Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRAKE CROSSING SHOPPING CENTER, FT. COLLINS CARWASH, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITY (VERIZON) - PDP - 35-96C - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPlanning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 29 Discussion was held regarding other places within this site the pole could be located to meet the setback requirements but easements, proximity to Taft Hill Road and the cutting down of trees prohibited that. Planner Barkeen stated that he was sure it would be possible to meet the setbacks within this lot, you would probably have to put it in the very center of the lot right next to the carwash building. Is that really a better situation than having it being located further away from Taft Hill, Valley Forge and the adjacent neighborhood. Member Lingle stated he just trying to see if there was a justification for the hardship because it is more beneficial for a lot of reasons. Planner Barkeen stated that putting it somewhere else on the property would require relocating something else. Stealth technology was discussed and whether this project meets that standard. Member Gavaldon moved for denial of the modification for the setback standards citing 4 E and F because it would be a detriment to the public good because of the safety and the visual factors of adjacent properties. He also believes that there is no undue hardship as demonstrated by the discussion and the location of this particular site. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. The applicant requested a continuance to the July hearing. Member Gavaldon moved to continue the Drake Wireless Telecommunications Facility PDP, #35-96C to the third week of July. Member Craig seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 28 Katherine Azari, 2424 Sheffield Circle West stated her issue was ugliness. She grew up in this town and remembered when we changed the sign code. It was changed for a reason because they were ugly. She also remembered when the power lines were buried, because they were ugly. Cell phone use is going up and will be here, there is no question that we need them but there should be a standard set now, so we don't end up paying for it later. She did not want her neighborhood to be the experiment, because it can't be taken away once it is up. She feels sorry for Verizon and she has understood every technical thing they have said, but they are not a public utility and she did not feel that her neighborhood should be used just because it happens to be in the middle of the city. She did not expect that they would be the beginning of an inter city blight around their neighborhood. If you go down Drake toward the foothills, it is ugly and terrible. The power lines are huge and ugly and there is nothing they can do about it. They can do something about this if they are creative and thoughtful and looking forward. That is what she asked of the Board tonight. PUBLIC INPUT CLOSED Member Craig asked about Section 3.8.13(C)(1), setbacks, and was structure collapsible and if not is that why they are making a request for a modification from this section. Director Gloss replied that the applicant has not indicated that this is a collapsible facility. Member Craig asked the applicant to address how this was not detrimental to the public good if it topples instead of collapsible. Ms. Closser responded that these towers are substantially over engineered. In fact a soils test is performed and based on the composition of the soils, a structural engineer will make a foundation recommendation for the pole. That foundation recommendation will take into consideration the height, any horizontal mass associated with the pole, wind loading, and ice loading. If the anticipated wind load is 90 mph, it will be engineered to withstand winds up to 180 miles an hour. Ms. Closser read a letter from a structural engineer as to the rare failure of monopoles. She submitted for the record several letters from structural engineers. Ms. Closser could not say how much of the structure if failed would bend. The fact is that they are way over engineered and the likelihood of any kind of toppling or failure in this environment, given the analysis that is undertaken before it is constructed and ordered is remote. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 27 As far as the location at Rolland Moore Park, he did visit with Terry Keith at Parks and Recreation. He indicated that he thought the light standards at Rolland Moore were 60 feet and he thought the city did lease their light standards to wireless companies. They have them at City Park right now and they put extensions on those light standards at City Park softball fields to expand the height at 70 feet. He thought there were other options available to Verizon and he urged the Board to deny this application. Gail Zitzloft, 2048 Manchester Drive spoke about the green space in between her home and this site. Her husband and she very deliberately picked an older section of town to have character in the homes and trees that were already 50 feet tall. They love the character of the older neighborhood. She has worked all her life to help other people improve their quality of life. Tonight the tables are turned and she stood before the Board asking for their help with their quality of life. Don't let this variance go through. Across the street from this is a daycare that no one has mentioned yet, and we have a 65 foot pole proposed across the street from that daycare. At the first neighborhood meeting there were 45 people that were keen on changing the design or the location. At the second meeting there were only 15 back for a second round, but no changes had been made with the location or design. Tonight they don't have 45 people, but the names are on the petition. Richard Vail 2004 Yorktown Avenue stated that everyone has covered what he was going to say, but there is one thing in Section 3.8.13(C) that he thought needed read. "Wireless telecommunication facilities and equipment located in or near the foothills bear a special responsibility for mitigating visual disruption. If such a location is selected the applicant shall provide