Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutARB201500101 Staff Report 2015-09-14ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT Project #/Name ARB -2015-101: Southland/River's Edge Tier 1 Review Type Tier 1 Personal Wireless Service Facility Parcel Identification 078B0010010100 Location Approximately 200' west of Rt. 20, south of Winding River Lane Zoned Commercial (Cl)/Entrance Corridor (EC) Owner/Applicant River's Edge III LLC/Stephen Waller Magisterial District Rivanna Proposal To install a telecommunications facility consisting of a monopole with an antenna array mounted on a platform, all within an existing high tension power transmission lattice support structure. Context The site is centered in a small complex of office buildings adjacent to a heavily developed commercial area and within a power line easement. ARB Meeting Date September 21, 2015 Staff Contact Margaret Maliszewski HISTORY The ARB reviewed and approved the three office buildings surrounding the site of the proposed facility. A high tension power transmission lattice support structure stands on the site. 19 :1131 BE" 8 11 DI W.1Iski A 450 -square -foot lease area would be established around the existing lattice tower. The lattice tower is located on a grassy knoll and has a base elevation of 358.6' AMSL. The grass knoll is surrounded on all sides by paving. A monopole would be installed inside the existing lattice structure. The top of the existing structure is 115' AGL. The top of the monopole will be 130' AGL. The proposed pole location is approximately 225' from the EC. Base station equipment is proposed to be located directly under the tower between the foundation piers. Ground equipment includes: 144 sf steel platform, cabinets for radio transmitters and backup batteries, H -frame utility stand with power and communications components, ice canopy, cable bridge, emergency back-up generator on a concrete pad. The ice canopy and cable bridge are 10' tall. A screening fence would be installed around the base compound to screen views from the EC and from within the office complex. Antennas would be installed in a three -sectored array on a platform at the top of the monopole, with 4 antennas on each of the three sides, for a total of 12 antennas. The top of the antennas will reach a maximum height of 135' AGL, which is 20' above the top of the existing lattice structure. Each face of the antenna platform measures 14' 6" long and supports four panel antennas. A special exception is requested to modify the requirement that limits the projection of antennas to no more than 12" from the back of the antenna to the facility, and no more than 18" from the front of the antenna to the facility. The triangular antenna arrangement means the projection limits cannot be met. The triangular arrangement meets Dominion Power's requirements. The proposed antennas measure 74.9" high x 12" wide x 6.5" deep and 102" high x 12" wide x 7.1" deep. A 4' tall lightning rod would be installed at the top of the monopole. Equipment will be painted to match the rust color of the existing lattice structure. 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 The fenced ground equipment proposed to be installed under the lattice tower is expected Coordinate the screened to eliminate to have a conspicuous appearance. The screening fence is proposed as a board -on -board notes on Sheets C 1 visibility from the Entrance design, either 6' or 8' tall. (Some equipment is 10' tall.) The fence material is alternately and S 1 regarding Corridor street: proposed as wood or PVC. (Sheet Cl indicates an 8' -tall board on board fence. Sheet S-1 the height and e) Mechanical equipment indicates a 6' -tall board on board wooden or PVC fence.) PVC is not recommended for materials of the the fence because it tends to have a shiny finish that does not resemble wood. The screening fence. applicant indicates that a wooden fence is acceptable. Board -on -board fences are used PVC shall not be elsewhere in the corridors to screen dumpsters and other equipment, but here the fence is used for the expected to increase the negative impact of the view at ground level. The fenced screening fence. structure will block the view of a portion of the office building to the west, as seen from the EC. Moving the equipment to a different location that is less visible from the Provide Entrance Corridor would help reduce impacts, but the applicant indicates that this is not landscaping around possible because of other site constraints. Adding a mixed planting of trees along the the edge of the edge of the grassy knoll could provide a more natural screen that blends better with the grassy knoll to surroundings. screen views of the equipment from the A facility similar to the current proposal was approved next to the Clean Machine car ECs. A staggered, wash at the southeast corner of the intersection of Rt. 250 and Riverbend Drive. There, mixed planting landscaping was installed around ground equipment. Tall shrubs (or small trees) block would be some of the equipment from view, but not all of it. There is more visual clutter in the appropriate. immediate surrounding area at the car wash site than at the Rivers Edge site, and the car wash facility is located much closer to the road (approximately 100') than the proposed Rivers Edge facility is. U./:ISIM K's ;3D[e3:1:717WOW KI1:31NYM1c13aIamIDoUWQINIWd 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 Development pattern 33 The