Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes BZA 06-26-00 )1114 e'I/A UAt - ,2 000 MIA Ll 4-es Laurence Lillig reported that the Department is recommending favorable consideration 41111., this petition, conditioned upon satisfactory resolution of any outstanding Technical Advisory Committee concerns. The public hearing was then closed. Michael Mohr moved to Approve Docket No. SUA-58-00,Asherwood Golf Course Expansion, conditioned upon all Technical Advisory concerns being resolved. APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed. sz) Lattice Communications (SE-59-00) Petitioner seeks Special Exception approval to establish a 120 foot cellular tower on 0.052 acre. The site is located southwest of West 131d Street and Spring Mill Road. The site is zoned S-1/Residence. Filed by Douglas B. Floyd for Lattice Communications, LLC. Note: The Board previously set some guidelines for cellular towers; it is possible that those pre-requisites have not been incorporated into the Board's formal Rules of Procedure. Douglas B. Floyd, attorney, appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Also in attendance: James Parten, Director of Site Development for Lattice Communications; Sam Johnston, Vice President of Lattice Communications; Ty Stoffer, Radio Frequency Engineer for Sprint, PCS;Eric Parker, Site Acquisition for Lattice Communications; and Shane Delahan with GPD Engineers. Lattice Communications is a national company with regional offices in Fort Wayne, Indiana and Cincinnati, Ohio. Lattice is in the business of identifying sites for wireless carriers, entering into lease or purchase agreements with owners of real estate in the area where wireless providers need facilities, and building facilities available to multiple wireless carriers in order to accomplish co-location. In short,Lattice is in the business of leasing space on the towers to multiple providers. Mr. Floyd submitted two letters from ???? It is hopeful that the Board will agree that the use of a power sub-station site is a logical and reasonable place in a residential area to enhance the service for users of wireless communication devices. All 25 criteria specified in the Ordinance have been looked at and considered carefully by the petitioner. Area neighbors who might have a concern regarding their property values understand that the communications pole is necessary for the greater good of the community, notwithstanding that it may be something a neighbor may not want to look at. It is hopeful that the Board will find that location on a power sub-site is the most s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 16 appropriate place to provide the community as a whole with what it needs in the way of benefits from wireless communications. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of the petition;the following appeared: Alexa Albrecht, 1604 Old Mill Circle, Carmel, spoke in support of the petition. According to Ms. Albrecht, the wireless telephone service in the entire area along Springmill is extremely poor and from an emergency contact perspective, 911 cannot be dialed from this location. The option being provided by Lattice is felt to be palatable, and Ms. Albrecht feels it is a good solution. Members of the public were invited to speak in opposition to the petition; the following appeared: Fred Clayton, 13042 South Hampton Court, Springmill Ridge, south of the proposed tower and current sub-station, spoke in opposition to the petition. Mr. Clayton stated that there is ample area along the Meridian Street/Highway 3 corridor where there is good coverage for service. A major concern is how the petitioner acquired the property and the rights. If PSI has used eminent domain to acquire the existing property and it has, in turn, been sub-leased to a third party--it is wrong. Also, the property has streams on the east side and west side, with 131 d Street on the north side. If PSI decides to expand the size of the sub-station, they would come south onto Mr. Clayton's property and he is opposed to that. There are better places for the location of the tower. Mr. Clayton did not approve of how the property has been changing hands, and wanted to go on record as saying that it is pretty under-handed the way it has been handled. Mr. Clayton urged the Board not to approve the petition. Rebuttal: Doug Floyd reported that a copy the Deed recorded in the Hamilton County Recorder's Office in Book 354, page 156 was made available and should answer Mr. Clayton's questions about the method of acquisition of the real estate. As a result of the judgment and condemnation, it is not a deed but a grant of title to 1.32 acres from Merchants National Bank and Trust Company to Public Service Indiana;the deed is dated January 10, 1986. In regard to availability of sites on U.S. 31 referred to by Mr. Clayton: It would be at least one-half mile to one mile away and would mean that taller towers would need to be erected to have any coverage at this site. Any questions along this vein need to be directed to the Radio Frequency Engineer. The search area to provide the appropriate coverage by only going on 120 feet, reduces the area in western Clay Township that can be available not more than three quarters of one mile from the site being proposed. Laurence Lillig gave the Department's recommendation. The area map shows the landscaping immediately adjacent to the fence around the sub-station. Looking at the two landscape plans in the informational booklets, it is noteworthy that no landscaping is shown on the west property line. There is a substantial amount of landscaping on the s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 17 l 4,0 adjoining property to the west. It is the Department's position that the petitioner should be providing some landscaping for screening and not relying on landscaping on the adjoining property to achieve the end result. