Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSTAFF REPORT - 09-00213 - S 2nd E, West of Water Tower - CUP for New Cell TowerCommunity Development Department I STAFF REPORT 12 North Center Rexburg, ID 83440 SUBJECT: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: PURPOSE: PROPERTY LOCATION: PROPERTY ID: OMPREHENSIVE PLAN: ZONING DISTRICT: garyl@rexburg.org Phone: 208.359.3020 x314 www.rexburg.org Fax: 208.359.3024 Conditional Use Permit, file # 09 00213 Teton Communications, Inc. 545 South Utah Circle Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 Same as applicant Request to construct a new cell tower. South 2nd East and Westwood Drive, east of water tower Rexburg, Idaho 83440 RPRXBCA0325820 Low Density Residential Low Density Residential 1 (LDR1) CITY OF REXBURG -OW-- America' Family Community APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Antennas (Ord. 915) City of Rexburg Development Code (Ord. 926) § 6.13 Conditional Use Permits AUTHORITY § 7(a) Establishes provisions that "shall govern the issuance of special use permits (conditional use permit) for towers or antennas by the Planning Commission.) I. BACKGROUND The applicant submitted an application to construct a one -hundred and fifty (150) foot telecommunications tower in an area that currently has other communication towers. During the review of the application it was determined that because the application involved property that is located in a residential zone (LDR1) and because the proposal did not involve collocation with an existing antenna, a conditional use permit would need to be obtained for the application to proceed. The proposal must be reviewed and approved by the City's Planning Commission for issuance of the permit. Rather than making a recommendation to the City Council, the Commission may act on this application. The City's telecommunications ordinance (Ordinance 915) provides direction on the siting of towers and related services. Within this ordinance collocation of new antennae on existing towers is required Case No. 09 00213 Page 1 unless the applicant can show that this is not a feasible option. If a new tower is proposed, a conditional permit must be obtained. Land uses that require conditional use permits are allowed within a zone if it can be found that the proposed use and/or facility will not adversely impact the neighborhood and community of which it belongs. This determination may be based on the adherence of the proposal to certain conditions of approval. Therefore, the City, upon receipt of a CUP request, should review the proposal and either approve, deny, or approve with conditions. A simialar application was previously denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission. II. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is a 120,225 square foot (2.76 -acre) lot. The lot is accessed from an unpaved drive/street (dedication uncertain), which ultimately connects to S 2"a East, a 45 -foot paved minor arterial (99 -foot right-of-way). The surrounding neighborhood is a mixture of single-family homes built and recently platted, a farm/other related building, public facilities (water reservoir, and tower) and other telecommunications towers (7 towers). III. ANALYSIS A conditional use permit for a telecommunications tower requires the proposal meet two sets of criteria, one set from the telecommunications ordinance (Ord. 915) and the other set of criteria from the Development Code (Ord. 926). The following are those criteria for granting a conditional use permit followed by staff's analysis. ORDINANCE 915, the Telecommunications Ordinance The goals of this ordinance must be met taking into consideration the following factors: § 7(b)(2)(i) Height and elevation of the proposed tower- The height of the proposed tower is 150 - feet. This height is similar to that of the existing water tower, both of which set on a prominent hill within Rexburg. The tower will have a visible presence throughout Rexburg. § 7(b)(2)(ii) Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries - The tower is proposed to be located 290 -feet from the nearest residential structure. In addition, the tower would be located 220 -feet from a recently approved preliminary plat for residential lots. The ordinance requires that the new tower be located 450 -feet from the nearest residential structure and 450 -feet from the nearest vacant, but preliminarily platted lot. The existing towers and the existing tower lot were in existence prior to the plating of the adjacent subdivisions that create the restrictions. § 7(b)(2)(iii) Nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties- The surrounding land uses include a mixture of single-family lots (built and recently platted), a farm/other related building, public facilities (water reservoir, and tower) and other existing telecommunications towers (7 towers). It would appear that the surrounding land uses, other than the residential homes and lots, are similar to the proposed use height and/or bulk, and purpose. § 7(b)(2)(iv) Surrounding topography- The site is on top of a hill with 