The minutes of the October 7, 201 4, meeting were approved on a m otion by Martin, seconded by Woleslagel, passed unanimously.

Transcription

1 1 MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, :00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 125 EAST AVENUE B 1. The Planning Commission meeting was called to order with the following members present: Ken Peirce, Harley Macklin, Craig Johnson, Dave Freund, Jack Martin, Rod Weinmeister, Mark Woleslagel, and Josie Thompson. Curtis Mitchell was absent. Staff present: Jana McCarron, Director of Planning and Development; Casey Jones, Senior Planner; Ju stin LaFountain, Associate Planner; Amy Denker, Associate Planner; and Charlene Mosier, Secretary. 2. Thompson welcomed everyone in attendance. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the October 7, 201 4, meeting were approved on a m otion by Martin, seconded by Woleslagel, passed unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING 4a. 14-CUP-07: 301 North Halstead Street Request for a conditional use permit for a 150 monopole communication tower in the. Thompson asked if there were any outside contacts or conflicts of interest; there were none. Jones reviewed the case. The property owners are Larry and Debra Sorensen and the applicant is Richard Gaito, Nex-Tech Wireless, LLC.

2 2 The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a 150-feet-high wireless communication monopole tower on the property at 301 North Halstead Street in Hutchinson. This property is zoned. A conditional use permit is required for all towers 100 feet or more in height in non-residential districts. The tower would be located to the South of the existing billboard signs near the northwest corner of the property. An 8 x 12 equipment shelter, a generator, and an electric meter would be installed near the base of the tower. The applicant proposes to provide a 50 x 50 fenced area around the base of the tower. The fenc e would be 6 feet in height and constructed of chain link with three strands of galvanized barbed wire on top. The existing rock driveway would be extended to the tower lease area. The applicant is installing towers and antennas around Hutchinson to provid e wireless communication service to the Hutchinson area. The proposed monopole at 301 North Halstead Street would serve the neighborhoods to the West. The applicant has provided detailed construction plans, including a site plan and elevation drawings of the tower, equipment shelter, and electrical work. The following table provides a summary of city standards for the tower. 1. Collocation Analysis Item Standard Standard Met? A new tower cannot be Not met. As of 10/15/2014, approved unless the applicant documentation still needs to be can document that the proposed provided. antennas cannot be accommodated on an existing tower or approved structure due to one or more of the reasons listed in the Hutchinson Zoning Regulations, Sec D. 1. a.-d.) 2. Setbacks The 150-foot tower has a designed fall radius of 25 feet, so the minimum setback is 25 feet from each property line. 3. Height Proposed tower height: 150. Towers in non-residential districts are exempt from building height limits. 4. Parking Parking improvements are not required for a tower. 5. Paving Rock and gravel have been permitted for all other tower access drives in Hutchinson. 6. Easements Access and utility easements are needed. 7. Sight Triangle No obstructions taller than 30 are allowed within the sight triangle. Met. Setbacks provided: Front (East): 385 Side Street Front (North): 167 Side (West): 70 Side (South): 445 Met. The FAA has determined the proposed tower is not a hazard to air navigation. Met. No parking is proposed. Met. A rock access drive is proposed. Met. Private access and utility easements will be recorded. Met. The sight triangle requirement is met. 8. Loading No loading space is required. Met. No loading space is proposed.

3 3 Item Standard Standard Met? 9. Lighting Lighting is prohibited unless required by FAA regulations. Met. No lighting is proposed. 10. Landscaping There are no specific landscaping requirements for a tower. Met. No landscaping is proposed. A legal notice of the public hearing was published in the Hutchinson News on September 24, Notices of the public hearing were mailed to all 9 owners of the 13 parcels within 200 feet. No written comments were received. The Development Review Committee met on September 23, 2014, and reviewed the applicant s proposal. The committee had no objection to the proposal. The following factors must be considered by the Planning Commission when reviewing a conditional use permit request: 1. Character of the neighborhood The neighborhood is completely industrial in zoning classification, use, and appearance. 2. Current zoning and uses of nearby property SITE NORTH SOUTH EAST WEST ZONING LAND USE OWNER Vacant Grain elevator; Metal recycling facility; Unknown use (former auto repair). Concrete storage and mixing plant Grain elevator Towing business and motor vehicle impoundment yard; Vacant land with rail spur Larry D. and Debra (aka Deborah J.) Sorensen ADM Collingwood Grain; John and Tamara Gilley; Edwin L. Manche Concrete Enterprises, Inc. Cargill, Inc. Larry D., Deborah J., and Evarcan Sorensen; Ronda L. Ashcraft 3. Suitability of property for the proposed use as presently zoned The property is presently zoned I-3. The land uses permitted in the I-3 are appropriate for this location. The proposed tower is a suitable use for the property and is a normal use in industrial zones. 4. Extent of detrimental effects to nearby properties if the application were approved

