The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutT-MOBILE (CEDARWOOD PLAZA) WTF - PDP - 38-06A - DECISION - CORRESPONDENCE-HEARINGij 1 a4ul add � Nonce krt�✓rl ,i I� � f'hry sluff rL!//Kv�; l�u�Yy Wmt(dm rrie�a fa„mae� '._v�° i .� , Dew vu(tee lI: �,G—LOv�,f_�9-� /_v9rnGo %!Z�C� j'rlGv-G GB✓_Y� auj G�t/GtCu,ed_/I/LUd-r �G ✓%�v�_yliirr �n-es+.�ast�,L_ l I,�o/- I l �' �dril�'a�K— �Yze-ems = d *Leo rC�.aA��ut t�,c,�Cv� - . cl�yrcal a_t-tJh f k_new ./ �� v✓evzl�l � � I�7'�f Im 2Z- Zy Few' Aj e- Id1-r_��sixr� A2 � s Gar-r�1� �i_� �►'�P��o��ar�'ce'�— i i s 1Z� — fya Gen9�_if /O-4� -A—Di ✓an III ChrLis— ( ems fih� �leedC�o- I 7'�yit�G 2c� c_.fiY� � �i9 .ln �JD.1CiL rWir�J f--e: a.p_ez;, =hr— ccl�L -r-Te�iGte,�,z- -rts etc_ 1�v�1 G �7iYJCG� b—" G✓ eoza W-d kb lip I f 7ygt57 �• m n_�ir ce, w/l/ !2� No Text m nL>. 4*-e, 1e )Ere e, r �ib��t2ii_��9_��o�- CG_Gt_22e_�� E�od�'�-N'�fh� f�2�•� ' T-11400 w - ca- 1! V_/aV4 mCZyn GB_nCL.2� - 5'-ePd -_ ✓ fry c�G�,��,�.r� �� i `Gef--Gt l fl ieti,-(�p�$,ble? not Reww CeA— o� Qo- ` h,�ecs wr_� 120 L'��s-wt�a� + GJ� sl26ulc( j�ti ert `ns''e�f-�c�- —� �-i2%►�,C.7cO ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PROJECT r (' DATE &wt-. ■ Li�� Wi M f/// -_ lrl�► ■w►.,/7�1 Cr c �� -/mff it d (n King Soopers (Cedarwood) W i , PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision September 5, 2007 Page 7 of 7 coniferous trees. The Hearing Officer concurs with Staff that the tree mitigation would bring the Project into compliance with the general compatibility standards. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS A. The King Soopers (Cedarwood Project Development Plan is subject to administrative review and the requirements of the Land Use Code (LUC). B. The King Soopers (Cedarwood complies with all applicable district standards of Section 4.23 of the Land Use Code, (NC) Neighborhood Commercial District. C. The King Soopers (Cedarwood ) Project Development Plan complies with all applicable General Development Standards contained in Article 3 of the Land Use Code. A condition has been added to the application to ensure compliance with the Building and Project Compatibility standards found in Section 3.5.1. DECISION The King Soopers (Cedarwood) Project Development Plan #38-06A, is hereby approved by the Hearing Officer, subject to the following condition: The Applicant shall provide on -site coniferous trees at least 10 feet in height to screen the adjacent properties from the visual impact of the tower. These trees must be irrigated and maintained by the applicant according to standard landscape requirements in Section 3.2.1 of the Land Use Code. Details of the tree plantings will be agreed upon during the Final Plan stage of the review process after a visual impact study has been made by the Applicant and submitted for review. The study will show where trees are needed to block the view, how tall the trees need to be to block the view and what species will be most suitable. The study will incorporate feedback and ideas from the affected neighbors. Dated this 19th day of September 2007, per authority granted by Sections 1.4.9(E) and 2.1 of the Land Use Code. afneron GldV / lanning and Vning Director King Soopers (Cedarwood) Wi , PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision September 5, 2007 Page 6 of 7 Clark continues her concern about visual impacts that the facility will have on her property and nearby properties. One Project proponent spoke at the hearing, supporting the location of the proposed location behind the King Soopers grocery store and stating the need for improved cell phone service within the general vicinity. As represented by the staff during the hearing and in the Staff Report, the federal Telecommunications Act prohibits the City from denying wireless facilities on the grounds of health impacts. During the hearing, the applicant indicated that alternative locations for the wireless pole and ground equipment at the front of the shopping center site are not readily available. Locations at the front of the site near the two abutting street frontages are highly visible from the roadway. The applicant incorrectly stated during the hearing that City regulations prohibit placement of the pole at the front of the site due to non-compliance with parking standards prescribed in the Land Use Code. Since the Land Use Code does not set a minimum standard for parking spaces, but rather sets a cap on the maximum number of spaces, no regulations prohibit use of the front parking area as a potential candidate site. The proposed facility raises interesting questions about the ability to