360 degree coverage, which lends itself well to a telecommunications tower. However, this same advantage allows the facility to be visible throughout Rexburg. There are however, multiple towers adjacent to the proposed tower. Case No. 09 00213 Page 2 § 7(b)(2)(v) Surrounding tree cover- There is no real tree coverage in the general vicinity which would not make practical the incorporation of any stealth design for the tower. A height of 150 -feet would disallow this as well. § 7(b)(2)(vi) Design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness- The proposal includes the use of red and white colors in the absence of a light, which the applicant states is not required by the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA). Lights are prohibited unless specifically required by the FAA, therefore the applicant has proposed red and white coloring. § 7(b)(2)(vii) Proposed ingress and egress- The parcel upon which the subject property is located does not abut a public right-of-way. Ingress and egress is through lots which may or may not allow access by way of access easements. A condition of approval should be that evidence must be submitted to the Planning Department that clearly shows that site has full access to the nearest public right-of-way (see proposed conditions of approval). § 7(b)(2)(viii) and § 7(a)(3) Availability of suitable existing towers, other structures, or alternative technologies not requiring the use of towers or structures, as discussed in Section7(b)(3) of this ordinance- The application is complemented by multiple letters from clients requesting the installation of this tower. The applicant has stated that the tower that they currently operate on the subject property is at full capacity and therefore a new tower is necessary. There are other towers in the immediate vicinity that may or may not be full. The applicant insists that the other towers are not feasible. Staff recommends that the Commission determines if all attempts have been tried for co - location. § 7(b)(4) Setbacks (i) The project does not meet LDR2 setbacks. Once again, the new residential lots were created after the towers and the tower lots were created. The towers on the existing lots are therefore "grandfathered". The use of the cell tower lots would have to be considered "grandfathered" as well as the existing towers as part of the conditional use. § 7(b)(5) Separation- Intended to avoid clustering of towers and visual impacts. (i) Separation from off-site uses/designated areas a. The applicant is proposing the tower to be located 220 -feet from these lots. (ii) Separation distances between towers a. This standard requires that the proposal be located a certain distance from other towers in the vicinity. There are seven towers in the vicinity, the following is an approximate description of each adjacent tower and what distance the proposal must be from them (see Exhibit B for diagram showing adjacent towers): 1) Tower 1- This tower is a lattice tower that is 65 -feet tall. The proposed tower must be located 1500 -feet from this tower. The applicant is proposing 30 -feet; therefore this criterion is not met. 2) Tower 2- This tower is a monopole that is approximately 122 -feet tall. The proposed tower must be located 1500 -feet from this tower. The applicant is proposing 68 -feet; therefore this criterion is not met. 'Using tower #1 as a 65 -foot tall reference, the height of other towers was determined using the length of their shadows on the Rexburg 2007 aerial photo. The 65 -foot tower casts a 53 -foot shadow; therefore the ratio of tower height to shadow length is 1.22:1. Case No. 09 00213 Page 3 3) Tower 3- This tower is a monopole that is approximately 128 -feet tall. The proposed tower must be located 1500 -feet from this tower. The applicant is proposing 260 -feet; therefore this criterion is not met. 4) Tower 4- This tower is a lattice tower that is approximately 80 -feet tall. The proposed tower must be located 1500 -feet from this tower. The applicant is proposing 285 -feet; therefore this criterion is not met. 5) Tower 5- This tower is a lattice tower that is approximately 90 -feet tall. The proposed tower must be located 1500 -feet from this tower. The applicant is proposing 327 -feet; therefore this criterion is not met. 6) Tower 6- This tower is a lattice tower that is approximately 98 -feet tall. The proposed tower must be located 1500 -feet from this tower. The applicant is proposing 1160 -feet; therefore this criterion is not met. 7) Tower 7- This tower is a monopole that is approximately 123 -feet tall. The proposed tower must be located 1500 -feet from this tower. The applicant is proposing 1223 -feet; therefore this criterion is not met. Clustering towers in this area may prevent the creation of new areas throughout the city. § 7(b)(6) Security Fencing- Towers must be enclosed by security fencing with appropriate anti - climbing devices. Staff was not able to determine what type of fencing the applicant is proposing for the use. A condition of approval should be that the fencing material and anti -climbing