Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 03.19.2001Board of County Commissioners 3/19/01 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS REQUEST: Special Use Permit for a Telecommunication Facility APPLICANT: NTCH Colorado, Inc. ClearTalk PCS LOCATION: Access to this site is from CR 314. SITE DATA: A cellular telephone repeater station consisting of a 100 -foot lattice tower, a 100' X 100' enclosed equipment area at the base of the tower, and a concrete pad to support the base transmitting station equipment. WATER: Unmanned facility. SEWER: Unmanned facility. EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This proposal is located in Study Area II of the Comprehensive Plan. II. INTRODUCTION / DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL NTCH Colorado, Inc. (Clear Talk) has approached the planning department for permission to construct a 100 -foot self-supporting lattice tower on the Grand Hogbacks. This site was chosen for three major reasons: the first being the unobstnicted view of that part of the I-70 corridor. Secondly, the location of this tower will act as an excellent hand off site between the Grass Mesa site to the east and the Webster Mesa to the west. The third reason was that this location should allow the tower to blend in with the existing towersandpower lines on the Hogbacks. The proposal consists of a 100 -foot lattice tower on which the required three -sector panel antennas will be flush mounted. At the base of the tower and surrounded by a six foot mesh -screen fence will be an irregular shaped piece of property approximately 3050 square feet area to house the tower and support facilities. Support facilities being a base transmitting station (BTS), radio -receiving equipment set on a concrete pad (blueprints and narrative are attached). The size of the tower and the area enclosed by the fence will allow for collocation of additional carriers as they enter the valley. Access to this unmanned site will be from CR 314 and then a private road to the site. Initially there will be construction activity on this site mostly consisting of medium duty trucks and possibly a heavy crane truck, after construction site activity is generally limited to one maintenance visit a month per carrier. III. GARFIELD COUNTY ZONING RESOLUTION There are two section of the Zoning Code that this proposal must be weighed against before the recommendation of approval or denial can be made. Section 5.03, number 3 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution dealing with Conditional and Special Uses states: Design of the use is organized to minimize impacts on and from adjacent uses of land through installation of screen fences or landscape materials on the periphery of the lot and by location of intensively utilized areas, access points, lighting and signs in such a manner as to protect established neighborhood character. In, any location a 100 -foot tower is hard to screen, but the applicant is trying to minimize the visual impacts by locating their unlighted, lattice tower next to existing communication towers and power lines. Screening of the ground facility becomes somewhat more problematic; the proposal is isolated enough that very few people will travel past this site. Planting shrubbery to screen this site could become self-defeating. If the shrubbery isn't attended to it could die creating a fire hazard. Further in the same Section, 5.03.13 Broadcasting Studio and/or Communication Facility: Such broadcasting studios and/or conmtunication facilities shall be approved by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), where appropriate (A84-78; 97-60). In addition, the following standards will be used in the review application for a communications facility: 1. All facilities shall comply with frequency emission requirements of the FCC and any facility in compliance cannot be denied. 2. The co -location of telecommunication facilities on one site is encouraged and the denial of a landowner/lessor of the co -location of a site shall be based on technical reasons, not competitive interests. It is the County's policy to minimize the number of communication facilities by the encouragement of co -locating such facilities. 3. A freestanding telecommunication facility, including antennas, shall not exceed the maximum structure height in the applicable zone district unless an exception is approved by the Board based on the applicant demonstrating the following: (a) Use of existing land forms, vegetation and structures to aid in screening the facility from view or blending in with the surrounding built natural environment (b) Design, material and colors of antenna and their support structures shall be compatible with the surrounding environment, and monopole support structures shall taper from the base to the tip. (c) It is consistent with existing communication facilities on the sante site. Cleartalk PCS gets its right to operate from licenses purchased for this area from the FCC. There is no other communication tower in this area that Cleartalk can collocate on. The tower, as presented to the planning department, exceeds the zone district height limitation by seventy-five feet. Building or structure height in the A/R/RD district is limited to twenty-five feet. The applicant is requesting a 100 -foot tower height so this facility has an unobstructed view of the I-70 corridor and connects to the other towers in the system. This tower will be part of a system that stretches from the Garfield / Eagle county line in the east to the Garfield / Mesa county line and then down the State 82 corridor. Design material and colors of antennas and antennas will be non -reflective metallic "gray" which should be compatible with the surrounding environment. The applicant is proposing a lattice tower, not a monopole, because of the existing lattice towers in the background. And lastly, to paint the ground equipment to match background colors. Item "c" is not applicable to this review. IV. REFERRAL AGENCY COMMENTS The following agencies have been contacted for their concerns and comments: 1. Garfield County Airport, Kenneth Maenpa 2. Town of New Castle Mr. Maenpa of the Garfield County Airport normally has these comments, but chose in this instance not to respond. 1. Submit to the FAA a Form 7460-1 "Notice of Proposed Constniction" to the Northwest Regional Office for review. 2. The detail of the tower should include globe instruction lights per FAA and FCC specification. 3. The plans should include the site elevation as well as the overall height of the structure above mean sea level. 4. If the structure is less than 10,000 feet from the nearest runway the elevation should not exceed the horizontal surface of 5696' MSL. There was no mention by any agency that ClearTalk's radio frequency of 1.895 GHz to 1.990 GHz could affect aircraft communications. V. STAFF COMMENTS In the past, planning staff has recommended the denial of any telecommunication tower that creates a skyline silhouette. While this site will create a skyline silhouette there are some considerations to be weighed. First, the site is located on the Grand Hogbacks amid existing power lines and telecommunication towers. Based on these two points this site is unlikely to become a visual eyesore. Another critical point is this; this is not a stand alone site but part of an entire system. To deny, or recommend denial, of this site renders the other sites in the Clear Talk system useless. VI. SUGGESTED FINDINGS I. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at the that meeting. 2. That the application is in conformance with the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. 3. The applicant has complied with the public noticing and certified return -receipt mailing requirements. 4. The one hundred - foot height variance requested by the applicant will not have an adverse effect on the surrounding area. 5. The applicant has made every effort to development this site in conformance with the requirements set forth in the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. V. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Approval of this Special Use Permit based on the above findings and staff comments and with the following conditions: • The applicant will allow future co -locations. • This facility, including the tower, will be painted to blend in with the background, the color will be approved by the planning department. • If the tower becomes dormant for more than six months either the tower owner or the landowner is required to remove the tower at their expense. •'' That all representations of the applicant, either written or stated at the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be considered conditions of approval. • That the applicant will meet all requirements of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. ,o