PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:

PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT SUMMARY

PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:

PC Staff Report

06/22/05

ITEM NO 17: USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR TOWER CO-LOCATION AND COMPOUND EXPANSION; 4700 OVERLAND DRIVE (SLD)

SUMMARY

UPR-05-03-05: Use Permitted upon Review request for co-location and compound expansion on existing wireless tower located at 4700 Overland Drive. Submitted by Selective Site Consultants for Verizon Wireless, applicant, and USD #497, property owner of record.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends approval of UPR-05-03-05 a Use Permitted upon Review for expansion of a communication tower facility and forwarding of it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report, subject to the following conditions;

1. Include following notes on face of plan per 20-14B03 (c) (d)

a. “Any tower that is not in use for a period of three 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 property pursuant to K.S.A. 12-6a17.”

b. “The tower owner/operator shall submit a letter to the Planning Office by July 1 of each year listing the current users and types of antenna located on the approved tower. A sign shall be posted on the tower or the exterior fence around the base of the tower noting the name and telephone number of the tower owner and operator.”

c. “Any ground or mounted lighting shall be subject to staff review and shall be shielded and directed downward.”

Applicant’s Reason for Request:

Expansion of compound required to accommodate Verizon’s equipment for coverage improvements to Lawrence and Douglas County network.

KEY POINTS

· Proposed request is expansion of compound area at base of tower.

· New tower is not proposed for site.

· No tower height extension is proposed for site.

GOLDEN FACTORS TO CONSIDER

ZONING AND USES OF PROPERTY NEARBY

· The surrounding property is zoned RS-1 (Single-Family Residence) District and is developed as an existing high school campus.

CHARACTER OF THE AREA

· The subject property is located within a developed educational campus setting that is surrounded by existing and developing residential uses.

ASSOCIATED CASES/OTHER ACTION REQUIRED

· UPR-07-05-02 – original approval

· UPR-06-05-03 – tower extension

· SP-11-79-04 – antenna co-location

· Compliance with minimum City Building Codes as applicable.

PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED PRIOR TO PRINTING

· No received

PUBLIC HEARING ITEM:

PC Staff Report

06/22/05

ITEM NO 17: USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR TOWER CO-LOCATION AND COMPOUND EXPANSION; 4700 OVERLAND DRIVE (SLD)

SUMMARY

GENERAL INFORMATION
Current Zoning and Land Use:	RS-1 (Single-Family Residence) District; existing high school campus. School district property includes area on east side of Wakarusa Drive that is unplatted.
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:	RS-1 (Single-Family Residence) District to the west of the subject property; USD 497 athletic fields. PCD-2 (Planned Commercial District) and PRD-2 (Planned Residential District) south of Overland Drive; undeveloped. RS-2 (Single-Family Residence) District RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residence) District and RO-1B (Residence-Office) District to the east; existing residential development. A-1 (Suburban Home Residence) District to the north; developing residential uses.
Reason for Request:	Co-location requires additional ground mounted equipment and expanded enclosure area to accommodate equipment.

Site Summary
Parent Parcel	55 acres
Tower Height	150’
Lease Area	.06 acre
Existing Enclosure Area:	35’ x 50’
Proposed Addition:	20’ x 50’ addition to north side of existing enclosure
Total Enclosure Area:	55’ x 50’ total enclosure size
Previous Review:	UPR-07-05-02 original approval; 900 SF [30’ x 30’] UPR-06-05-03 expansion of tower; 1750 SF [50’ x 35’] SP-11-79-04 co-location (administrative)

I. ZONING AND USES OF PROPERTY NEARBY

Staff Finding – The subject property is located within an existing high school campus. Athletic fields are located to the west of the existing tower site and buildings are located to the east. Residential areas surrounding the school site.

II. CHARACTER OF THE AREA

Staff Finding –The subject property is owned by USD 497. The parent parcel is developed with a high school, parking areas, and athletic facilities associated with Free State High School as well as the City’s indoor aquatic center. The area north of Overland Drive is developing with a variety of residential uses.

