Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning And Zoning Board - Minutes - 02/15/2018Jeff Schneider, Chair City Council Chambers Jeff Hansen, Vice Chair City Hall West Jennifer Carpenter 300 Laporte Avenue Emily Heinz Fort Collins, Colorado Michael Hobbs Ruth Rollins Cablecast on FCTV Channel 14 & William Whitley Channel 881 on Comcast The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. Regular Hearing February 15, 2018 Chair Schneider called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Roll Call: Carpenter, Hansen, Heinz, Hobbs, Rollins, Schneider and Whitley Absent: None Staff Present: Leeson, Yatabe, Prassas, Frickey, and Gerber Chair Schneider provided background on the board’s role and what the audience could expect as to the order of business. He described the following procedures: • While the City staff provides comprehensive information about each project under consideration, citizen input is valued and appreciated. • The Board is here to listen to citizen comments. Each citizen may address the Board once for each item. • Decisions on development projects are based on judgment of compliance or non-compliance with city Land Use Code. • Should a citizen wish to address the Board on items other than what is on the agenda, time will be allowed for that as well. • This is a legal hearing, and the Chair will moderate for the usual civility and fairness to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak can be heard. Agenda Review CDNS Director Leeson reviewed the items on the Consent and Discussion agendas, stating that all items will be heard as originally advertised. With the exception of Harmony Common Lot 5 Major Amendment which was pulled and postponed until March 15th. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes Planning & Zoning Board February 15, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Public Input on Items Not on the Hearing Agenda: Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, presented comments to provoke though about the need for the development review process to evolve and improve. Mr. Sutherland feels the situation is disparate situation with numerous deficiencies. He would like to see review requests by City Planning and Zoning Board of decisions of hearing Type 1 cases. Colleen Hoffman, 1804 Wallenberg Dr., has concerns over the changing development review process. Expressed that citizens are not involved or mentioned in the change process. Feels that there needs to be a level playing field between developers and citizens. Feels as though citizens are at a disadvantage with no one to talk to. Staff Follow-Up Director Leeson addressed both Mr. Sutherland and Mrs. Hoffman about their concerns raised regarding the development review process changes. The community will be seeing a fair amount of changes and that he appreciates the comments about the neighborhoods and citizens wanting input on the changes. Chair Schneider asked Director Leeson if he could attend the next work session with updates on the Development Review improvement process. Director Leeson stated he would be happy to attend. Member Carpenter stated that we have a liaison available and asked for Director Leeson’s input. Director Leeson gave Sylvia Tatum-Burruss’s name and department information, and explained what her position entails. Member Hobbs stated that the process is daunting to both citizens and developers especially on the legal side. He would like to see access to someone in the City Attorney’s office on a conservative basis. Mr. Yatabe clarified that he could give legal advice to Council, staff and the different Boards of the City and that consideration must be given to who the client is in terms of professional role. He cannot give legal advice in terms of citizen inquiries. Consent Agenda: 1. Harmony Commons Lot 5 Major Amendment, FDP170036 NOTE: THIS ITEM HAS BEEN POSTPONED TO MARCH 15, 2018 Discussion Agenda: 2. Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility, PDP160018 Project Description: This is a request for a Project Development Plan to build a telecommunications tower housed within a 2,500sq. ft. wireless facility. This facility will house wireless telecommunications equipment to provide wireless service to the surrounding area. No wireless equipment is proposed at this time. The proposed tower would be 45 feet tall and disguised as a silo. This tower and facility will be used for structural support of up to three wireless providers. Each provider will install antennas and on-the-ground base station equipment. The site is located in the Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) zone district and, as such, the wireless telecommunication facility use is subject to the review and approval by the City Council. On January 16, 2018, City Council will consider second reading of an ordinance approving the Addition of Permitted Use for this project. Recommendation: Approval Secretary Gerber reported that no additional information has been received since the work session. Planning & Zoning Board February 15, 2018 Page 3 of 6 Staff and Applicant Presentations Planner Frickey gave a brief overview of this project. Explained that this has project has gone before Council for approval of the use of the property and that Council did approve with conditions. Christian Hendrickson, Attorney with Sherman and Howard representing the applicant Verizon Wireless, provided a presentation via PowerPoint slides to support his presentation. Commented that the hearing is limited to code review and whether the proposal is consistent with the Fort Collins City code and commended Planner Frickey’s expert staff review. Board was asked to approve PDP. Mr. Michael Powers of Atlas Tower touched on standards of review. Setbacks will be maintained and architectural style has been met. The equipment will be color matched to the existing surrounding buildings. Mounting of equipment, this is a stealth site, meaning