computerized, three dimensional visual simulation of the facility or equipment and other appropriate graphics". He showed the picture that was provided and commented that the picture does shows what it will look like. He stated that from his front yard, when there isn't a lot of foliage on the trees, he will be able to see this pole very well because it is between him and the foothills. It will block his view of the foothills. There were other issues brought up at the meetings such as their equipment facility next to the carwash. There will not be a site line for people coming in and out of the carwash and gas station. Dan McArthur, 2424 Sheffield Circle West asked that this variance be denied, primarily because it is not in compliance with the setback requirements. The primary consideration in this review is whether it is in the public good. Clearly this is detrimental to the public good. Clearly the applicant has not considered the entire alternative but taken the path of least resistance. It is not his neighborhoods responsibility to suffer for Verizons business needs. It is not for them to become a sacrifice zone. He was very concerned about the proliferation of these towers and asked that the Board set extremely high expectations for those who would impose these permanent blights on their neighborhood. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 26 increase in traffic in that sector. He stated that at the capacity it is at, service is not maintained in the area. The height of the pole would be 65 feet. Kelly Harrison, Site Acquisition and Zoning Consultant for Verizon Wireless stated that there coverage objective was to find a site between Prospect Road and Drake and Overland Trail and Taft Hill. She has contacted 14 properties and pursued them over the last year. Ms. Harrison went through the 14 sites and described for the Board why each site would not work. PUBLIC INPUT Pete Seal, 1837 Scarabourgh Drive was there to represent his neighborhood, Rolland Moore West. He stated that they were opposed to the tower. They were opposed because they already have two cell towers along the south end of their neighborhood along Drake Road. They are ugly towers and the proposed tower is more aesthetically pleasing, but is still a cell tower. It is 65 feet tall and it would dominate their western view from their neighborhood. The applicant is asking for a variance from the code, which states that they have to have a foot setback for each foot of height. They say they have 15 feet from the property line, but if you look at their pictures it is only about 5 feet from the nearest bay to the carwash. Their biggest concern is safety because it is not nearly far enough from the property line and it is closer to where cars would be entering the carwash. Although it is only 65 feet tall and does not have an ugly top to it, anyone else can come along under Federal Law and co -locate on that tower. All of a sudden there will be a 75 or 80 foot tower. For those reasons they are opposed to the tower. Jim Nye 2337 Valley Forge Avenue stated that his issues boil down to an interpretation of 3.8.13, co -location. He is having a hard time understanding co -location and did this applicant do as the code says in item (B) and try and co -locate on the towers that are already in existence. There are approximately 80 cell phone towers in the city, this one and three more in the process. In his opinion there has to be a better way than sticking another tower up. His second issue is with the definition of "stealth" in Section 3.8.13(C)(15) Stealth Technology, "to the extent reasonably feasible, the applicant shall employ stealth technology so as to covert the wireless telecommunication facility as by the best method which to mitigate or camouflage visual impacts. Stealth technology consists of but is not limited to the use of grain bins, silos, elevators, church steeples, water towers, clock towers, bell towers, false penthouses or other similar "mimic" structures". Mr. Nye stated he was sure they have some creative people and if the Board would approve this, maybe they could be a little more creative with how they are trying to do this. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 25 Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence: Bob Barkeen, City Planner gave the staff presentation recommending approval including a modification for the setback based on the height of the monopole. Our telecommunication ordinance requires that for each one foot of pole height that there is one foot setback from any property line that the facility is located within. The parcel that it is located on is the Drake Crossing Car Wash which is at the northwest corner of Drake Road and Taft Hill Road, more specifically just south of Valley Forge Avenue. The property line that it is next to is only about 15 feet, therefore if they were going to follow the criteria of the code, the pole itself would only be 15 feet tall. Therefore the applicant has requested a modification because the pole is 65 feet in height. The basis for the modification is that it is not detrimental to the public good and also that there is a hardship on the property due to the location of existing buildings, drives and also the relative closeness if they were to put it on the other side of the car wash next to Taft Hill Road, it would be even more obtrusive both to the neighborhood and to Taft Hill Road, which is a major arterial. The criterion that is used to review the actual Project Development Plan for this is included in Sections 3.8.13 of the Land Use Code. There are a number of criteria used to determine whether or not a facility like this should be proposed or not. When staff reviewed this application, basically it was determined it met the majority of the criteria, although the one criteria that was struggled with was whether or not the applicant has pursued all possible locations within this general area to convert this from a wireless telecommunications facility to co -location on an existing structure. The applicant has pursued other locations however they continue to say that this is not only the preferred site, but the only site they were successful in securing a lease on