PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT

Regular Agenda – Public Hearing Item:

 

 

PC Staff Report

09/28/05

ITEM NO 15:            USE PERMITTED UPON REVIEW FOR TOWER CO-LOCATION AT 1800 NAISMITIH DRIVE (SLD)

 

UPR-08-05-05:  Use Permitted upon Review request for co-location on existing wireless tower located at 1800 Naismith Drive.  Submitted by Selective Site Consultants for Verizon Wireless, applicant, and Naismith Holdings LLC c/o AIMCO, property owner of record.

 

 

STAFF RECOMMENDATION:     Planning Staff recommends approval of UPR-08-05-05 a Use Permitted Upon Review for the addition of communication antenna on an existing building 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 condition:

 

1.      Execution of a site plan performance agreement.

 

 

Applicant’s Reason for Request:

Enhancement of existing service to Verizon customers.

 

KEY POINTS

·         Proposed request is for co-location of antenna and equipment on a building.

·         A tower is not proposed for site.

 

GOLDEN FACTORS TO CONSIDER

ZONING AND USES OF PROPERTY NEARBY

CHARACTER OF THE AREA

 

ASSOCIATED CASES/OTHER ACTION REQUIRED

·         Property is built with multi-story residential building.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED PRIOR TO PRINTING

·         Telephone call from property owner concerned about television and radio reception interference and physical harm from microwave emissions.

 

 

GENERAL INFORMATION

 

Current Zoning and Land Use:

RD (Residence-Dormitory) District; private dormitory.

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:

RD (Residence-Dormitory) District to the north, east and west; University property to the north and west, residential uses to the east

 

RM-1 (Multiple-Family Residence) District to the south; existing residential uses.

Reason for Request:

Improved coverage for customers

 

Site Summary

Parent Parcel

2.49 acres

Building Height

106’ (no change proposed for building height)

Antenna Type

Building mounted antenna with roof mounted equipment cabinet.

Previous Review:

No previous documentation on this property

 

History:

Subject property was built in 1965 as the Naismith Hall Dormitory. The building is 10 stories with what is listed as 252 living units according to the Douglas County Appraiser’s Office. The building functions as a private dormitory.

 

I.         ZONING AND USES OF PROPERTY NEARBY

 

Staff Finding – The subject is zoned for high-density residential use as is much of the surrounding area. Uses include University property and religious facilities along with single- and multi-family uses.

 

II.       CHARACTER OF THE AREA

 

Staff Finding –The subject property is located on the south side of the University of Kansas Campus area. It marks the boundary of the higher-density residential area from the lower density area to the south and east.

 

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

 

Staff Finding - There is no proposed change to the existing zoning designation. The proposed request is for the co-location of communication equipment on a building rather than a traditional tower structure. The property is zoned residentially and requires a special permit.  Approval of a Use Permitted upon Review will not alter the base zoning.

 

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

 

Staff Finding – The subject property is developed as a high-density residential dormitory use since 1965. 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Staff Finding – No detriment affect on nearby property is anticipated by the addition of roof mounted equipment and wall mounted antenna on the existing building. Approval of a Use Permitted upon Review does not alter the existing zoning district. 

 

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

 

Staff Finding – 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. There are no apparent detriments to the public health, safety, and welfare by the proposed request.

 

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 request for a tower structure, but an expansion of a communication network via co-location on an existing building.  

 

Staff Finding – Horizon 2020 does not directly address the issue of special 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 subject property is comprised of a 2.4-acre area with an existing 10-story building. The proposed request is representative of a co-location request. Per 20-14B02 (a) (2) a co-location request located in a residential district is subject to approval by a Use Permitted upon Review (UPR). The site plan indicates that antenna will be attached to the building exterior and an equipment cabinet will be added to the roof of the existing building. The proposed request does not alter the building height or setback requirements. The applicant has been informed that the building will be required to be sprinkled as part of the building permit process.

 

Co-location of Communication Equipment

 

Justification-Section 20-14B03 (a) states: “A proposal for a new communications tower shall not be approved unless the applicant can document that the telecommunications equipment planned for the prop0sed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or approved tower or other structure.” The code provides specific documentation to address an inability to co-locate on existing structures. As noted above, the proposed request does represent a co-location request. No previous development approval has been granted for this site.  Site development predates site plan requirements.

 

Co-location related to new towers- Current zoning requirements specify that tower structures must accommodate a minimum of three providers (Section 20-14B03 (b)). The existing structure predates the current regulations and was built for residential purposes.

 

Setback and Height- Section 20-14B04 (a) and (d) require tower structures to be setback from the property line a distance equal to that of the height of the tower. Addition of building mounted equipment will not alter the existing height or setback of the structure.

 

Zoning Preference- The Zoning Regulations state the preferable zoning district for tower construction is commercial or industrial (Section 20-14B04 (e)). The proposed request makes use of existing building height. The request is not representative of a typical communications tower facility.

 

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 provided documentation related to the proposed antenna co-location and building mounted equipment as part of the site plan.

 

Lighting- The proposed antenna additions will not be lit.

 

Site Plan -The proposed site plan complies with the required submission information.