it is hidden within a silo. Fencing is compliant (wood). Landscaping plan was not required. Lighting requirements will be met if there will be lighting involved on the site. A road will be built to support emergency equipment. Asked board for approval. Member Rollins asked for clarification on height, in presentation, stated 40’, Mr. Powers clarified 45’. Member Hansen requested clarification on colors of structure. Mr. Powers clarified that the material is a fiberglass material that would match and blend existing structures. Member Rollins asked Planner Frickey if the 180 consecutive days was accurate. Planner Frickey responded that it had been revised to be 270 days as a condition of approval by Council. Public Input (3 minutes per person) Eric Sutherland – Wanted to know how a 270-day inoperable condition of removal would be enforceable. Mr. Sutherland commented on distinction between Qazi judicial and Qazi legislative actions of a public body and what happens after a decision is made in terms of rights of an appeal to a superior court as they are viewed differently. He agreed with Member Hansen as to the need for legal advice, and disagreed that it needed to come from the City Attorney. Debbie Cory – Objects to the project as she feels she has not been heard nor has she had due process during this portion of the project. She had asked many questions of Atlas and Verizon that have gone unanswered. She feels that this has not been handled properly and is concerned for other neighborhoods and the fact that better service is not guarantee. She also believes that since Verizon is not listed as a co-applicant as they say, she agrees with the Center for Municipal Solutions that the requirements of the Telecommunication Act of 1996 does not apply. Mrs. Cory would like a commitment to get communication if any changes will happen with the tower, ahead of the changes happening and not from the newspaper. Nancy Eason – Provided objection documentation and presented slides to the board. Asked the board various questions. Is there an appeal process? Who can make an appeal? Can a citizen make an appeal? What happens if they (applicant) want to make changes, like height, etc.? Ted Wolf – Is opposed to the project as it is not designed for this type of activity, residential area. Numerous projects of this type have been denied, why approved now? Kevin Forbes – Is in favor of the project. His parents own the property and he feels that no one would deny the need for the cell tower in the area. Commended Atlas Tower for their communication. Jessica McMillian – Is in favor of the project. Has not had good cell service ever in the neighborhood. Feels that this is an infrastructure issue and that you have to be able to support the community and their communication needs. Tanya Andres – Not opposed to better cell coverage, but would like to know if this project is viewed as a public utility. Objects to the project on grounds that cell towers do not belong in neighborhoods. There are better solutions. Asked the Board to please deny this structure. Planning & Zoning Board February 15, 2018 Page 4 of 6 Andrew Saks – Is opposed to the project based on lack of consultation to the neighborhood and that there is possibly no real need as other means are widely available. Applicant/Staff Response Christian Hendrickson, Verizon Wireless – They respect the many opinions, but the Board’s responsibility is code compliance, and everything that was just heard was about use. They are here to serve and improve and keep Ft. Collins competitive and to ensure this communication. This is a needed facility and Mr. Hendrickson hopes that the Board approves. Planner Frickey responded with a brief overview of timeline of project review and scope. Board Questions Member Hansen asked Mr. Hendrickson if there was a reason why Verizon was not listed as a co-applicant. Mr. Powers responded that they agreed to add their name as a co-applicant early on in the process and that they communicated that with the City, but does not know if there are forms that need to be filled out. Mr. Powers commented that as they started the process, Atlas Town was the original applicant but that as the project went on it became clear that as the dialogue with the City moved forward, and trying to be code compliant with the requirements of the process, that they needed to bring in their partner Verizon in order to answer the many questions that needed to be answered. Planner Frickey addressed the 270-day inactivity period raised by Mr. Sutherland. Inactivity can be measured and enforced by the utility bill, if there is no power being sent to the facility, then it is not being powered on. There is a lapse provision for not only approvals but also two nonconforming uses in the land use code so there is a precedent for doing something like that and removing a use after a certain period of inactivity in the land use code. The second issue Planner Frickey addressed is the process that would be followed if the facility were to be altered. If items like height were to be changed then it would go through a Major Amendment process which go through the same process as original approval. In this case the Major Amendment would need to go through Council. If the change was an antenna swap out, this would be considered a Minor Amendment and staff would not notify. In response to the appeal period question, Planner Frickey stated that since this decision is going before the Planning and Zoning Board this decision would be appealable to City Council. Member Rollins asked Planner Frickey to give information on sizes of silos previously researched. Planner Frickey shared that staff visited two sites within a 2-mile radius from the project and they found two silos on Legacy Farm lots and both silos were in the range of 40 to 45’ which was staff’s reasoning for proposing that condition for approval. Member Hansen asked about the process of photo