provide meaningful visual buffers and transitions between existing, highly dissimilar, land uses, such as the case here where a neighborhood shopping center abuts a residential area. Existing visual quality at the rear of the existing center is poor, with unscreened mechanical equipment, large trucks with signage, glare from security lighting and an unarticulated building fagade. Other than the existing cedar fence, no landscape elements exist on the Cedarwood Center site that can help screen these undesirable site features from view. The Applicant has located the pole close to the building which helps to lessen the visual impact of the pole when viewed from most angles. It is acknowledged that the portion of the pole above the building roofline will be visible, particularly from residential lots located to the south and west where there are no trees blocking sightlines. Planting of large trees along the fence line at the back of the subject property will help to provide immediate screening of the loading area/building service area for abutting residents and, in the long run, reduce the visual impact of the upper portion of the cell tower. The Hearing Officer acknowledges and appreciates that the adjacent property owners have provided careful thought in the framing of their concerns about visual impacts; however, the weight of evidence presented by the Applicant and corroborated by the City staff, supports a finding that visual impacts can be acceptably mitigated through the careful placement of sufficiently sized King Soopers (Cedarwood) M . PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision September 5, 2007 Page 5 of 7 2. Compliance with Article 4 and the NC Zoning District Standards: The Project Development Plan complies with all applicable requirements of Article 4 and the NC Zoning District. Wireless telecommunication facilities are permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial District, subject to an Administrative Review. The Staff Report summarizes the PDP's compliance with these specific standards and no specific evidence was presented to contradict the statements and conclusion of the staff report concerning compliance with Article 4 or the NC District Standards. 3. Compliance with Article 3 of the Land Use Code — General Development Standards The Project complies with Section 3.8.13 except where a condition of approval has been suggested to ensure compliance with the compatibility standards. The Staff Report summarizes the PDP's compliance with these specific standards and no specific evidence was presented to contradict the statements and conclusion of the staff report concerning compliance with this section. Three property owners within the immediate vicinity expressed concerns about the Project's impact on the neighborhood. Public testimony was received by a representative of the Fort Collins Housing Authority, the property owner to the west, who expressed concerns over the visual impact of the pole and suggested that alternative pole locations, including those at the front of the shopping center site, would have less of an impact. The Housing Authority owns the 2- 24 plex buildings located directly to the west and is anticipating construction of a community room addition at the rear of their lot, close to the telecommunications ground equipment. If the Project is constructed as proposed, the Housing Authority suggested that trees planted at the ground level would help to mitigate most visual impacts; however, views from the upper floors would continue to be impacted. Bill VanEron, owner of a rental property west of the facility, outlined his concerns about aesthetic impacts to adjacent properties and potential diminution of property values as a result of the Project. Wendy Clark, a resident of 1020 Montview Rd., located immediately south and west of the proposed facility, raised questions and concerns about aesthetic and noise impacts of the facility, health impacts from the equipment's operation, potential for conflicts with King Soopers' delivery operations and potential diminution of property values. Despite the planting of trees for mitigation, Ms. King Soopers (Cedarwood) Wl , PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision September 5, 2007 Page 4 of 7 resident concerned about the health implications of wireless technology in general, but not concerned with this project specifically. The project was reviewed by City Staff and presented before the Administrative Hearing Officer who found the project to be non -compliant with the compatibility standards contained in Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Code. The