HomeMy WebLinkAbout635 W 131st March 2009jD City of C
March 17, 2009
Patrick Mcllvenna
President
PBM Wireless Services
13714 Smokey Ridge Overlook
Carmel, IN 46033
RE: T- Mobile Upgrade, 635 W. 131st Street, Carmel, IN T- Mobile Site MW07212A
Dear Mr. Mcllvenna:
This letter is to inform you of our findings regarding the proposed upgrade to T- Mobile's equipment at
their W. 131st Street location. Based on the information and drawings submitted to the Department of
Community Services, the requested upgrades are minor and do not involve the construction of additional
structures. Because they would fall under the permitted ten percent expansion of petition SE- 59 -00, no
public hearing is required at this. time. Please note that any additional expansions will require additional
review, and may also require public hearing depending on their scope.
Please let me know if you have any questions, or would like further information.
Sincerely,
Christine Barton Holmes, LEED AP
Planning Administrator
Department of Community Services
City of Carmel
Page 1
ONE CIVIC SQUARE CARMEL, INDIANA 46032 317/571 -2417
CITY OF CARMEL AND CLAY TOWNSHIP
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
OCTOBER 23, 2000
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals met at 7:00 PM
in the Council Chambers of City Hall, Carmel, Indiana, on October 23, 2000. The
meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Members present were: Leo Dierckman; Michael Mohr; and Charles Weinkauf.
Director Steve Engelking; Terry Jones; and Laurence Lillig were present representing the
Department of Community Services.
The minutes of the September 25 meeting were approved as submitted.
F. John Molitor reported that an Executive Session was held prior to tonight's
meeting to discuss pending litigation. There may be a need for another Executive
Session prior to the meeting in November; as yet, that is uncertain.
G Steve Engelking reported no Department Concerns at the present time.
H. Public Hearing:
lh -2h. Town Village (UV- 84 -00; V- 85 -00)
Petitioner seeks a Use Variance of Section 6.1: Permitted Uses in order to
establish a senior housing facility on 16.991 acres. The petitioner also seeks a
Developmental Standards Variance ofSection 6.4.1 in order to increase the height
of the building from the 25 foot maximum to 35 feet. The site is zoned S-
2 /Residence.
Filed by Paul G. Reis of The Reis Law Firm for Cypress Senior LP.
Paul Reis, attorney, 12358 Hancock Street, Carmel, appeared before the Board
representing the applicant. Also in attendance were: Rusty Ross of Golden Living
Communities, developer for the owner; Phil Warrenburg of Weihe Engineers; and Steve
Fehribach of A F Engineering.
The applicant is seeking two Variances: One is a Use Variance to establish an
independent, restricted, senior residential living facility; and secondly, a Developmental
Standards variance to increase the maximum height to 35 feet.
An aerial photograph of the subject site was displayed. The boundaries are 465 to the
north; Springmill Road and an undeveloped parcel to the east; 96 Street and residential
area to the south; and a residential neighborhood to the west. The proposed use is for the
development of a restricted, senior, independent living facility. In accordance with the
Fair Housing Amendments of 1998, this community will be restricted to residents 62
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000oct 1
it would be appropriate to have a lifeguard, whether 75% built out or occupied, but right
now, a lifeguard would be guarding himself. There are a number of Subdivisions existing
today that have no similar requirement. This has not been a requirement in the past and if
it is a requirement, it should be done through the process required by law and applied to
everyone equally.
Department Report: John Molitor addressed the issues raised by Mr. Scimia in the Legal
Memorandum. This case does fall in a "gray area" or tests the limits of what the scope of
the Board's authority is in regard to commitments. The case may fall within the general
authority of the Board. Generally, the courts have given some deference to local Boards
regarding these types of matters. However, there is no case law squarely on point on this
particular matter. Mr. Molitor said the Board may want to consider deferring action on
this until the matter can be taken up with City Council as to whether or not they would
like to pursue the issue in the legislative arena. Otherwise, the Board could make a
decision as to whether or not they agree with the petitioner and allow a modification of a
commitment previously made.
Mr. Weinkauf reiterated that this particular commitment was not imposed upon the
petitioner but was asked for and received.
The public hearing was then closed.
Michael Mohr moved for approval of SUA- 88 -00, Lakes at Hazel Dell Subdivision,
Section 1, Common Area 3, seconded by Leo Dierckman. The vote was one in favor,
two opposed Michael Mohr and Charles Weinkauf. NO DECISION VOTE. This item
will be heard again at the November 27, 2000 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting.
Mr. Weinkauf commented that he would like an opportunity to speak to the entire City
Council regarding commitments of this type and the fact that such an ordinance does not
exist. Mr. Weinkauf stated that the Board had asked for and received the commitment
from the petitioner. Mr. Weinkauf was willing to furnish a list of lifeguards to the
petitioner for their next season.
4h -5h. Orin Jessup Land Company's First Addition, Lot 126 127 (part) (SUA -89-
00, SUA- 90 -00)
Petitioner seeks Special Use Amendment approval to amend the 80 foot height
commitment made as part of the Board's approval (Docket NO. SU- 30 -97;
approved July 28, 1997) of a telecommunications tower. The petitioner then
seeks Special Use Approval to increase the height of the existing tower from 80
feet to 140 feet. The site is located at 750 East 106 Street. The site is zoned B-
2 /Business.
