantown Road and Ivy Road (SR 250)
Zoned
Village Residential (VR), Entrance Corridor (EC)
Owner
Ann P. Singleton/New Cingular Wireless PCS
Applicant
AT &T/Williams Mullen, Katherine Carmichael
Magisterial District
Samuel Miller
Proposal
To construct a treetop personal wireless service facility with a height of 10'
above the reference tree.
ARB Meeting Date
May 3, 2010
Staff Contact
Brent Nelson
PROJECT HISTORY
Balloon tests for this proposal were conducted on February 10, 2010 and February 23, 2010. The results of
both tests were presented to the ARB at the March 15, 2010 review. The Board, by a vote of 4:0, denied the
request (Attachment A). On March 18, the applicant requested an appeal of the ARB's decision. An April 5,
2010 letter (Attachment B) submitted by the applicant in support of the appeal referenced another balloon test
(conducted on March 31) which staff had not been invited to view and at which the balloon was flown from a
new location approximately 13.5' northwest of the proposed monopole location. With this new information it
became evident that the location from which the balloon was flown in February was also not the proposed
monopole location, but was approximately 14' east of the monopole. In each of these tests, it was overhead
tree branches at the location of the monopole that did not permit a balloon launch directly from the monopole
location. The applicant's April letter (Attachment B, paragraph 3), states that the launch location for the
March test (Attachment H) more accurately represents the proposed location of the monopole as viewed from
westbound lane of Route 250W while descending into the Village of Ivy. That view was the problematic view
in the ARB's previous review of the proposal. Staff explained to the applicant that it would not be useful or
efficient to present information to the BOS that the ARB had not yet reviewed, so the applicant agreed to
conduct another balloon test that could be attended by staff, using the March 31 balloon location. That test
was performed on April 16, 2010. The results of that test are addressed in the analysis section of this report.
• 4/8/10: ARB 2010 -2, Singleton Property, AT &T, appeal request withdrawn to allow time for an
additional balloon test and review of proposal by the ARB.
• 3/18/10: ARB 2010 -2, Singleton Property, AT &T, request received for an appeal of the March 15,
2010 ARB decision to the Board of Supervisors. The appeal was scheduled for the May 5, 2010 Board
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT &T), Preliminary - Page 1
of Supervisors meeting.
3/15/10: ARB 2010 -2, Singleton Property, AT &T, request to construct a treetop personal wireless
service facility, with a height 10' above the reference tree, denied by a vote of 4:0.
1/12/10: SDP 2010 -3, Singleton Property, AT &T, application received for a Preliminary Site
Development Plan. A date for the Planning Commission review has not been established at this time.
PROJECT DETAILS
The applicant proposes to establish a telecommunications facility consisting of the following items in a 20' x
30' (600 sf) lease area:
• Proposed steel monopole, painted SW #6090 Java Brown, 69' tall, height 10' above the top of the
Reference Tree (11" caliper Ash).
• One proposed equipment cabinet and one future generator on an 11.5' x 20' concrete pad located in
the lease area. Each cabinet is 4' -23" (w) x 3' (d) x 5' -3" (h).
• One panel board and utility rack light.
• Coaxial cables.
• Three panel antennas painted SW #6090 Java Brown, each measuring 51.6" (h) x 12.1" (w), installed
with pipe mounts permitting down tilting not to exceed a maximum of 12" between face of pole and
face of antenna. Top elevation of each antenna below top elevation of monopole.
Other pertinent information:
Access to site provided by an existing paved
ingress /egress /utility easement.
11" caliper Ash Reference Tree is 57' tall (652.0'
driveway located within a proposed 20' wide
AMSL).
CONTEXT
The proposed site is located on a parcel adjoining the north side of Morgantown Road (State Route 738),
approximately 600' southwest of the intersection with Route 250W. The lease area is heavily wooded and
situated approximately 65' above and 300' south of the Route 250W right -of -way. This section of the Route
250W EC includes a mix of small commercial businesses making up the Village of Ivy, open agricultural
fields and patches of mixed hardwood /evergreen forest amongst farms and single family homes.