4 4 The proposed tower will be visible from all surrounding properties, but no detrimental effects are anticipated. A monopole is the City s preferred tower design since a monopole is less obtrusive than a lattice tower. 5. Length of time property has remained vacant The property was previously used as a manufacturing business and a roofing contractor s office but has been vacant for more than one year. 6. Relative gain to the public health, safety, and welfare compared to the hardship imposed upon the landowner if the application were denied a. Health, safety, and welfare: No detrimental impacts are anticipated. b. Landowner hardship: The land owner would be unable to gain income from a tower. The applicant would be unable to construct a 150-foot tower at this location. 7. Conformance of this request to the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan calls for industrial uses on the subject property. Communication towers are not discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. 8. Impact on public facilities and utilities a. Streets: No impact. The applicant will record a private access easement to provide vehicular access to the tower from 4th Avenue via an existing concrete driveway approach and rock driveway. The applicant will install a rock driveway to connect the existing driveway to the tower. b. Alleys: Not applicable to this property. c. Sidewalks: No impact. d. Water: No impact. e. Sanitary Sewer: No impact. f. Drainage: No impact. g. Easement: A new 10 private utility easement will be provided to allow for the extension of natural gas, electric, and telephone lines from the tower compound north to existing utilities in the 4th Avenue right-of-way. 9. Recommendations of professional staff Before the tower can be approved, the applicant needs to document that the proposed antennas cannot be located on an existing tower. Zoning maps of the area were shown. Jones said Pieter Mi ller, Airport Manager, commented the monopole would be outside of the airport approach and poses no hazard to air navigation. Thompson asked the applicant to give his presentation. Richard Ga ito, Nex-Tech Wireless, explained the request. He said this is the last location he is requesting for a monopole in Hutchinson at this point. He showed maps indicating this site will cover the eastern part of Hutchinson includ ing the industrial parks, shopping

5 5 areas and a reas east and south of K-61 H ighway. He explained the radio frequency l ink to each of the other sites and the reason collation was not possible. He said the Crown Castle tower is 80 feet in height and is not tall enough because trees would block the signal. The Verizon tower is 100 feet tall, is not high enough, and has other towers co-located on it. The Eagle Communication tower is 80 f eet tall and not high enough. He showed maps indicating the amount of coverage and the areas of poor coverage if usi ng existing towers comparing this to coverage with the proposed towers. These towers would provide coverage for business es, homes and even coverage in the basements of buildings. He said grain elevators are ideal; however, the owners of the elevators do not want any towers on them. The proposed tower would be just above the height of the grain elevators and just under the height of the head house of the elevator. Mr. Gaito said they will happily lease space on their proposed towers to other companies. Thompson asked for comments from the audience. Dean Sorensen, property owner, said a lot of work has gone into finding the right location for this tower and it would provide invaluable service for Hutchinson as t his is the wave of the future for new technology. Thompson asked for the staff recommendation. Jones showed photos of the property, surrounding properties, and the proposed location of the tower. He said Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following conditions: Conditions: 1. This conditional use permit shall only be used for a ground-mounted, selfsupporting, wireless communication monopole tower, not to exceed 150 feet in height; a ground-mounted equipment shelter; and appurtenant equipment, wiring, and fencing on the property at 301 North Halstead Street. 2. The property shall be developed in accordance with the approved site plan, construction plans, and architectural elevation drawings. Significant changes to the plans will require approval by conditional use permit. 3. A wireless communications permit shall be obtained prior to construction. Motion by Macklin, seconded by Peirce to recommend to the City Council approval of this request for a conditional use permit for a wireless communication tower at 301 North Halstead Street with the conditions as presented based on due consideration of the following factors: Factors 1. Character of the neighborhood; 2. Zoning and uses of nearby property; 3. Suitability of the property for the proposed use as presently zoned; 4. Impact on nearby properties; 5. Length of time the property has remained vacant; 6. Relative gain to the public health, safety, and welfare, as compared with the

6 6 hardship to the land owner if the application were denied; 7. Availability of public utilities to serve the development; 8. Conformance to the Comprehensive Plan; and 9. Recommendations of the professional staff. The motion passed with the following vote: Yes Martin, Johnson, Woleslagel, Freund, Weinmeister, Peirce, Macklin, Thompson. The City Council will hear this case on November 4, STUDY SESSION 5a. Draft Subdivision Regulations: Chapter 9, Article IV. Procedures Chapter 9, Article V. Lot Splits McCarron said we are progressing nicely on the updates of the Subdivision Regulations. The following sections were discussed, as noted: Section Application: Make typographical changes and move to final document. Section General : In item B. Timing #1. The word authorized will be changed to approved. Item #2 will add for properties being platted and approved. Other changes were discussed. Staff will bring this section back to the commission. Sec Pre-Submittal Consultation : Change Engineer to Engineering. This section was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission. Sec Preliminary Plat Process : The commission would like to change A. Item #5 to 60 days rather than 90 days. Other minor changes to this section were discussed and staff will bring it back for review. Sec Final Plat Process : After some discussion, staff will do some rewording of Item A. Application Requirements. Item 9, the commission would like to chang e 8 months to 6 months. Item C. 2a., add unless applicant agrees at the end of the sentence. Capitalization style will be edited. Sec Phased Subdivision: This section was unanimously approved. Sec Submission of Technical Studies : This section was approved and moved to the final document. 6. OTHER BUSINESS

7 7 6a. Open comments from the audience none. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.