III. SUITABILITY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR THE USES TO WHICH IT HAS BEEN RESTRICTED

Staff Finding – A Use Permitted upon Review was approved in the summer of 2002 for a 120’ tower (UPR-07-05-02). The site was revised in 2003 to extend the tower height to 150’. There is no proposed change to the existing zoning designation. The proposed request is for the expansion of the compound area at the base of the tower to support existing communication services. Approval of a tower expansion will not alter the base zoning.

IV. LENGTH OF TIME SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT AS ZONED

Staff Finding – The subject property is not vacant but is developed with an existing tower facility including ground mounted equipment. The parent parcel is zoned RS-1 (Single-Family Residence) District which is the common zoning district currently used for public facilities including schools and public parks. This zoning has been in place since the property was annexed in 1995.

V. EXTENT TO WHICH REMOVAL OF RESTRICTIONS WILL DETRIMENTALLY AFFECT NEARBY PROPERTY

Staff Finding – The expansion of the ground facilities is not anticipated to detrimentally affect nearby property. The proposed use does not alter the base zoning district. Access is provided via established access easements through the school site. The tower height is not proposed to be altered. Lighting at the base (building mounted lighting) may be permissible subject to staff review and approval. Lighting of the tower is not expressly prohibited since the FAA could make this element a condition in the future.

VI. RELATIVE GAIN TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE BY THE DESTRUCTION OF THE VALUE OF THE PETITIONER’S PROPERTY AS COMPARED TO THE HARDSHIP IMPOSED UPON THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS

Evaluation of the relative gain weighs the benefits to the community-at-large vs. the benefit of the owners of the subject property. Benefits are measured based on anticipated impacts of the rezoning request on the public's health, safety and welfare. The proposed use would improve service delivery to existing Verizon customers within the Lawrence and Douglas County network. There are no apparent detriments to the public health safety and welfare by the expansion of the facility previously approved.

Staff Finding – The surrounding property will continue as a high school campus. No detrimental impacts are anticipated by the expansion of the ground enclosure area.

VII. CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The Public Utility Strategies section provided in Horizon 2020 addresses utility needs in the community. These strategies are geared toward essential utilities, such as sewer and water, as well as electrical and telephone services that serve day-to-day needs. Horizon 2020 states:

§ Plans should emphasize utility improvements and extensions that provide the highest level of service within existing service areas, particularly public water and wastewater treatment and collection.

§ The visual appearance of utility improvements will be addressed to ensure compatibility with existing and planned land use areas.

§ Wherever possible, the location of new major utility corridors should be preplanned to ensure land use compatibility and minimal disruption to existing development areas.

The Plan states that utilities need to be located and extended in a planned manner that is sensitive to public concerns. It is not feasible for all utilities to be located underground. The Plan speaks directly to electric transmission lines regarding the strong visual presence of some utilities, but the need to minimize the environmental and aesthetic impacts are relevant to this application as well.

The proposed request does not represent a new request, but an expansion of an existing use to accommodate current service providers within the community.

Staff Finding – Horizon 2020 does not directly address the issue of special or conditional uses. The plan provides basic guidance regarding major infrastructure improvements and urges that such uses be carefully planned and provided. The provision of such services should be focused in existing service areas to address growth. Additionally, placement and visual appearance are a key consideration in creating compatibility.

STAFF REVIEW

The UPR process includes submission of a site plan, which complies with Article 14. The current tower height is 150’. The tower includes sites for two carriers currently co-located on the tower and a platform for a future carrier. The proposed request will allow for a fourth carrier to occupy a position at 110’ with ground equipment to the north of the tower. The proposed request is for the addition of a 20’ by 50’ addition to the north end of the existing enclosure. Tower and accessory structures will be “enclosed” within a 55’ by 50’ enclosure that is described as the “lease area”. The original approved enclosure was 35’ by 50’.