ANALYSIS based on:
Civil Drawings, all with the latest revision date of 3/5/10:
• Sheet T -1 Title Sheet • Sheet A -6 Details
• Sheet C -1 Survey
• Sheet A -0 Site Plan
• Sheet A -1 Compound Plan and Elevation
• Sheet A -2 Foundation Details
• Sheet A -3 Equipment Specs
• Sheet A -4 Equipment Specs
• Sheet A -5 Tree Heights Diagram
• Sheet A -7 Notes
• Sheet A -8 Notes
• Sheet A -9 Fence
• Sheet A -10 Sight Distance Analysis
• Sheet ES -1 Erosion & Sediment Control
Details
• Sheet L -1 Landscape Details
Additional Information Provided:
• Photo simulations at 10' above the reference tree including:
0 1 from Route 250W adjacent to the Exxon station
0 1 from the north side of Route 250W just east of the Exxon station
Letter from applicant dated 4/5/2010
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT &T), Preliminary - Page 2
Issue: Visibility
Comments: ARB staff attended a balloon test on Friday, April 16, 2010. Due to existing overhead branches,
the balloon was launched from a location approximately 13.5' northwest of the proposed monopole and to the
height of the monopole, 10' above the reference tree. The balloon was highly visible, sky -lit and oriented
directly in front of the viewer while descending the hill for a distance of approximately 350', westbound into
the Village of Ivy (Attachments C, D & E). The balloon was visible in the vicinity of three evergreen trees
which appeared to the left and right of the balloon and which did not provide a wooded backdrop for the
balloon. The balloon continued to be visible, but to a lesser degree, for another 300' westbound on Route
250W. The balloon test did not replicate the balloon location shown in the applicant's photo renderings from
their March 31" test (Attachments F & G), likely a result of the breezy conditions that day. The balloon
consistently appeared (Attachments D & E) to the right, or north, of the location shown in the applicant's photo
renderings.
The balloon was not visible from points along Route 250W west of the site, and the balloon's visibility from
points along Route 250W adjacent to the site was sufficiently mitigated by the wooded area between the site
and the EC. The lease area and associated ground equipment are not expected to be visible from the EC.
Due to the inability to reproduce the March 31s` test results, it was suggested that the applicant provide a
drawing demonstrating that the balloon location (and resulting photo rendering) was based upon the launch
location witnessed by staff on April 16'h and that it was a more accurate representation of the view of the
proposed monopole from the westbound lane of Route 250W as described above. That drawing was provided
(Attachment H). It shows the launch locations on February IO'h /23`a and March 31S` /April 16'h, the proposed
monopole location, and the location of two of the evergreen trees that appear to the left and right of the balloon
in the field and in the photo renderings. Those trees are located to the east of the proposed monopole and are
off -site. The drawing does appear to verify that the balloon location, shown in the photo renderings
(Attachments F & G), is an accurate representation of the view of the proposed monopole location, as viewed
while traveling westbound into Ivy.
The applicant's April 5 letter (Attachment B) maintains that visibility of the proposed facility is sufficiently
mitigated due to its proximity to existing evergreen trees (see Attachment F, photo rendering). These trees
appear to be off -site evergreens located on the Sofka property, 2850 Morgantown Road, which is situated to
the east of the proposed site. Whereas the applicant's photo rendering does demonstrate that the monopole
would rise between two of these trees, helping to reduce the pole's noticeability, the small number of trees and
their off -site location is an issue. Typically, off -site vegetation is not relied upon for mitigation of a proposed
development in the ECs due to the lack of control over off -site resources. The ARB has given consideration to
off -site screening for wireless proposals when the number of trees was significantly larger, creating larger
masses of tree canopy and, typically, an adequate wooded backdrop. This proposal has no wooded backdrop as
viewed from the Route 250W hill, and the mitigation for this view is provided by only two or three off -site
trees. Although there appears to be no immediate concern for the loss of these trees, the lack of on -site
mitigation is a point of concern.
The EC Guidelines state that:
Mechanical equipment and above - ground utilities should be screened to eliminate visibility from the
EC street.
New development should reflect that traditional architecture of the area.
New development should promote orderly and attractive development within the ECs.
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT &T), Preliminary - Page 3
• New development should establish a pattern of compatible architectural characteristics throughout the
EC to achieve unity and coherence.
