Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout829 SOUTH SHIELDS - MODIFICATION OF STANDARDS - 44-01 - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning & Zoning Board Minutes December 6, 2001 Page 5 over time, we could be seeing twelve of these in the area, and all of a sudden it becomes very difficult to deny one carrier putting up a 60 foot pole, when 1 or more had already been approved. He thought a dangerous precedent was being set for something that could be, in his opinion, very visible when everything around it is 30 feet at best. He also felt that the space was being used to its full extent and it was difficult to limit the size of the lot as a hardship. The reason the lot has a limited size was because it was being used. He also felt it could be detrimental to the public good if this were approved because we would see more of these in the area. He felt that was detrimental to the public good. Chairperson Gavaldon supported the motion for denial. He did not think that the justification substantiated a physical hardship. Granting of the modification would create a problem with visibility and proliferation. Deputy City Attorney Eckman asked if Member Colton would like to include in the motion the issue of detrimental to the public good that was stated by Member Bernth. Member Colton stated he would like to add that to the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. roject: East Ridge Annexation & Zoning, #33-98 Project Desc " tion: Request to annex and zo 59.25 acres of land located st of Timberline Road and south ast Vine Drive. The parcel is curr y zoned Industrial in Larimer unty. The property is ur tly used for agriculture and is a t except for several buildings fronting ' berline Road. The annexation m� includes the annexation of Timberline Road -a d East Vine Drive, adjacent to the East Ri Parcel. The proposed zoning is T, Transi Planning & Zoning Board Minutes December 6, 2001 Page 4 to do there. They do not see anything coming forward that meets their timing, certainly not in the next several months. If that were to occur, they would fall back and regroup and see what would be available. Chairperson Gavaldon asked if burying their equipment underground was an option. Mr. Kimbrell responded that he did not know about this particular site, but that could be something that they could explore. Member Torgerson asked if the applicant had explored the site to the north, which has a huge parking lot in the back and would obviously accommodate the setback requirement. Mr. Kimbrell replied that they had looked at the sites to the north and they can meet a little greater setback on the property to the north, but visually, they don't think it is as sound. They like the location where they are better. They have looked at several sites in the area and this is the one that they think will be the best overall. Member Colton moved to deny the modification request. He did not believe, although this particular lot can't meet the setbacks, that there are not other lots or properties that could meet that rule. He did not think that there was a unique physical hardship associated with this. He wanted the applicant to go back to CSU and press the issue with them because they have light poles, dormitories, Moby Gym; many places where you would not have to put in a stand alone monopole. He would like to get this resolved, not only for Quest, but for other phone companies as well. He thought that staff should also work with CSU to get this resolved because he believed that CSU was not complying with the Federal Law in a timely manner. Member Torgerson seconded the motion. Member Torgerson clarified his thoughts. It seems that this site is occupied at at least 90% with impervious area, buildings and parking lots. It is being used at its highest and best use. To say that it has a unique physical constraint because you cannot add one more thing was a condition that was created by the owner of the property. Member Bernth felt that the scale, a 65 foot tower, will be highly visible. When we look at it from a standpoint of a larger number of carriers that will increase Planning & Zoning Board Minutes December 6, 2001 Page 3 footprint itself. The situation on this particular lot is that there is not any place on this particular lot where they could meet the requirement. That is the case with the lots in the general area. Public Input There was none. Member Craig asked if there are street lamps or taller buildings, anything in the area that might facilitate a pole of this height. Planner Barkeen replied that this was going to be a difficult site. The buildings within the immediate area of the intersection are generally low and generally less than two stories. There is a taller apartment building immediately to the northwest that is about three stories in height. The street lights in the area are standard and are only about 25 to 30 feet tall. The ground equipment also takes up a sizeable amount of space. From what he has seen out there in the immediate area, it would be difficult to co -locate something within this corner. There have been discussions about going across the