material to be used is submitted for review and approval to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a conditional use permit (see proposed conditions of approval). § 7(b)(7) Landscaping (i) The tower facility shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that effectively screens the view of the tower compound from property used from residences. The standard buffer shall consist of a landscaped strip at least four (4) feet wide outside the perimeter of the compound. The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan for review. A landscape plan that adequately addresses screening and adheres to this section should be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a conditional use permit (see proposed conditions of approval). ORDINANCE 926, the Development Code requires that a conditional use: a. Constitute a conditional use as established in Table 1, Zoning Districts, and Table 2, Land Use Schedule. The proposed use, "communications" is listed as a conditionally permitted use under Section 3.4.010(F) of the Development Code; therefore, this criterion is met. b. Be in accordance with a specific or general objective of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the regulations of this Ordinance. The City's comprehensive plan has designated the subject property as Low -Moderate Density Residential. The zoning district of LDRl is an allowed zoning designation within the comprehensive plan designation of Low -Moderate Density Residential, therefore this criterion is met. c. Be designed and constructed in a manner to be harmonious with the existing character of the neighborhood and the zone in which the property is located. Case No. 09 00213 Page 4 The surrounding land uses include single-family homes, and recently platted single family lots. There are other communications towers located in the vicinity. The zoning district in which the surrounding land uses and the subject property are located in is a residential zone (LDR1). In this district is anticipated that larger lot residential development will occur and that any development will be required to complement or add to the ambiance of a residential area. The lots to the east set at the bottom of the hill where the tower is to be located. Total elevation change from the base of the tower to the bottom of the hill is 44 feet. This will result in an apparent tower height of close to 200 -feet for the properties to the east. In the case of communications towers, Ordinance 915 encourages "users of towers and antennas to configure them in a way that minimizes the adverse visual impact of the towers and antennas through careful design, siting, landscape screening, and innovative camouflaging techniques." (goal #6, Ordinance 915). Good site design, including landscaping, and any stealth design could potentially accomplish the intent of the LDRI zone. Another purpose of the ordinance is to "protect residential areas and land uses form potential adverse impacts of towers and antennas." (goal #1, Ordinance 915). The Commission should explore the application material and determine if this criterion is met, or can be met through reasonable conditions of approval. d. Not create a nuisance or safety hazard for neighboring properties in terms of excessive noise or vibration, improperly directed glare or heat, electrical interference, odors, dust or air pollutants, solid waste generation and storage, hazardous materials or waste, excessive traffic generation, or interference with pedestrian traffic. Regarding glare, heat, dust, air pollutants, there are no foreseeable impacts to the neighborhood. However, dust might become a problem if no landscaping is in place. The subject property is 2.76 -acres and will need regular maintenance to ensure that noxious weeds are not present and at the same time no dust leaves the property in such a manner that it becomes a nuisance (see proposed conditions of approval). Regarding electrical interference, the applicant should explain to the Commission how the proposed use will or will not interfere with existing towers and the nearby homes and future homes. In addition, the applicant should describe to the Commission how potential impacts to adjacent residential lots regarding noise and vibrations will be avoided. Regarding odors, solid waste generation and storage, excessive traffic generation, or interference with pedestrian traffic, there are no foreseeable impacts. There should be no outside storage of material or equipment unless fully screened form public right-of-way. This screening, if in it self is deemed objectionable by affected property owners, should be approved by the Planning Commission or designee. Staff has included proposed conditions of approval that address trash storage and general storage occurring on the outside of the building. The Commission should determine if through reasonable conditions of approval this criterion can be met. e. Be adequately served by essential public facilities and services such as access streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer service, and schools. If