ITEM NO. 9: USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR CELL TOWER; 2300 WAKARUSA DRIVE (PGP)
UPR-12-07-03: Use Permitted upon Review request for placement of a cell tower. The applicant proposes a 150’ monopole tower. The property is located at the Clinton Water Treatment Plant facility at 2300 Wakarusa Drive. Submitted by Faulk & Foster for T-Mobile. The City of Lawrence is the property owner of record.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Mr. Patterson introduced the Item, which involved the placement of a second 150’ cell tower on a large parcel (119 acres) of City property zoned RS-1 for public space. The existing monopole had several co-locations and had reached capacity. The second tower was requested to provide space for more provider antennas.
It was established that, although the height and size of the pole restricted the number of available co-locations, the City did not have height restrictions for the poles other than how the UPR was conditioned. The City also did not have regulations regarding the placement of multiple poles in one area.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Brian Smith, Cavanaugh, Smith & Lemon, spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Smith reiterated that the existing tower had reached capacity. A 150’ pole was able to accommodate four providers. For more than four, the pole must be both taller and wider. Poles over 199’ in height were subject to FAA registration and lighting standards.
Mr. Smith showed a photo simulation of the proposed tower in
relation to the existing tower and viewed from the residential neighborhood.
He described the visual impact of the proposed structure.
The applicant had sent a letter to property owners (beyond the radius of Staff’s notification letters) explaining the nature of the project. The applicant invited the area residents to a meeting on January 5th and provided contact information for phone calls or written comment. Mr. Smith said that the only attendee was a City attorney and his office had received no calls or letters.
Mr. Smith responded to questioning that replacing the existing pole with a taller one would interrupt service for the customers of all the providers currently co-located on the existing tower and would depend on the applicant’s willingness to finance the removal and replacement of the new, taller tower.
Mr. Smith described the process by which the applicant considered alternate sites and came to the determination that the proposed location would best suit their coverage needs.
Mike Reed, Senior Engineering Manager for Nextel, explained that using “low profile” antennas reduced the coverage area for their frequency by 30-50%, making additional towers at smaller intervals necessary.
It was discussed that the towers were built in such a manner that other technologies (public safety services, wireless internet) could be co-located as well.
There was concern expressed that more towers would be requested in the same location, creating an “antenna farm”. Mr. Smith replied that he did not see that potential in this location. It was discussed that this antenna could be constructed to accommodate future expansion, but the applicant did not think the need would arise.
The applicant expressed no objection to providing the City with annual inspection reports regarding the structural integrity of the tower.
It was clarified that the proposed tower would accommodate four co-locations, including the applicant (Nextel), with multiple antennae for each provider.
PUBLIC HEARING
Steve Wheeler, 1992 Pecan Valley Court, expressed his concern with the visual impact of an additional tower near his home, showing photographs of the existing tower from his property.
Mr. Wheeler asked if the Commission could condition how many towers could be placed at a single site and suggested towers should be spread, rather than concentrated. He also suggested the applicant could construct a smaller tower, 70’-100’ to provide service for only their own customers.
Mr. Wheeler presented pictures of damage done by maintenance vehicles driving across curbs and unimproved City property to access the existing tower.
Mr. Wheeler suggested a number of reasons for the non-attendance by the neighborhood at the meeting called by the applicant. January 5th had been a Monday, the first day of school, with harsh weather conditions. Also the meeting had been held at an inconvenient time (5:00 p.m.).
CLOSING COMMENTS
Mr. Smith explained the restricted access that was planned for the site with the addition of the new tower, which would eliminate the rear access problem discussed by the public speaker.
Mr. Smith responded to questioning that a 70’-100’ tower would not meet the applicant’s needs and that locating on the Corpus Christi Bell Tower would not provide the needed service range.
Staff had no closing comments.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
It was established that a condition on this UPR restricting the location of future towers would be ineffective unless the future towers were proposed by this same applicant. However, the Planning Commission could forward to the City Commission a comment that they (Planning Commission) recommended a minimum distance between towers (1/4 mile was suggested). This concept could also be initiated for inclusion in the new Development Code.
Comm. Johnson suggested steps should be taken - public hearing, survey, call for comments - to determine how the community felt about tower placement (concentrating vs. spreading).
It was noted that, although there may have been valid reasons for the neighborhood not attending the applicant’s meeting, there were no calls or written concerns directed to the applicant or Staff. It was suggested that this was an indicator of the community’s level of concern in this matter, but countered that the actions of one neighborhood could not be used to assume the opinions of the entire community.
ACTION TAKEN
Motioned by Comm. Schachter and seconded to approve the Use Permitted upon Review and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement;
2. Execution of a tower space or land lease agreement with the City of Lawrence, prior to release of the site plan for issuance of a building permit;
3. Provision of a letter that summarizes the structural standards of the proposed tower;
4. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following:
a. 
Provision of
a revised site plan to show the location of proposed utility service lines, and
removal of the reference to the dedication of utility easements. These areas
are to be specifically described in the lease agreement between the application
and the City per staff approval;
b. Addition of a note: “Any tower that is not in use for a period of three continuous years, or more, shall be removed by the owner at the owner's expense. Failure to remove the tower pursuant to non-use may result in removal and assessment of cost to the owner of the tower”; and
c. Addition of a note: “A sign shall be posted on the exterior of the fence around the base of the tower noting the name and telephone number of the tower owner and operator.”
5. The tower owner/operator shall submit a letter to the Planning Office by July of each year listing the current users and types of antenna located on the approved tower (Reference UPR-12-07-03 in the letter); and
6. Applicant shall provide the City Planning Office with annual inspection reviews verifying the structural integrity of the tower.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
It was suggested that the Commission allow the applicant to construct a taller tower in anticipation of future demand. This would reduce the chance of a third application in this location.
It was discussed that the tower could be approved for a current height of 150’, but conditioned for construction that would allow future expansion if warranted. There was concern that this future expansion would require a new UPR and requiring expandable construction now would be interpreted as a “promise” to the applicant of future approval.
Comm. Angino and Chairman Burress debated the validity of a general assumption that people were not concerned about an issue if they did not attend meetings where that issue would be discussed.
Comm. Lawson asked to call the question with no objection.
ACTION TAKEN
Motion on the floor was to approve the Use Permitted upon Review and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based on the findings of fact presented in the body of the Staff Report and subject to the following conditions:
1. Execution of a site plan performance agreement;
2. Execution of a tower space or land lease agreement with the City of Lawrence, prior to release of the site plan for issuance of a building permit;
3. Provision of a letter that summarizes the structural standards of the proposed tower;
4. Provision of a revised site plan to include the following:
a. Provision of a revised site plan to show the location of proposed utility service lines, and removal of the reference to the dedication of utility easements. These areas are to be specifically described in the lease agreement between the application and the City per staff approval;
b. Addition of a note: “Any tower that is not in use for a period of three continuous years, or more, shall be removed by the owner at the owner's expense. Failure to remove the tower pursuant to non-use may result in removal and assessment of cost to the owner of the tower”; and
c. Addition of a note: “A sign shall be posted on the exterior of the fence around the base of the tower noting the name and telephone number of the tower owner and operator.”
5. The tower owner/operator shall submit a letter to the Planning Office by July of each year listing the current users and types of antenna located on the approved tower (Reference UPR-12-07-03 in the letter); and
6. Applicant shall provide the City Planning Office with annual inspection reviews verifying the structural integrity of the tower.
Motion carried 7-1, with Comm. Johnson voting in opposition.