street to Colorado State University, which has everything you would want in terms of locating equipment on. It is staffs understanding that CSU is no longer accepting applications to co - locate on their facilities within their main campus. Chairperson Gavaldon asked how big of an area were they trying to close the gap on. Qwest Engineer (name inaudible) reported that the gap size was close to a mile radius. They have been having a problem with Elizabeth Street to the west and Shields Street to the north and south. They are proposing a site in this area because there is such high traffic and they would like to try and cover more customers in the area. Chairperson Gavaldon asked about CSU not taking applications for co -locations and did they have documentation that shows that is the case and why. Mr. Kimbrell replied that he did not have written documentation, but could provide that at some point. His conversations with CSU, and they are actually doing potentially another site with CSU at the stadium, have taken the main campus off the table for a time. Their Board meets in February and they are going to be there to talk about a number of issues and maybe it will come up again at that time. The current information is that they have taken the main campus off of the table until they meet with the Board and get some direction as to what they want Planning & Zoning Board Minutes December 6, 2001 Page 2 Recommendation: Approval Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Bernth reported he was having trouble with Item C, under the Findings of Facts and Conclusions on Page 5 of the staff report. It reads, "By reason of exceptional physical conditions (the limited size of the lot and lack of available open area) the strict application of Section 3.8.13(C)(1) would result in undue hardship upon the owner of the property because a monopole that was compliant with the setback would be too short to be functional. Member Bernth asked for the applicant to justify that statement. Chairperson Gavaldon asked for a staff presentation. Bob Barkeen, City Planner gave the staff presentation recommending approval. He stated that the modification would be for a wireless telecommunication facility. Planner Barkeen showed slides of the site and the surrounding uses. He stated that a telecommunication facility is permitted in the Community Commercial zoning district subject to an approval of a Type 1 Administrative Hearing. Planner Barkeen reviewed the site plan and the exact location where the monopole would be located. He reviewed the setbacks as 13 and 32 feet. The applicant is looking at a monopole of about 60 feet tall. The Code requires that for each foot in height, there needs to be one foot setback from the adjacent property lines. The way it is now it can only be 13 feet tall. Sam Kimbral, Qwest, applicant on the project addressed the Board. He stated that this proposal has come forward with the understanding they would have some hurdles. They have a situation where they have a gap in coverage along Shields north and south and along Elizabeth to the east and west. They have gone through some preliminary work in trying to locate a site. Their approach was to seek the variance first and if they can get past that hurdle, then it would become incumbent upon them to come back and see if they can work with Planning to come up with a design and a height that would work for everyone. Chairperson Gavaldon asked that Mr. Kimbral address the question Member Bernth had regarding Finding of Fact and Conclusion number C. Mr. Kimbral responded that what they have discovered in that area in looking at potential sites is that the lots are quite small and most of them are built upon. There is not a good deal of open lots, they are small commercial establishments on small lots. To meet a one to one setback requirements there is just not workable on those lots. A great deal of the lot is taken up with the building Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Jerry Gavaldon Vice Chair: Mikal Torgerson Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (H) 484-2034 Phone: (W) 416-7435 Chairperson Gavaldon called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Colton, Torgerson, Craig, Bernth and Gavaldon. Member Carpenter was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Barkeen, Stringer, Moore, Stanford, Wamhoff, Schlueter, Lamarque, Williams and Alfers. Agenda Review: Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. 414.-DI Modification of Standards - 829 S. Shields 2. #33-98 Eastridge Annexation & Zoning Discussion Agenda: 3. #26-00 Peak View Estates - Project Development Plan 4. #15-01 Big Horn Village II - Project Development Plan Member Bernth pulled item one, Modification of Standards for 829 S. Shields. Citizen pulled item two, Eastridge Annexation and Zoning. There was no remaining Consent Agenda. Project: Modification of Standard - 829 South Shields (Qwest Wireless Telecommunication Facility), #44-01 Project Description: Request for a modification to the Land Use Code to reduce the setback for a wireless telecommunication facility from the property lines from 60 feet to 13 feet.