relationship of The existing lattice tower is visible along the Rt. 20 Entrance Corridor from the intersection Given the extent of buildings and other with Rt. 250 to the Elk Drive intersection at Darden Towe Park. This is increased visibility in the existing structures to the Entrance recent months since wooded area has been removed from the Riverside Village development negative impact, Corridor street and to site. The tower is also visible from limited vantage points further north on Rt. 20 in the the proposed other development vicinity of Franklin Drive. These views are quite distant, have a backdrop, and are hard to see. monopole and within the corridor On Rt. 250, the existing tower is visible intermittently from the Free Bridge to the Rt. 20/250 antennas are not should be as follows: intersection. At the intersection, the tower is clearly visible. The tower is also intermittently expected to f. The placement of visible further east on Rt. 250. There is a brief view available in the vicinity of the Ford auto significantly structures on the site dealership when traveling westbound. There may also be other views available further east on increase visibility should respect existing Rt. 250 as the elevation of the road rises, but the distance, the backdrop, and the surrounding of the facility or its views and vistas on and visual clutter severely limit noticeability. negative impact. around the site. The proposed monopole will increase the height of the existing facility by 20' and this could increase the visibility somewhat along the corridors. A balloon test to ascertain this visibility cannot be conducted due to safety issues with the power lines. The applicant has produced some photosimulations and does not believe the visibility along the corridors will increase. If there is any increase in the amount of time the tower/monopole are visible, the increase is not expected to be great due to the alignment of the roads and other intervening development that screens the tower or reduces noticeability. Adding the pole inside the lattice tower isn't considered to be a significant increase in negative impact. The antenna platform rising above the tower is more obvious and less compatible, but is still not a significant increase in negative impact, given the current appearance of the lattice tower and transmission lines. Dominion Power will not approve new antennas direct -mounted to their lattice power structures, or placed below the top static line, so a monopole in this location cannot be reduced from the proposed height and the antennas cannot be installed at a lower elevation. This proposal is similar to the existing facility located next to the Clean Machine car wash at the southeast corner of the intersection of Rt. 250 and Riverbend Drive. There, a monopole was erected inside a lattice tower and the antennas rise 10' above the top of the lattice Ref Guideline Issues Recommendations Drawing Name Revision Date structure. (Dominion Power's requirements were different when this monopole was erected.) Title Sheet 7/9/15 S5 Despite the 10' increase in height, given the significant negative impact already existing with 7/9/15 Z1 Site Plan the lattice tower structure, the addition of the monopole within the structure was not E1 Electrical Plan & Details 7/9/15 considered to be a significant increase in negative impact. This concept applies to the current Compound Plan 7/9/15 E2 proposal, as well. The appearance of the existing lattice tower and its position in the 7/9/15 C2 Tower Elevation & Mount Details commercial development are already so undesirably prominent that the addition of a E3 Electrical Panel Schedule Diagram & Notes 7/9/15 monopole and antenna platform are not expected to cause a significant increase in negative Equipment Plan & Elevations 7/9/15 E4 visual impacts. In addition, the expansion of an existing facility potentially has much less 7/9/15 S1 Construction Details & Notes impact than building in another, new location would. G1 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Re ag rding the Certificate of Appropriateness for the Bound equipment and base station: 1. Coordinate the notes on Sheets C1 and S1 regarding the height and materials of the screening fence. PVC shall not be used for the screening fence. 2. Provide landscaping around the edge of the grassy knoll to screen views of the equipment from the ECs. A staggered, mixed planting would be appropriate. Re ag rding visibility of the monopole: Staff recommends that the ARB forward the following recommendation to the Agent: Given the extent of the existing negative impact, the proposed monopole and antennas are not expected to significantly increase visibility of the facility or its negative impact. TABLE A This report is based on the following submittal items: Sheet # Drawing Name Revision Date Sheet # Drawing Name Revision Date T1 Title Sheet 7/9/15 S5 Site Signage Details 7/9/15 Z1 Site Plan 7/9/15 E1 Electrical Plan & Details 7/9/15 C1 Compound Plan 7/9/15 E2 Riser Diagram & Service Entrance Schematic 7/9/15 C2 Tower Elevation & Mount Details 7/9/15 E3 Electrical Panel Schedule Diagram & Notes 7/9/15 Al Equipment Plan & Elevations 7/9/15 E4 Electrical Conduit Schematic 7/9/15 S1 Construction Details & Notes 7/9/15 G1 Grounding Plan & Details 7/9/15 S2 Generator Details 7/9/15 G2 Grounding Riser Diagram, Details & Notes 7/9/15 S3 Equipment Platform Details 7/9/15 P1 Gas Piping Details 7/9/15 S4 Ice Canopy Framing Details 7/9/15