simulation program used. What software was used to ensure that it is believable? Mr. Powers explained the process and did state that the photos of the balloon testing which did not exactly mimic the later photo sim and that he cannot speak to that as he does not have personal experience with that. There were different members of staff working on the project during the duration of the project. Photo sims are difficult and may not be an accurate representation. This photo sim is based on a 60’ silo and are not relevant as we are down to a 45’ facility. Member Hansen asked if the photo sims were completed in-house or third party? Mr. Powers responded that is was completed in-house. Member Hansen commented to Planner Frickey that the staff report was very thorough in stepping through the standards in the land use code addressing how the proposed project meets that, but he did not see anything addressing section 3.8.13 (b). Planner Frickey responded that it would be difficult to co-locate for other carriers on this site and it is difficult to say, at this point, that it meets the standard, and it is also difficult to say whether it would apply given the conditions of approval by City Council. If the Planning and Zoning Board was concerned about co- location ability the Planning and Zoning Board would have to recommend denial of the application. Member Hobbs asked Mr. Powers about co-location ability. Explain to us whether co-location is still possible and just not as desirable because the other antennas would be lower than this, in the 35’ to 40’ range, do you feel you still have the ability to co-locate on this tower? Mr. Powers disagreed with Planner Frickey regarding co-location possibly not being possible. It is absolutely possible. Mr. Powers explained industry standards and trending. It is intended to co-locate with this tower. Planning & Zoning Board February 15, 2018 Page 5 of 6 Member Hansen asked about capacity without or before seeing another structure going up. Mr. Powers felt two carriers could be carried at a full array. This structure is not just for phones, could be used for emergency services and first responders. Member Carpenter asked for clarification regarding number of carriers. Mr. Powers – two arrays could be added and possibly a third, depending on antenna type. Member Carpenter, so in practicality it would be Verizon and one other. Mr. Powers, without employing an antenna size that is not typically used. Member Carpenter to staff – if someone else wanted to come in and put up another tower, is it possible to use existing tower with different technology, or would we require them to build a different tower? Planner Frickey responded that there is nothing in the Land Use Code that states you must use a different technology or a certain technology. Member Carpenter, so if another company wants to come in with another tower because they want to use the standard equipment, that we have no way to require that they go into and co-locate with this one? Planner Frickey responded that staff would push toward co-location on the existing tower, and since this was an APU would likely require them to go on that tower to serve the same population rather than build another tower. Mr. Powers stated that co-location is written into your code and encouraged and required. Deliberation Chair Schneider reminded the Board that this is about the land use code and not about the use because that was previously taken care of and approved. Member Hobbs views this as different from the APU. Questions were raised for him in regard to whether this was the best site or whether everything had been investigated and now that it has been approved for use in a residential neighborhood, that is not ours to judge at this point. Member Hobbs will be supporting the project. Member Heinz stated that she will be supporting the project. Member Hansen stated he has been in support of the project all along and is more comfortable knowing that the tower can support multiple carriers. Will be supporting the project. Member Carpenter stated she is in support of the project. It meets the requirements and the APU was approved. Member Whitley stated she is in support of the project and is glad that it will be 45’ as opposed to 60’. Mr. Yatabe mentioned his advisement at the previous meeting that any motion would potentially include a mention of the ordinance adopted by Council. This was due to the ordinance not being in effect at the time of the last meeting. The ordinance is now in effect and there is no need if there is a motion to approve to make any mention of that. Chair Schneider received clarification that there is no need to make mention. Member Schneider appreciates the citizens’ concerns because this is not a use conversation and the Board is limited to what we can and cannot talk about and what our decision needs to be based on. Member Hobbs made a motion that the Planning and Zoning Board approve the Long Pond Wireless Telecommunications Facility, PDP160018 based on the following findings of fact: A. The Project Development Plan complies with the process located in Division 2.2 - Common Development Review Procedures for Development Applications of Article 2 - Administration. B. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards of Article 3 - General Development Standards. C. The Project Development Plan complies with relevant standards located in Division 4.5, Low Density Mixed-Use Neighborhood (LMN) of Article 4 - Districts Member Whitley seconded. Mr. Yatabe suggested that the board make a finding that incorporates the staff report as well, if that is the Boards desire. This was accepted by the motion maker and seconded. Vote: 7:0. Planning & Zoning Board February 15, 2018 Page6 of6 Other Business None Adjournment Chair Schneider moved to adjourn the P&Z Board hearing. The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 pm. Minutes respectfully submitted by Shar Gerber.