HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 06-26-06
-.:.i
----~
o \ \
~o
CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
DEPARTMENT REPORT
June 26,2006
1-3h. Cingular Wireless Communications Tower
The applicant seeks the following special exception and development standards variance approvals:
Docket No. 06040014 SE ZO Chapter 20H.02 Special Exception Uses
Docket No. 06040015 V ZO Chapter 25.13.1.B.i Distance from Residential Property
Docket No. 06050009 V ZO Chapter 25.13.01.3 Tower landscape requirements
The site is located at Brookshire Golf Course, northwest of 116th St and Gray Rd. The property is
zoned P-1/Parks & Recreation. Filed by Jim Buddenbaum of Parr Richey Obremskey & Morton.
General Info:
The petitioner seeks
special exception
and variance
approvals in order to
erect a 135-ft tall
monopole cellular
tower with slick-
mounted antennas
and an accessory
equipment building.
The monopole will
be located near the'
golf course
maintenance
building, and will lie
within the Special
Flood Hazard Zone
area.
Analysis:
The cellular tower will aid in filling in the cell phone coverage gap for this part of Clay Township. The
immediate area around the tower and equipment shelter will be surrounded by a chain link fence and
arborvitae evergreen bushes. It will not be lit. The cell tower will be located 134-ft from the nearest
residential property line and 447- ft from the nearest house. The zoning ordinance requires a tower to
be b.uilt not less than 100- ft, plus 1 additional foot for every foot of the tower's height from the
property line of any residential parcel, which means it would have to be 235-ft from a residential
property line. The zoning ordinance also requires extensive landscaping around the tower and
equipment building with a 15-ft wide planting area or 2.5 inch caliper trees. The petitioner proposes to
plant arborvitae bushes will grow substantially tall within a planting area that ranges from 5-ft to 15-ft
in width. The tower will be located within the Special Flood Hazard Area. The item has appeared
before the Technical Advisory Committee on June 21, 2006 to address all technical
comments/concerns. Per Chapter 21.06 - Special Use or Exception in the Flood Plain Districts: "The
Board may not exercise approval in any of the Flood Plain Districts until the Board has received
written approval from the Indiana Natural Resources Commission for the proposed Special use of
Special Exception, including any report supplementary thereto." The petitioner is working on receiving
this approval letter.
Findings of Fact: Special Exception
1. The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare
of the community, in relation to Ordinance, Section 21.3 (1-25) concerning the special exception
because: the tower is specially sited to blend in with the existing tall trees and create minimum impact
on the adjacent natural and manicured landscape.
2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the premises under consideration will not be
affected in a substantially adverse manner because: the monopole tower will have slick-mounted
antennas to help the tower blend into the skyline and tree line. The tower and accessory building are
located near an existing maintenance building of the golf course.
3. The need for the special exception arises from the applicant's respOJisibility to provide
public utility service, and not from any condition peculiar to the premises under consideration
because: The proposed cellular tower will aid in partially filling in the coverage gap for this part of
Clay Township.
4. It will constitute an unnecessary hardship for the applicant if the special exception is
denied, in that there are no existing or approved towers or other structures in the vicinity of the
premises under consideration which would be suitable for the collation of the equipment that the
applicant needs to locate in such vicinity, having regard to the following factors:
(a) Whether the needed equipment would exceed the structural capacity of such existing or
approved towers or structures, as documents by a qualified professional engineer, and whether
such towers or structures could be reinforced, modified, or replaced to accommodate the needed
or equivalent equipment at a reasonable cost
(The petitioner will attach appropriate statements)
(b) Whether the needed equipment would cause interference materially impacting the usability
of existing or planned equipment at such existing or approved towers or structures, as
documented by a qualified professional engineer, and whether such interference could be
prevented at a reasonable cost
(The petitioner will attach appropriate statements)
5. The approval of the special exception does not interfere substantially with the
Comprehensive Plan, in that there are no alternative sites suitable (having regard to the factors
listed above in item 4 for the equipment that the applicant needs to locate in the vicinity which
are located either in Business, Industrial, or Manufacturing Districts, or on property outside of
the jurisdiction or otherwise exempt from the requirements and procedures of the Zoning
Ordinance because: the petitioner has provided a map showing the nearest cell towers are over 1000
feet from this site. The petitioner has also provided a map showing the existing coverage gap and the
proposed coverage of the cell tower. The areas surround the golf course are all zoned residential.
6. The Board has reviewed the requirements of Ordinance, Section 21.4.2 as they relate to this
Special Exception, and does not find that those criteria prevent the granting of the Special
Exception: because this petitioner meets all requirements.
Findings of Fact: distance from residential property line
1.) The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals,
and general welfare of the community because: while the petitioner seeks a variance of 101-
ft, in order to have a cellular tower located 134-ft from the nearest residential property line, it
will still be located 447-ft from the nearest residential structure. The Cell tower is sited to
partially blend win with the tree line that lines Cool Creek and the golf course.
~-,....
'-""'
2.) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be
affected in a substantially adverse manner because: The tower has been cited near the
exiting golf course maintenance building, and within the tree line, to blend in with the skyline.
The cellular tower will be located 134- ft from the nearest residential property line, and will be
located 447-ft from the nearest residential structure. The Cell tower is sited to partially blend
win with the tree line that lines Cool Creek and the golf course.
3.) The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in
practical difficulties in the use of the property because: the petitioner will have to re-site the
tower, which may not adequately service the gap in the coverage area, and the tower may be
not be screened adequately by the mature trees surrounding the golf course, lining Cool Creek.
Findings of Fact: landscaping
1.) The approval of this variance will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals,
and general welfare of the community because: the petitioner will still plant arborvitae
bushes and meet the 15-ft planting area with requirement on 3 ofthe 4 sides of the site.
2.) The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be
affected in a substantially adverse manner because: the petitioner will still plant arborvitae
bushes and meet the 15-ft planting area width requirement on 3 of the 4 sides of the site. In
addition to this buffer, the mature trees surrounding the gold course will add to the visual
buffer.
4.) The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in
practical difficulties in the use of the property because: the petitioner may not be able to
site the tower and the equipment building in an efficient way, possibly negatively effecting
access and screening of the accessory building.
Recommendation:
The Dept. of Community Services recommends positive consideration of Docket Nos. 06040014 SE,
06040015 V, and 06050009 V after all questions/concerns are addressed. ~_ oY . \/
.- v..~ "i
~~ ~'y\~ '
C~ "[L
.~
~MM~~:o7
> ed.etrl Fbr-es 1- ~ /f::J -
5w ~~";)(~.
J 0 hvt l6~5 $e I :: pc e ~ 0" !:\dA
c::e l t - I DC! . '2lfel
pr@ >e ~";:; -:JO'^ '" VV1 0 trsJ~/
rsLPq - '1<118