The proposed request represents a co-location request. Co-locations that do not alter the enclosure are addressed administratively by staff. However, the expansion of the enclosure area is not specifically addressed in the zoning code. The public hearing process is consistent with the process followed for the county tower expansion considered by the Planning Commission this past May. The tower structure is a mono-pole type facility. The following elements are specific review items related to communication towers. Each standard is reviewed individually to assess compliance.

Co-location of Communication Equipment

Justification- Article 14B establishes the submission and review requirements for consideration of new tower requests. The code provides specific documentation to this effect:

(1) The planned equipment would exceed the structural capacity of existing and approved towers, considering existing and planned use of those towers, and existing and approved towers cannot be reinforced to accommodate the planned or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost.

(2) The planned equipment would cause frequency interference with other existing or planned equipment for these towers, and the interference cannot be prevented at a reasonable cost.

(3) Existing or approved towers do not have space on which planned equipment can be placed so it can function effectively and reasonably in parity with other similar equipment in place or approved.

(4) Other reasons that make it impracticable to place the equipment planned by the applicant on existing and approved towers.

The proposed request does not represent a new tower request. It is a request to facilitate co-location of equipment on an existing tower. In order to accommodate the carrier and necessary ground equipment a larger base enclosure area is required. It should be noted that the co-location does not include an extension of the tower height of this facility.

Co-location related to new towers- Current zoning requirements specify that tower structures must accommodate a minimum of three providers (20-14B03) (b). The existing structure currently accommodates three platforms. Approval of the request will add a fourth carrier on the tower. One existing platform is currently vacant.

Setback and Height- Tower structures are required to be setback from the property line a distance equal to that of the height of the tower, but may be located closer to a property line less than the full height when the applicant provides engineering documentation to assure adequate measures are taken to establish a clear fall zone. The current structure is located approximately 50’ southwest of the southwest corner of the City’s property (indoor aquatic center). The tower was required to comply with building and engineering standards that address a particular fall zone during the original construction.

Zoning Preference- The preferred location of towers is on non-residential property. The current zoning is RS-1 (Single-Family Residence) District. The use is considered to be public or institutional in nature. Equipment for the additional communication antenna will be located in a building at the base of the expanded tower enclosure area. As noted, the base zoning will not be altered by the approval of the proposed request.

Permission – The applicant has provided staff with necessary documentation to assure that the property owner of record is party to this application.

Tower Design- The applicant has provide documentation related to the existing tower design and proposed antenna co-location and ground equipment as part of the site plan. This information will be forwarded to Neighborhood Resources for inclusion with a building permit, if approved.

Lighting- The tower structure is not proposed to be lit. No notes are provided regarding ground mounted lighting. There have been past discussions regarding the installation of flood light mounting on the tower for the high school. Any such lighting would be reviewed by city staff. Such lighting must be shielded and directed downward. Building lighting at the base of the tower must likewise be shielded and directed downward.

Site Plan -The proposed site plan complies with the required submission information. The plan notes revised landscaping will be installed around the exterior fence area. Some additional notes are required to be added to the face of the site plan consistent with minimum code requirements. These are reflected as conditions of approval.

SUMMARY

The proposed request is minor in nature. The site plan must meet minimum building and FCC regulations. The proposed request does not modify the tower height or land use relationship to the surrounding area.

This use represents the second request for a co-location (one in the City and one in the County) where the modification is minor, to accommodate additional communication equipment on the tower. If the commission believes these types of requests should also be handled administratively, by directing staff to do so, no additional items of this nature will appear on the Planning Commission’s Agenda. The summary will also be forwarded to the County Commission for their consideration on the recent County Application.

PROFESSIONAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Planning Staff recommends approval of UPR-05-03-05 a Use Permitted upon Review for expansion of a communication tower facility and forwarding of it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval, based upon the findings of fact presented in the body of the staff report and subject to the following conditions:

1. Include following notes on face of plan per 20-14B03 (c) (d)

c. “Any ground or mounted lighting shall be subject to staff review and shall be shielded and directed downward.”