• Site development should be sensitive to the existing natural landscape and should contribute to the
creation of an organized development plan. This may be accomplished by ... limiting the building
mass and height to a scale that does not overpower the natural settings of the site or the Entrance
Corridor.
• The placement of structures on the site should respect existing views and vistas on and around the site.
The proposal would not eliminate visibility of the monopole from the EC street. A monopole does not reflect
traditional architecture; it is a conspicuously modern -day object. The contrast of the monopole to the
surrounding scenic vista would not promote orderly or attractive development. The monopole would stand out
as an incompatible element in the landscape. It would significantly alter the vista that is viewed traveling west
into Ivy. That vista is an important one. Entrance into this setting announces arrival in the village. The older
buildings in Ivy, the properties along the section of the Rt. 250 West corridor, and the general scenic quality of
the area all combine to establish a unique character for Ivy, and a setting that is locally significant. The
visibility of the monopole would have a negative impact on that character and setting.
Recommendations: Staff cannot support the proposal because:
• visibility of the facility would not be eliminated,
• the visible monopole does not reflect the traditional architecture of the area, nor orderly or attractive
development,
• the degree of visibility does not establish compatibility, unity or coherence in the Entrance Corridor,
• the degree of visibility of the monopole is not sensitive to the landscape and would alter an important
vista, and
• there is no on -site mitigation for the objectionable view.
Recommendations: Staff cannot support the proposed monopole due to the degree of visibility as the viewer
descends westbound into Ivy and due to the lack of on -site mitigation.
Note: Should this application be approved as currently proposed, the issues /comments that follow in this report
should be addressed.
Issues: Grading/Tree Protection/Tree Conservation Plan & Arborist Report
Comments: Sheet A -1 Compound Plan & Elevation shows proposed AT &T equipment to be located on an
11.5' x 20' concrete pad inside of the 20' x 30' lease area. Temporary tree protection is shown outside all lease
area boundaries except for the southwest corner. Permanent tree protection is shown just outside of the
southwest corner of the lease area. Sheet A -6 Details contains the drawing Tree Protection Details showing
several types of tree protection; however, this application does not indicate which type is to be temporary and
which is to be permanent. Proposed grading required, if any, is not indicated on the drawing. Possible impacts
on the trees by the proposed pad and monopole are not clear from the information provided with this
application. Verification is needed from a certified arborist that all proposed grading and the construction of
the concrete pad and monopole would not be detrimental to the health of the trees designated as remaining. A
tree conservation plan, with measures limiting impacts on existing trees to remain, will need to be submitted
and approved before the Certificate of Appropriateness can be issued. Sheet A -1 Compound Plan & Elevation
references an arborist's conservation plan; however, that plan was not included with this submission.
Recommendations: Revise all applicable drawings to indicate which type of tree protection is to be temporary,
which is to be permanent and what grading, if any, is proposed. Provide verification from a certified arborist
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT &T), Preliminary - Page 4
that the location of the proposed concrete equipment pad, monopole and all required grading will not harm the
existing trees currently designated as remaining. Provide a tree conservation plan with measures proposed that
would limit impacts of this proposal on all existing trees designated as remaining.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends the following as the primary points of discussion:
1. Anticipated visibility of the monopole and negative impacts from the Entrance Corridor.
2. Impacts, by grading and site design, on the reference tree and other existing trees designated to remain.
Staff does not recommend approval of the proposed telecommunications facility. If the proposed facility is
approved, the following comments would need to be addressed.
1. Revise all applicable drawings to indicate which type of tree protection is to be temporary, which is to be
permanent and what grading, if any, is proposed. Provide verification from a certified arborist that the
location of the proposed concrete equipment pad, monopole and all required grading will not harm the
existing trees currently designated as remaining. Provide a tree conservation plan with measures proposed
that would limit impacts of this proposal on all existing trees designated as remaining.
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT &T), Preliminary - Page 5
Attachment A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
March 19, 2010
Williams Mullen
c/o Kathryn M. Carmichael, Esq.
321 E. Main St., Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ARB- 2010 -02: Singleton (AT &T)
Tax Map 58A1, Parcel 401`1
Dear Ms. Carmichael:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above -noted item at its meeting on Monday, March 15, 2010.