Filed by David Gilman of Crown Castle Indianapolis for Westel- Indianapolis.
David Gilman, 333 East Ohio Street, Indianapolis, appeared before the Board
representing Crown Castle. A commitment amendment is being requested as well as an
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000oct 12
increase in height of the existing tower from 80 feet to 140 feet. The tower is located at
750 East 106 Street in a B -2 district.
Mr. Gilman said that the additional height of the Tower is required to allow two carriers
the space to co- locate. Omni Point and Clear Wire have made application to Crown
Castle to co- locate on the existing tower immediately. Currently, Spring and Cellular
One are on the tower.
The tower was initially approved in 1997 for an 80 foot monopole. Administratively, the
tower was approved to be increased from 80 feet to 100 feet. When the applicant
requested an increase in height from 100 feet to 140 feet, the planning staff determined at
that time that the applicant should appear before the BZA for any additional height
extension.
The existing fence and compound area have been landscaped and no additional leased
area or compound expansion will be necessary. Crown Castle recently took over
management responsibilities of the existing tower -those management responsibilities
include maintenance of the facility and co- locating additional carriers on the structure.
With the additional increase in height, the tower would be able to co- locate four carriers,
a fifth, and possibly a sixth carrier could co- locate from 120 feet up to 140 feet.
The initial commitment was for a tower structure to be designed and structurally
engineered and erected to a height not more than 80 feet in order to accommodate three
additional wireless telecommunication service providers. However, an 80 foot tower
cannot accommodate four carriers. The original intent was to design the tower to
accommodate four carriers, but initially build it at 80 feet. Hence, the request to modify
the original commitment to provide for a height of not more than 140 feet as opposed to
a height of not more than 80 feet. The height of the tower was increased to 100 feet
administratively. Crown Castle is not a communications provider; Crown Castle erects
steel structures and allows any carrier or provider to locate on the towers.
At this time, the petitioner is requesting that the tower height be established at the
maximum height permitted in the B -2 district of 140 feet. The Special Use is consistent
with the character of the B -2 district and towers are permitted as a special use. The area
is a mix of heavy commercial and light commercial uses, and the Special Use is
physically suitable for the land in question.
The tower will not adversely affect vehicular or pedestrian traffic; it is un- staffed and
requires no sewer, no water, and no vehicular traffic to and from the site except for one
maintenance visit per month.
Members of the public were invited to speak in favor of or opposition to the increase in
the height of the tower; no one appeared.
Department Report, Steve Engelking The original petition was approved just prior to the
approval of the Cell Tower Ordinance in Carmel, and as such, the commitments at that
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000oct 13
time that were offered and included are what are now being requested for amendment.
The Department does support the amendment and recommends favorable consideration.
If the commitments did not exist and this had come in after the effective date of the
Ordinance, co- location and expansion of a tower to a greater height would be automatic
and by permit only. It would not have necessitated a return to the Board of Zoning
Appeals.
The public hearing was then closed.
Michael Mohr moved for the approval of SUA 89 -00, seconded by Leo Dierckman.
APPROVED 3 in favor none opposed.
Michael Mohr moved for the approval of SUA- 90 -00, seconded by Leo Dierckman.
APPROVED 3 in favor none opposed.
6h. Vertical Real Estate Telecommunications Tower (SE- 107 -00)
Petitioner seeks Special Exception approval in order to establish a wireless
communications facility. The site is located northeast of East 106 Street and
Hazel Dell Parkway. The site is zoned S -1 /Residence.
Filed by Matt Mugavero of CIS Communications for Vertical Real Estate.
Paul Helmke, attorney, Barnes Thornburg, Ft. Wayne, appeared before the Board
representing the petitioner and Vertical Real Estate. The petitioner is requesting approval
for the placement of a cell tower.
Vertical Real Estate has been in business for about 15 years and is based in Ft. Wayne,
Indiana. Vertical Real Estate is an independent company that establishes cell towers and
markets them to as many carriers as possible. Vertical Real Estate is not connected with
any single carrier, and it is their philosophy to have towers that can handle as many
carriers as possible, thereby eliminating a proliferation of cell towers.
Vertical Real Estate has been contacted by a number of carriers regarding gaps in the
coverage areas in the Carmel area. As a result, Vertical has located a site and reached an
agreement with the owners of the site northeast of East 106 Street and Hazel Dell
Parkway. The site has gravel pits and mining operations to the east and west, floodplain
to the east and south, and is an area that is not being used as residential, even though it is
zoned S -1 residence. The petitioner is proposing to build a 120 foot tower that will have
four carriers as required by the Ordinance; the tower will be a monopole.
The petitioner has been working closely with the neighborhood associations, in particular
Kingswood, regarding placement of the tower. Kingswood is represented this evening by
attorney Greg Silver and Tom Yedlick, board member of Kingswood, and other members
of the association. At Kingswood HOA's request, the petitioner is willing to agree to
some special conditions in regard to the property. Basically, the petitioner has agreed to
minimize visual pollution by using "hugging" or flat -type antennae. If this type of
antennae is not feasible for the carrier, the petitioner would return to the BZA for an
s:\BoardofZoningAppeals \Minutes \bza2000oct 14