upon which they can build a facility. Planner Barkeen reviewed site shots for the Board. Planner Barkeen stated that through the public process there were two neighborhood meetings held for this application. There have been a number of public concerns about this application. Staff included several public petitions received in the Board's packet, as well as some of the notes from the two neighborhood meetings. He reviewed some other possible options in the area. Ann Closser, representing Verizon Wireless gave the applicants presentation. David Born, Engineer with Verizon Wireless gave a handout to the Board of the Power Point presentation. Mr. Born explained that the main reason they are looking at this site is the area in question has too much traffic on it. Mr. Born showed a slide depicting the LA Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 24 Chairperson Torgerson stated that all of the comments should be discussed and the minutes of this meeting should go to them as well. Vice -Chairperson Meyer moved to request a hearing of the Board of Education on the Ridgeview Classic School Addition Site Plan Advisory Review, File #16-01A, including the concerns brought up previously. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. Planning Director Gloss asked if any of the concerns the Board raised were responded to adequately by the applicant. Chairperson Torgerson replied that the only one, in his opinion, was the left on Lemay as it was a City -initiated change. Member Lingle stated that if this were a regular PDP, he would not support that condition from staff. Chairperson Torgerson stated that the list of concerns that made up the motion is the list that should be passed on to the School Board. The motion was approved 5-0. Attorney Eckman noted that as many Planning and Zoning Board members as possible should attend that School Board hearing, particularly the Chairperson. Project: Drake Crossing Wireless Telecommunication Facility — Project Development Plan, #35-96C Project Description: Request for a 65-foot wireless telecommunication facility located at the northwest corner of Drake Road and Taft Hill Road, within the Drake Crossing Shopping Center. The facility has been designed to limit impacts on the surrounding properties, by mounting the antennas within a canister located at the top of the pole. The associated ground equipment is located in an enclosure next to the pole. The enclosure is attached to the east end of the Fort Collins Car Wash Building, and will use the same brick that is found on the car wash building. The property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes May 20, 2004 Page 2 Chairperson Torgerson declared a conflict of interest on Item 2. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of the Consent Agenda items consisting of Items 1 (February 191h only), 3 and 5. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 6-0. Chairperson Torgerson turned the meeting over to the Vice Chair. Member Gavaldon moved for approval of Consent item 2. Member Schmidt seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 with Chairperson Torgerson abstaining due to a conflict of interest. Project: Harmony Technology Park Overall Development Plan, Second Amendment, # 12-97E Project Description: Request by one of the Owners of the Harmony Technology Park ODP to amend the existing Plan by adding three new acres. The proposed addition includes the existing home sites addressed as 4800, 4804 and 4808 Cambridge Avenue. The addition of three acres will increase the total acreage of the ODP from 267.19 acres to 270.19 acres. The amendment also includes consolidating Tracts G, H and I into a single Tract G, and slightly increasing the amount of land area for secondary uses from 7.5 to 8.25. The site is generally located south of Harmony Road and east of Cambridge Avenue. The zoning is HC, Harmony Corridor. Hearina Testimonv. Written Comments and Other Evidence: Member Craig pulled this item for discussion. Member Craig referred to a letter that was received and was asking if the new "bubble" for this ODP would be residential, commercial, etc? Ted Shepard, Senior Planner replied that the new "bubble" would be a mix of primary and secondary uses. The question being asked was what really happens up along the subdivision along Ziegler Road. This subdivision abuts part of Harmony Tech Park that is the Hewlett Packard Technology Park, which is 60 acres and includes Celestica and will be industrial and office. There will not be any retail, commercial or residential along Ziegler road, which would impact that subdivision. Council Liaison: Karen Weitkunat Chairperson: Mikal Torgerson Vice Chair: Judy Meyer Staff Liaison: Cameron Gloss Phone: (W) 416-7435 Phone: (W) 490-2172 Chairperson Torgerson called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Roll Call: Meyer, Schmidt, Craig, Lingle, Gavaldon and Torgerson. Member Carpenter was absent. Staff Present: Gloss, Eckman, Shepard, Olt, Barkeen, Wamhoff, Sears, Bracke Moore, Stokes and Deines. Director of Current Planning Cameron Gloss reviewed the Consent and Discussion Agendas: Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes of the February 19 and April 15 (Continued), 2004 Planning and Zoning Board Hearings. 2. Resolution PZ04-12 — Easement Vacation. 3. Resolution PZ04-14 — Easement Dedication. 4. #12-97E Harmony Technology Park, 2"d Overall Development Plan. 5. #6-04 Raising Cane's — Project Development Plan. 6. #13-82CS Oakridge Business Park, Homewood Suites, Modification of Standard. 7. Land Conservation and Stewardship Master Plan. Discussion Agenda: 8. #16-01 A Ridgeview Classical School Phase IV Addition — Site Plan Advisory Review. 9. #35-96C Drake Crossing Shopping Center, Fort Collins Carwash — Wireless Telecommunications Facility. 10. Recommendation to City Council for the Spring 2004 Biannual Revisions, Clarifications and Additions to the Land Use Code. 11. #13-82CT Oakridge Business Park, Continuing Care Senior Campus, Modification of Standard. (Continued) 12. Recommendation to City Council for the Spring Green Out -Of - City Utility Request. (Continued) Member Craig pulled items 4 and 6 for discussion. Member Gavaldon pulled item 7.