existing facilities are not adequate, the developer shall show that such facilities shall be upgraded sufficiently to serve the proposed use. Case No. 09 00213 Page 5 The site is served by all applicable essential public facilities and services; therefore, this criterion is met. f. Not generate traffic in excess of the capacity of public streets or access points serving the proposed use and will assure adequate visibility at traffic access points. The roads in the vicinity appear to be functioning within acceptable levels of service. The proposed use should have minimal impacts on the road network in the area, however, the lot subject property does not abut a public right-of-way and therefore a recorded easement should be submitted prior to the issuance of a conditional use permit (see proposed conditions of approval). Based on the above analysis staff determined that this criterion is met as conditioned. g. Be effectively buffered to screen adjoining properties from adverse impacts of noise, building size and resulting shadow, traffic, and parking. The entire parcel of 2.76 -acres should be screened of appropriately landscaped so to complement the surrounding residential properties. A landscape plan should be submitted that addresses screening of the tower base and also for the entire subject parcel (see proposed conditions of approval). The Commission should determine if the proposal as proposed, or with conditions satisfies this criterion. h. Be compatible with the slope of the site and the capacity of the soils and will not be in an area of natural hazards unless suitably designed to protect lives and property. The proposal is at the top of a hill that slopes to the east. The elevation change from the tower to the bottom of the hill to the east is approximately 44 -feet. Nevertheless, it does not appear that the subject property is located in a hazardous area. Not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a historic feature of significance to the community of Rexburg. Not applicable IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval based on compliance to the "Proposed Conditions of Approval' attached as Exhibit A. The Commission should take public testimony and determine if the proposed conditional use permit can be approved, denied, or approved with conditions. Staff has proposed some conditions of approval, should the Commission choose to approve with conditions. Exhibits: A. Proposed Conditions of Approval B. Existing Towers Map. Case No. 09 00213 Page 6 EXHIBIT A Proposed Conditions of Approval 1. There should be no outside storage of material or equipment unless fully screened form public right- of-way. This screening, if in it self is deemed objectionable by affected property owners, should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission or designee. 2. A site plan reflecting all conditions of approval and incorporating all City standards, e.g. landscaping, parking, etc. shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. Commercial lighting standards per the City's development code shall be adhered to. 4. Large equipment that is to be located on the subject property and is to be used for heating/cooling/ventilation of the proposed building(s), or similar uses, shall be located the maximum feasible distance from any adjacent residential dwelling unit, and shall incorporate any current technology that reduces noise generation. 5. Evidence must be submitted to the Planning Department that clearly shows that site has full access to the nearest public right-of-way, in that site ingress and egress is through lots which may or may not allow access by way of access easements 6. Proposed fencing and anti -climbing material to be used shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a conditional use permit 7. A landscape plan that adequately addresses screening shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of a conditional use permit 8. As part of the submitted landscape plan, information shall be included that adequately addresses the need for regular site maintenance to ensure that noxious weeds are not present and at the same time no dust leaves the property in such a manner that it becomes a nuisance 9. The proposed tower, due to its height of 150 feet, will not be screened from adjacent properties, existing and platted. A shadow will likely be cast on the recently approved lots to the east in the Founder Square planned unit development. As space is leased on the new tower, a larger shadow will be cast on adjacent residential property. Therefore, the entire parcel of 2.76 -acres shall be screened and/or appropriately landscaped so as to complement the surrounding residential properties. The submitted landscape plan shall addresses screening of the tower base and also for the entire subject parcel. 10. Due to the projects potential visual impacts on adjacent property, the submitted landscape plan, if determined by the planning and zoning administrator, may need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission rather than a staff review. Case No. 09 00213 Page 7