The Board, by a vote of 4:0 denied the request to construct a treetop personal wireless service facility with a height of 10' above
the reference tree.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Brent Nelson
Landscape Planner
cc: Singleton, Ann P
P O Box 58
Ivy Va 22945
Gerald Gatobu, Current Development
File
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT &T), Preliminary - Page 6
Attachment B
TM
WILLIAMS MULLEN
Dieea DnL43051-570I
Irtx r m � due l� l lgr�i u l kn +caro
April 5, 2010
VIA EMAIL: bncJsuu`uxa[tlerraarle.a�r�
Mr. Brent Nelson
Dcsign Manner
Albeniarle County Architectural Review Board
401 McIntire Road
Albemarle County, VA 22902
Re: ARB 2410 - 02: Singleton (AT&T Site CV 326 )
Dear Brent:
AU nhe d please find two additional photo simulations for the above referenced AT&T propmcd
facility for molusure in the Board of Supervi sors materials.
In an effort to provide the =W accurate visual simulation of the proposed facility, AT &T
perfo m d an additional balloon test on M=h 3V4 flying the balloon at the application height of
b9 feet. As you may recall, during both of 6-- initial balloon tests at this site on Febmary 4"' and
Febmary 23d, the balloon was flown at approximately 8 Feet to the southeast of the actual
location of the proposed tower due to ground conditions and intervening tree iimlas_ Whilc we
w= unable to fly the balloon at the exact Jmation, again, because of the intervening tree limbs,
our engineer dctemm n al that flying the balloon parallel to the proposed facility location, shifted
as few feet back, provides a more prooise perspective from the Entrance Corridor of Route 250.
As you can see from the map I have enclosed of the lcaaw urea, I have ouilincd anproximaieiy
where all three balloon test lucaafions have occurred.
As you will see from the attached photo simulations, as a result of the more accurate perspective
of the proposed tower, there is even irtore mitigation of the visibility of the~ tap of the proposed
tower because of its proximity to the uvergreen trees which provide screening-
It is irnportaniI, because of the close proximity [a the evergreen trees as evi('enccd by the
enclosed photo simulations, that AT&T remain at the tower height proposed in the application of
69 feet. Evergreen trcc�s absorb the signal and therefore can decrease coverage capability.
Re.maaining at 69 fleet will aid AT&T in sufficie nEy compensating for the nearby cvergreen trees
resulting in reliable, consistent wireless coverage_
A Prnfssavnffl Ceeperaaron
NORTH CAROLkNA ■ VrRGTNIA , WASHINGron, D,C. • LORD -0im -... -_ ;e7
321 EZK Mlin SI.,SLdW400 0121"WS i9e, VA 229D2.3W0 Tel 434.951.5nO Fax.904.783.6SU7 or 434.817911-777
WWW-4111 A M aalleels, min
Attachment B
WILLIAMS MULLEN
April S, 2010
Page
We apprucialc the Opportunity to provide you with thcsc additional materials in preparation for
the Boird tai' Sujxrvi.sors hearing, PLGasc do not hcsitat o contact me -with any questions.
R,,
K th M. Carmichael
1= :�c:losures
CC' Valerie W. Gong (with enclosures)
Gerry Sharpe, SAI (with cnel ostzrms)
75n* a -L.oar
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT &T), Preliminary - Page 8
Attachment C
ARB 10 -2: AT &T — Singleton
Balloon Test - Location Map
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT &T), Preliminary - Page 9
Attachment D
ARB 2010 -2, AT &T- Singleton: Staff Photo (taken April 16, 2010)
Location 1
Balloon at 10' above Reference Tree
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT &T), Preliminary - Page 10
Attachment E
ARB 2010 -2, AT &T- Singleton: Staff Photo (taken April 16, 2010)
Location 2
Balloon at 10' above Reference Tree
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT &T), Preliminary - Page 11
Attachment F
Photo Simulation at 10' above Reference Tree — Location 1
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT &T), Preliminary - Page 12
Attachment G
Photo Simulation at 10' above Reference Tree — Location 2
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT &T), Preliminary - Page 13
ARB 5/3/2010 Singleton (AT &T), Preliminary - Page 14