Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept Report 11-24-08CARMEL BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DEPARTMENT REPORT November 24, 2008 4-Sh. Towne Rd Communications Tower The applicant seeks the following development standards variance and special exception approvals: Docket No. 0808001.1 SE Section 25.13 Communications tower in residential district Docket No. 08080014 V Section 25.13(B) Setback less than 100' per tower height from property line. The site is located at 11104 Towne Road and is zoned Sl/Low-density residential. 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 cellular tower will aid in filling in the cell phone coverage gap for this part of Clay Township and the City of Carmel. The immediate area around the tower and equipment shelter will be surrounded by a fence and landscaping. It will not be lit. The cell tower will be located approximately 65-ft from the property lint and 445-1t 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 a communications tower requires the grant of a Special Exception in residential districts and the Parks district. Co-location of antennas is permitted within the B-5 through B-7 districts, as well as the I-1 and M-3 districts, and is not permitted elsewhere; towers are permitted in these districts with the grant of a Special Use. In west Carmel and Clay Township, there are very few business districts, and thus very few places to locate an antenna. The intent of permitting towers in residential and business districts, and encouraging co-location in business and manufacturing districts, is to provide the broadest range of coverage possible, while keeping the necessary infrastructure as 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-location 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. It is also possible to install towers on buildings and other tall structures, however, the shorter the structure, the less broad the coverage, necessitating more antennas and their attendant structures. 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 mitigate the visual effect. The equipment would be placed at the far northwest corner as well, and fully screened with fencing and landscaping. The overall project would take up approximately 3600 square feet of the total area. The site currently has a vacant garage, and is heavily vegetated. Placing the tower and equipment would not greatly limit potential further or additional uses of the site. While the City recognizes the need to plug gaps in reception and Filed by Brian Ramirez for American Tower Corporation. improve the overall infrastructure, there is also a concern with making towers and their equipment cabinets unobtrusive, so they do not affect the quality of life or aesthetic enjoyment of the surrounding area. The petitioner has proposed a monopole with interna]ly-mounted antennas; the pole would look similar to a large flagpole. There is existing heavy vegetation on-site; the petitioner is also required to plant additional landscaping around the perimeter of the lease area, and is encouraged to consider using a fence with greater opacity than chain-link, to further screen the area. The petitioner is also encouraged to explore different tower forms, such as those that fully enclose their equipment within their base, or provide wind turbines, etc. The intent is provide a tower that not only provides greater service to the area, 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 exploration of atime-period for the Special Exception, to allow a review of the facility at a time in the future. 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 sited to blend in with the existing tall trees and create minimum impact on the adjacent 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 interior-mounted antennas to help the tower blend into the tree line. 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 par[ of Clay Township and the City of Cannel. 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 qualiSed 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 qualiTied 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 [he proposed coverage of the cell tower. The areas surrounding the site 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 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 the far comer of the site also would help screen the base of the tower and the equipment. 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-$ from the nearest property line; it will still be located 445-ft from the nearest residential structure. Placing the tower at the far comer of the site also would help screen the base of the tower and the equipment. 3J 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 site. Recommendation: The Dept. of Community Services recommends positive consideration of Docket No. 08080011 SE and 08080014 V after all concerns have been addressed.