Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 01-26-09CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DEPARTMENT REPORT January 26, 2009 Z-2i. Towne Rd Communications Tower The applicant seeks the following Special Exception and Development Standards Variance approvals: Docket No. 08080011 SE Section 25.13 Communications tower in residential district Docket No. 08080014 V Section 25.13(5) Setback less than 100' per tower height from property line. The site is located at 11104 Towne Road and is zoned S 1 residential. Filed by Brian Ramirez for American Tower Corporation. General Info: The petitioner is requesting permission to install a communications tower on a 1.04-acre site, which is zoned for residential use. Surrounding uses include residential, agricultural and an elementary school. The proposed tower would be 120 feet tall at a maximum. Analysis: The communications tower is proposed to aid in filling in a cell phone coverage gap for this part of Clay Township and the City of Carmel. The proposal consists of the tower, an equipment shelter in the form of a barn which can house equipment for up- to four providers, and landscaping. The tower will not be lit. The tower will be located approximately fi5-ft from the property line and 445-ft from the nearest house. The zoning ordinance requires a tower to be built 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 220-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. Locating and constructing a communications tower/facility requires the grant of a Special Exception in all residential districts and the Parks district. Towers are permitted as Special Uses within the business, industrial and manufacturing districts. The zoning ordinance requires a petitioner seeking approval for a tower to agree to Co- loration of a minimum of four antennas, regardless of whether in a residential or business zoning district. In all districts, co-location of antennas, whether on a tower or existing a building, is strongly encouraged. The general intent of locating communication towers in residential and business districts, and encouraging antenna co-location in business and manufacturing districts, is to provide the broadest range of coverage possible, while minimizing the necessary infrastructure, and keeping is visually unobtrusive as possible. In business districts, there are often buildings or other structures tall enough to support antennas, while in residential districts, the maximum building height is limited to 35 feet, making co-locatian difficult. Thus, towers provide a wider range of coverage in residential areas. However, any towers installed in residential areas should be as unobtrusive as possible. In west Carmel and Clay Township, there are very few business districts, and thus very few places to co-locate an antenna. The petitioner is requesting a variance of development standards for setback as well as the Special Exception. If the variance were granted, it would permit the tower, and its related equipment cabinets, to be placed as far back on the site as possible, adjacent to several tall trees. Given the proposed height of 120', it would be difficult to entirely screen or hide the tower, but moving it as far away from the public right-of--way as possible would help mitigate the visual effect. The equipment would be placed at the far northwest corner as well, and fully screened with abarn- like structure, and landscape per the ordinance. The overall project would take up approximately 3600 square feet of the total site area. The site currently has a vacant garage, and is heavily vegetated. Placing the tower and equipment building would not greatly limit potential further or additional uses of the site. While the City recognizes the need to plug gaps in wireless communication reception and improve the overall communication infrastructure, there is also a concern with making towers and their equipment storage unobtrnsive, so they do not affect the quality of life or aesthetic enjoyment of the surrounding area. The petitioner has proposed a monopole with internally-mounted antennas; the pole would look similar to a large flagpole. There is existing heavy vegetation on-site which will help minimize the tower's visual impact; equipment will be fully enclosed within a metal barnlike structure. The petitioner has proposed to bury all electrical and service cables to the facility, to further mitigate any visual impact. The petitioner is also required to plant additional landscaping around the perimeter of the lease area. The petitioner is also encouraged to explore different tower forms, such as the Erickson Tower Tube, which fully encloses their equipment within their base, or provide wind turbines, etc. The intent is to provide a tower that not only provides greater service to the azea, but does not detract from the area. The City would also strongly encourage the petitioner to look at surrounding structures, such as power poles, as possible locations for their antennas. The City also suggests consideration of atime-horizon for the Special Exception, to allow future review of the facility, to determine impact on the azea, assess potential new technology at a time in the future. At the public and the Board's suggestion, the Department contacted local property owners whose properties had been suggested as possible alternative locations. The chart below indicates who was contacted, and whether or not they would be receptive to an antenna/tower. Suggested Alternative Tower Sites Shaarey Tiflla Synagogue Hamilton Co. Coxhall Gardens Carmel West Park Town Roadl116'" Street Fire Station prop. University High School Dads Club Fields Carmel Schools Street/Utility Department Outcome Not interested Not interested Not interested Possibly interested Expressed interest Expressed interest Not interested Existing - on water tower, room for 2 more providers The Department of Community Services has received numerous letters of opposition to the proposed tower. In one of the letters, an adjacent property owner claims to have lost a sale of his property, due in part to the proposed tower. Findines 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 sited to blend in with the existing tall trees and create minimum impact on the adjacent landscape. Required communication equipment will be fully enclosed in a barn-like structure 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 interior-mounted antennas which will streamline its appearance, helping to minimize the tower's visual impact. All equipment will be enclosed within a building, and landscaping will planted. 3. The need for the special exception arises from the applicant's responsibility 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 and the City of Carmel. 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 i. (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 ii. (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 '/z mile from this site. The petitioner has also provided a map showing the existing coverage gap and the proposed coverage offered by the new cell tower. The areas surrounding the site are all zoned residential. 6. The Board has reviewed the requirements of Ordinance, Section 21.04.02 as they relate to this Special Exception, and does not find that those criteria prevent the granting of the Special Exception: because this petitioner appears to meet all development standard requirements per 25.13, except for setback; the petitioner has used existing trees and new plantings [o help mitigate the visual impact of [he tower installation, and has provided data which support a communication tower in the location proposed. Findings of Fact: Develoument Standards Variance -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 155-ft, in order to have a cellular tower located 65-ft from the nearest property line; it will still be located 445-ft from the nearest residential structure. Placing the tower at [he far comer of the site also would help screen the base of the tower and the equipment building. 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: while the petitioner seeks a variance of 155-ft, in order to have a cellular tower located 65-ft from the nearest property line; it will still be located 445-ft from the nearest residential stmcture. Placing the tower at the far comer of the site also would help screen the base of the tower and the equipment building. 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance to the property will result in practical difticulties in the use of the property because: the petitioner will have to re-site the tower, on property which may not adequately service the gap in the coverage area, and may be no[ screen the tower as adequately as the mature trees surrounding the proposed site. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services is supportive of the communication industry's desire and need to enhance the coverage in west Carmel/Clay Township for wireless communication and wireless data through construction of a new tower, and co-location of new antenna. The Department review finds that the petitioner's data supports their request for antenna in this area, and also believes the application has been thoughtfully prepared and sensitive to the residential area where it is proposed. As such, the DOCS recommends positive consideration of Docket No. 08080011 SE and 08080014 V after all concerns have been addressed.