Hearing Officer denied the Project in a Decision dated May 30, 2007. Subsequent to the denial, the applicant met with the staff to discuss the rationale for the denial. The applicant submitted a new project application on July 20, 2007 which responded to compatibility issues raised during the previous Administrative Review by moving the monopole approximately 60 feet to the southeast and adjacent the building, where the building and trees might buffer visual impacts more effectively. The proposed wireless facility is a monopole with a stealth sheath configuration. Another wireless provider, Verizon Wireless has indicated interest in co -locating with this facility and submitted a formal application on August 22, 2007. T-Mobile has taken a future co -location into consideration in siting this project and in the construction design of the pole. They have changed their proposed tower height from the previous submittal at 40 feet to 50 feet to allow for the Verizon co - location. City staff conducted a neighborhood meeting on Monday, August 20, 2007. A written summary of public comments made at the neighborhood meeting was attached to the Staff Report submitted to the Hearing Officer. The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 restricts municipalities' ability to deny telecommunications equipment. A municipality may not deny a wireless facility because it does not want such development in the community or because of concerns about negative health consequences from radiation emitted by wireless facilities. Cities can stipulate in which zone districts wireless facilities are permitted. Fort Collins allows wireless telecommunications facilities only in zone districts which are primarily commercial, industrial or in public open lands. The Cedarwood Plaza site was annexed into the City between 1955 and 1964. As far back as records show, in 1965, this site was zoned D—Commercial. Aside from the gas station and what is now the Farmer's Table restaurant, the shopping center was built after the single family houses to the southwest of the parcel, though it was platted at the same time as the residential lots. The property was rezoned BL—Limited Business in 1976. In 1997, with the change to City Plan and the Land Use Code, the parcel was zoned NC —Neighborhood Commercial. King Soopers (Cedarwood) M , PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision September 5, 2007 Page 3 of 7 Written Comments: Letter from "Donna" to Anne Aspen dated August 23, 2007 E-mail message from Jeff Valloric, Fort Collins Housing Authority, to Anne Aspen dated August 22, 2007 Letter from Carol Tunner, former Historic Preservation Planner, to Dan Corson, Colorado Historical Society, dated January 9, 2007 regarding Section 106 Review. Radio Frequency Exposure Survey, T-Mobile Cell Site, Arapahoe Ridge Elementary School, Prepared by Pericle Communications Company and dated October 19, 2005. Delta County Assessor's Office Property Valuation Records dated April 27, 2005. FACTS AND FINDINGS 1. Background The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: NC —Neighborhood Commercial District (existing offices immediately to the north, Ram's Pointe and Ram's Park apartments across Elizabeth, with MMN-Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District (multi -family residential) beyond; E: NC —Neighborhood Commercial District (King Soopers grocery/Cedarwood Shopping Center) with RL — Low Density Residential District (residential neighborhoods) beyond; S: RL — Low Density Residential District (single family residential) W: MMN-Medium Density Mixed Use Neighborhood District (multi -family residential). Early on in the site evaluation process, the applicant made a good faith effort to co -locate their facility on an existing Cingular wireless telecommunication facility at the south end of the property behind the Farmer's Table restaurant but the available pole height is not tall enough for effective radio frequency. The applicant expressed that he made good faith efforts to locate the facility on other properties in the immediate area that are zoned Commercial including the Bethel Baptist church and elsewhere on the Cedarwood Plaza site (on top of King Sooper's, in front of King Soopers). The Project was initially submitted as King Sooper's (Cedarwood Plaza) Telecom Wireless Facility PDP-Type 1 #38-06. A neighborhood meeting was not required for the previous Project and none was held. Prior to the Administrative Hearing where the previous Project was considered, staff received one phone call from a King Soopers (Cedarwood) Wi , PDP Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision September 5, 2007 Page 2 of 7 ZONING DISTRICT: NC — Neighborhood Commercial STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conditional Approval NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Evidence presented to the Hearing Officer established no controversy or facts to refute that the hearing was properly posted, legal notices mailed and notice published. puffj9,_'z The Hearing Officer, presiding pursuant to the Fort Collins Land Use Code, opened the hearing at approximately 5:30 p.m. on September 5, 2007 in the City Council Chambers, 300 W. LaPorte Avenue, Fort Collins, Colorado. HEARING TESTIMONY, WRITTEN COMMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCE: The Hearing Officer accepted during the hearing the following evidence: (1) Planning Department Staff Report; (2) application, plans, maps and other supporting documents submitted by the applicant and the applicant's representatives to the City of Fort Collins; and (3) a tape recording of public testimony provided during the hearing. The LUC, the City's Comprehensive Plan (City Plan), and the formally promulgated policies of the City are all considered part of the evidence considered by the Hearing Officer. The following is a list of those who attended the meeting: From the City: Anne Aspen, City Planner From the Applicant: Chris Stryker From the Public: Bill and Fran VanEron, 712 Garfield St. Bill Cooper, 925 Ponderosa Dr. Wendy Clark, 1020 Montview Rd. Jeff Valloric, Fort Collins Housing Authority Planning. )evelopment and Transportatic iervices Planning and Zoning CITY OF FORT COLLINS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER TYPE I ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING DATE: PROJECT NAME: CASE NUMBER: APPLICANT: OWNERS: HEARING OFFICER: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: September 5, 2007 King Soopers (Cedarwood) Wireless Telecommunication Facility, Project Development Plan #38-06A Chris Stryker Stryker Site Services 9643 Timberhawk Circle #26 Littleton, CO 80126 Robert Perry and Associates 6500 S. Quebec St., Suite 300 Englewood, CO 80111 Cameron Gloss Planning and Zoning Director The Applicant has submitted a Project Development Plan (referred to herein as the "Project" or the "PDP) requesting approval to install a 50-foot tall freestanding wireless telecommunication monopole, in a stealth sheath configuration, east of the rear service drive aisle and adjacent to the King Soopers grocery store. This is the second request for a wireless telecommunication facility on the northwest side of the subject property. SUMMARY OF HEARING OFFICER DECISION: Conditional Approval 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 9 FAX (970) 416-2020 Planning, evelopment and Transportatio. iervices Planning and Zoning City of Fort Collins September 19, 2007 Dear Participant in the King Soopers (Cedarwood) Wireless Telecommunications Facility PDP Administrative Hearing, Enclosed is a copy of the Type I Administrative Hearing Findings, Conclusions, and Decision for the King Soopers (Cedarwood) Wireless Telecommunications Facility Project Development Plan. The Hearing Officer has approved the application with conditions. This final decision of approval may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with Section 2-48 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins. The appellant must submit written notice of appeal, reasons for the appeal and a filing fee of $100 to the City Clerk's Office within 14 days of the date of final action by the Hearing Officer. Information regarding the grounds for appeal is available on the City Clerk's page of the City's website at http://fcgov.com/cityclerk/appeals/Xhi). If appealed, the City Clerk will place the item on the Council agenda for hearing as expeditiously as possible. The City Clerk will provide written notice of an appeal from a final decision of the Hearing Officer to the City Council to the appellant, the applicant and all other parties -in - interest 10 days prior to the date set for the hearing. An appeal of the Hearing Officer's final decision is based on the minutes of the proceedings at the Administrative Hearing and any other materials received by the Hearing Officer. New evidence may not be considered on an appeal. The City Council may uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the Hearing Officer. If you have specific questions about the appeal process, please contact me at 221-6750. Sincerely, Anne Aspen City Planner 281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6750 • FAX (970) 416-2020