CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: Q STAFF: ANDREW FIRESTINE FILE NO: CPC CM QUASI-JUDICIAL

Transcription

1 Page 180 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM: Q STAFF: ANDREW FIRESTINE FILE NO: CPC CM QUASI-JUDICIAL PROJECT: APPLICANT: OWNER: 45 MONOPOLE AT 5239 GALLEY ROAD T-MOBILE MICHAEL WATTA PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The site consists of 0.95 acres and is located at 5239 Galley Road (Figure 1). A 12,240 square foot office and retail building is an existing use on the Planned Business Center (PBC) zoned site. The application proposes a monopole 45 in height with up to 12 antennas and ground mounted equipment screened by a wooden fence. A conditional use is required because the proposed monopole is a non-stealth freestanding CMRS installation. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: ITEM: Q CPC CM CMRS CONDITIONAL USE Approve the conditional use for a monopole 45 in height with up to 12 antennas and ground mounted equipment screened by a wooden fence (Refer to Figure 2). This recommendation of approval is based upon the findings that the Conditional Use request complies with the review criteria for a Conditional Use as set forth in Chapter 7, Article 5, Section 704 and the requirements and review criteria for a CMRS facility as set forth in Chapter 7, Article 4, Section 607 of the City Zoning Code. SUMMARY: A stealth parking lot light pole 45 in height was initially proposed at this location at the pre-application meeting whereas the application is for a monopole 45 in height. The difference in the two installations is where the antennas are mounted. If a stealth parking lot light pole were pursued, the antennas would be inside the pole. On a monopole, the antennas are mounted on the pole itself. Because of this difference, the diameter of the parking lot light pole is most often greater than the diameter of a monopole. As there are no existing parking lot light poles on this property, the visual impacts are in effect identical. One application would result in a larger diameter pole while the antennas would be visible through the other application. Stealth designs are encouraged in instances where there are extensive adverse visual impacts and where the stealth design succeeds in obscuring the antennas and associated equipment from view. These installations often end up costing the carrier more to install and to maintain, but are encouraged by the City. To do this, the City offers an administrative review for most stealth applications, lessening the review period from application submittal to approval. The applicant has asked the City to consider administrative review for a stealth site as this location, but, in the opinion of staff, a stealth parking lot light pole would have the same visual impacts as a monopole on this and there is no advantage to encouraging the parking lot light pole or offering administrative review. In response to the request, staff agreed to an expedited review of the conditional use application to place the item on the Planning Commission agenda.

2 Page 181 Technical and Informational Modifications to the CMRS Conditional Use Development Plan are requested to resolve comments outlined in the July 31, 2006 internal review letter. BACKGROUND: Existing Zoning/Land Use: PBC/AO/CU/Office/Retail Surrounding Zoning/Land Use: North- R1-6000/AO/US West Communications South- PBC/AO/Warehousing and storage East- PBCAO/Office and retail West- PBC/AO/Office and retail Annexation: Smartt s Addition No. 9, December 1963 Subdivision: Lot 2 Scandaliato Subdivision Zoning Enforcement Action: Yes, but abated in 1994 Physical Characteristics: None Master Plan: None DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS: The initial department review comments are included in the City Planning review letter. Refer to Figure 3. Planning staff has met with the applicant and/or other departments regarding their concerns. The concerns have been addressed in the revised plans or will be addressed as a condition of approval, as specified herein. PETITIONER'S JUSTIFICATION: See Figure 4 for the applicant s justification. STAKEHOLDER PROCESS: Property owners were notified through the mail (two mailings) and the property has been posted on two occasions. The first notification was mailed on July 12, 2006 after the application was submitted. Postcards were sent out again before the City Planning Commission meeting. No comments were received. ANALYSIS OF MAJOR ISSUES: CONDITIONAL USE FINDINGS: The Planning Commission may approve and/or modify a conditional use application in whole or in part, with or without conditions, only if all three (3) of the following findings are made: A. Surrounding Neighborhood: That the value and qualities of the neighborhood surrounding the conditional use are not substantially injured. B. Intent of Zoning Code: That the conditional use is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Zoning Code to promote public health, safety and general welfare. C. Comprehensive Plan: That the conditional use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the City. Staff finds that the proposed conditional use meets the conditional use findings as set forth in Chapter 7, Article 5, Section 704 of the City Code.

3 Page 182 CMRS CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW CRITERIA: A CMRS conditional use application shall be reviewed using the criteria listed below: Section B Stealth and Non-stealth Freestanding Facilities: 1. Stealth freestanding facilities are freestanding CMRS facilities that are designed to substantially conceal and camouflage the antennas and associated equipment. Stealth facilities are preferred and encouraged in instances where a freestanding facility is necessary and the potential for substantial adverse visual impact is high. 2. Freestanding nonstealth CMRS facilities shall be considered in locations in which adverse visual impacts are not a substantial concern due to the location of the facility and the nature of the surrounding land uses. In the opinion of staff, the stealth parking lot light pole proposed at the pre-application meeting would have the same visual impact as a monopole. The potential for extensive adverse impacts are minimal as the monopole is proposed south of the existing building adjacent away from Galley Road. The existing building will partially screen the pole from the public right-of-way. The adjacent use to the south is a warehousing and storage building, which will not be affected by the proposed monopole. Beyond the warehousing and storage building is a Public Facility (PF) zone district and a maintenance yard for School District 11. Technical and Informational Modifications to the CMRS Conditional Use Development Plan: 1. Add the file number CPC CM to the bottom right corner of all sheets. 2. The drawings should be scalable to either an engineering or architectural scale, as appropriate. Resubmit the drawings printed on a 24 x 36 D size sheet. Please revise. 3. Our records indicate that there may be several Sunburst Honeylocust trees in the vicinity of the proposed monopole. Identify whether any landscaping will be removed as a result of the proposed monopole. Any landscaping that is proposed to be removed should be identified by type and caliper and must be replaced with similar landscape materials. 4. Provide additional information on the proposed T-Mobile area lights on timers. When will the leased area be lighted? At what height will the area lights be installed? Are the area lights mounted on the fence or on poles? If the area lights are to be mounted on poles, illustrate the lights on the elevation drawings. Also, note the wattage and the type of light fixture (e.g. metal halide, low pressure sodium, etc.) on the drawings. The light fixtures should be fully shielded cut-off light fixtures. Planning staff recommends the use of low pressure sodium lights for this use. 5. Show the location, dimensions and size of the proposed lease area on the drawings. 6. Note the land use of the existing building and of the adjacent lot to the south on the drawings. 7. Note the existing Planned Business Center (PBC) zone district designation on the plan. 8. A proposed and approximate schedule for development should be included per the application checklist. 9. Indicate whether the monopole is designed to accommodate the equipment of additional carriers. The Code encourages the collocation of CMRS equipment on the same structures. If so, include the following statement on the plan: T-Mobile will consider collocation proposals from other commercial radio providers with an interest in this facility. 10. The application will be reviewed and considered by the Airport Advisory Commission on Tuesday August 22, The Airport Advisory Commission will likely require an avigation easement and a FAA form An avigation easement template accompanies this letter. Provide planning staff with a copy of the recorded avigation easement and property description.

4 Page 183

5 Page 184

6 Page 185

7 Page 186

8 Page 187

9 Page 188

10 Page 189

11 Page 190

12 Page 191

13 Page 192

14 Page 193

15 Page 194

16 Page 195