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of the petition, conditioned upon the following: 1) The architectural design, landscaping, and signage of the accessory structure is acceptable to the Board; 2) The architectural design of any future accessory structures for permissible, co-located antennae be of equal or greater architectural quality than that approved under this petitioner; and 3) The determination of compliance with condition No. 2 shall be delegated to the Director and subject to appeal to the Board. Leo Dierckman asked about the height of the tower and the extent of the coverage. Ty Slofer, Radio Frequency Engineer, with Sprint PCS, responded that typically, there are 200 to 250 foot towers in a rural area. The more populated areas have towers that are shorter, because the density increases. On a rural site, the company and its equipment is about a 7 mile radius. During the summer, coverage will go down due to foilage of the trees. Mr. Weinkauf clarified that the proposed tower is 120 feet with the possibility of up to 6 co-locators. The Ordinance requires a minimum of four users; the initial user and 3 co- locators. Doug Floyd stated that Sprint is going on the tower at the 100 foot mark, leaving 20 feet of space above their antennae for other users. Jim Parten, 1709 West State Boulevard, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Director of Site Development for Lattice, addressed the Board. In this particular area,the need for height is not as great for penetration into residential areas. The petitioner is looking at carriers at 120 feet, 110 feet, 100 feet, 90 feet, and 80 feet--5 carriers. Doug Floyd stated a willingness to meet with Mr. Weinkauf, John Molitor and Steve Engelking, and will TABLE in the interim. John Molitor referred to provisions in the Ordinance that require an application for a permit to erect a tower must include a report from a qualified professional engineer that a) describes the tower height and design, including a cross section and elevation; b) documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-location of equipment and the minimum, recommended separation distances between antennae; c) describes the tower's capacity, including the number and types of antennae that it can accommodate; d) states that the applicant will operate the tower and attached antennae in compliance with applicable law; and e) documents that the applicant has before filing the application, investigated the possibility of co-location with the owners of all other towers in the vicinity and any other information that may be requested by the Director. Charles Weinkauf stated that the licensees were not complying with the Board's request. s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 18 Pat Rice asked about a map that located towers in the community. Eric Parker with Sprint PCS, Rosemont,Illinois stated that this sub-station had been pin- pointed on the map. Doug Floyd commented that the most recent meeting with the DOCS staff narrowed the map to existing Sprint locations and what the new site would do. There are no other towers that could cover this area. If there are materials missing or requirements that have not been met, the petitioner was willing to return to the Board next month, thereby allowing them 30 days to address missing information. Docket No. SE-59-00 was TABLED until the July meeting to allow the petitioner an opportunity to meet with the Department of Community Services to address any items outstanding. 13h. Carmel Pro Printers Parking(V-60-00) Petitioner seeks a Developmental Standards Variance of Section 27.5:Amount of Parking Spaces Required in order to reduce the number of spaces mandated by the addition of new storage space. The site is located at 303 West Carmel Drive. The site is zoned I-1/Industrial. Filed by Joe Stilwell of Wathen Remodeling &Design for Carmel Pro Printers. Dyon Luisee, 17926 Amberwood Court, Westfield appeared before the Board representing the applicant. Approval is being requested for a variance to allow a reduction in the number of parking spaces due to the addition of an upstairs for storage and floor space. In response to questions from Mr. Weinkauf, Laurence Lillig reported that the footprint of the building remains the same; the petitioner is building up, not out. Members of the public were invited to speak in favor or opposition to the proposed reduction in number of parking spaces; no one appeared. It is the Department's understanding that the additional space will not entail an increase in the number of employees or traffic on this site. The Department is recommending favorable consideration of this petition. The public hearing was then closed. Earlene Plavchak moved for the approval of Carmel Pro Printers Parking V-60-00. APPROVED 5 in favor, none opposed. s:\BZA\Minutes\bza2000june 19