HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 11.01.1993A fir
% .
raIN
zoo nit„ 94....SoLarkkz•
BOCC 11/1/93
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST:
APPLICANT:
LOCATLQS[:
DG -Pi c-rt'.04
Special Use Permit for a
Communication Tower in the
A/R/RD Zone District.
U.S. Wert NewVector
Group/Walters Group
A tract of land in a portion of
Section 35, T_`>S, R90W of the 611i
P.M.;
SITE DATA: Leased area = 2000 square feel
WATERISEWER: N.A.
ACCESS: Private Road and Easement
EXISTING ZONING: A/R/RD
ADJACENT ZONING: A/R/RD
I.
RELA'17ONSIIII' TO FHL'. COMP �H °Ni PLAN
The subject property is located in District C - Rural Area Minor Environmental
Constraints as designated on the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan Management
Districts map.
II.
12ESCRIPIIONSIE. THE PROPOSAL,
A. Site s ri p i n: The subject property is located approximately one mile west
of the Town of New Castle, just north and west of the intersection of Interstate
70 and Exit 109 (see location map on page 4_). The property is relatively flat,
and rises steadily to the north. The relief on the proposed lease site slopes
upward to the northwest, with elevations rising from 5,193 to 5,198 feet (see
elevation profile on page 1 ). The parcel was created through the exemption
process (Lot 3, Senor Mesa Exemption, Book 820 Page 523, Reception
#429625).
B. Development Prop ,1: The applicants are requesting a Special Use Permit to
establish a cellular telecommunications facility within a leased portion of the
subject parcel. The proposed facility is designed to provide cellular telephone
coverage to the New Castle area and 1-70.
• •
The facility will consist of a 12 foot by 12 foot (144 square feet) pre -fabricated
equipment shelter installed on a permanent foundation along with a 40 foot
wooden telephone antenna. Four whips wl be installed and will be mounted on
the pole, extending approximately 11 ii l`� .;Trom the pole, with a base diameter
of 3 i ches tapering to approximately 1.5 inches at the ti (See Site Plan on page
, and a depiction of the facility on page `' *I' ). The applicant's
cover letter is attached on pages 10 4 11 .
III. Major Issues and Concerns
Ssalfi lei o int, ng Rcso_ hili
A. Proposed Use: A Communication Facility is defined as "A noninhabitable
structure over twenty-five (25) feet in height, built for the purposes of
transmitting or receiving electrical impulses and approved by the Federal
Communication Commission and Federal Aviation Administration, as
appropriate"` due to the relative distance from operating airports, no FAA
approval or regulations are applicable to the application. The facility clearly is
consistent with this definition.
B. Zoning: The property is currently zoned A/R/RD. A communication tower is
considered a Special Use within the A/R/RD Zone District.'
C. Consistency with the General Plan: Compatibility with the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan is based on four sections addressing "Environment,"
"Community Services," "Natural Environment" and Compatibility."
D.
Policy #1 (Environment), which discourages development in areas with slopes
in excess of 25%, is satisfied in that the elevation change in the upslope direction
on the leased site is five (5) feet in 60 feet (approximately 8 percent).
Regarding "Community Services," the proposal will not place additional burden
on community services and conversely may, by facilitating communication,
enhance emergency services.
In reference to performance standards addressing "Natural Environment," staff
is suggesting through conditions that the applicant address stabilisation and
revegetation in accordance with B2.
Due to the isolated location and the prominent vegetation on the site, and
proposed conditions of approval, the SUP should not create compatibility
problems.
Standards of Review: The Board of County Commissioners may deny any
request for a special use permit based on the lack of separation in terms of
distance from similar uses on the same or other lots, the impact on traffic volume
Section 2.02.155, Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, p. 9.
'Section 3.02.03, Uses, Special - Garfield County Subdivision Regulations, 1978 as amended. p. 21.
and safety or in utilities or any impact of the special use which it deems injurious
to the established character of the neighborhood or zone district in which such
special use is proposed to be located.'
Site_Planning Concerns.:
A. Visual Impacts: The pre -fabricated structure is quite small (144 sq. ft.), however
the use of earth -tone or natural color should be used to further screen the
facility. The applicants have indicated their willingness to abide by any County
requirements regarding color, and staff suggests that this be a condition of
approval.
Expanding the roadway to allow truck access to the site will increase scarring.
Power to the site is proposed to be underground. Overhead lines would increase
the impact on "viewplanes" in the area, although staff suggests that the applicant
be required to revegetate cuts necessary to bury electric and telephone lines.
B. Vegetation: Some vegetation removal will be required both along the existing
access road and at the site. As a result, some increase in scarring is inevitable.
Vegetation removal, particularly existing trees, should be avoided to assist in
screening the site. A revegetation program should be considered as a condition
of approval.
C. Erosion: Due to the soil type, vegetation and orientation, the potential for
erosion exists at the site and along the roadway. The applicant has represented
that all existing stormwater discharge paths will be retained.
D. Noise: The applicants have indicated that their facilities will operate in
accordance with State noise standards. Due to the relief and distance between
residences and the site, noise impacts should be minimal.
Other Concerns
A. Mr. Greg McKennis, .representing both the Garfield Citizen's Alliance and an
adjacent property owner, has voiced opposition to the proposed SUP. To staff's
knowledge, Mr. McKennis's objections deal with references to the covenants of
the Senor Mesa Subdivision Exemption, of which the parcel is subject to.4
Mr. McKennis has verbally objected to the SUP on the two grounds: 1) That
the purpose of the exemption membership is designed to "protect, insofar as
possible, the scenic and secluded quality of the Senor Mesa Exemption, together
within ample consideration to the present environment, view and surroundings
of the Senor Mesa Exemption so that the rural residential development will be
in harmony with the aforementioned qualities"; and, 2) That the proposed SUP
violates a section of the covenants addressing antennas and the disruption of a
"viewplane".
3Section 5.03.11, Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended. p. 65.
4Protective Covenants of the Senor Mesa Exemption, Book 826, Page 90, Reception #432967, recorded at
12:34 PM, March 26, 1992.
8.
•
The portion of the covenants addressing Antennae reads as follows:
"Antennae. Exposed or outside radio, television or other electronic antennae
shall be allowed on any lot, so long as they do not unreasonably or adversely
affect view plans from neighboring Lots." A copy of the Senor Mesa covenants
is attached on pages 12.-14.
Staff provides the following comments regarding Greg's concerns for the
Board's consideration:
1. Covenants have been historically viewed by the County as a private
contract between property owners within the limits addressed by the
covenants. The County only enforces the Zoning Resolution, and
disputes regarding specific covenant restrictions is legally considered as
a civil matter, and litigated as such. Quite simply, staff's review is
focussed on consistency with applicable County codes, and does not
include an assessment of compliance with private agreements.
2. The reference to "view plane" has not been specifically defined within the
covenants. Staff suggests that if the developer would have developed
"view easements" (a two- or three-dimensional zone within which no
permanent opaque object may intrude), this project would most likely
not be before the Board due to inconsistency with the covenants.
Without such specific language, the interpretation of the impact of the
proposed facility on such a "viewplane" becomes subjective.'
Mr. McKennis has also objected to the proposed project on the grounds that it
would be "injurious to the established character of the neighborhood...". In
staffs opinion, this assertion is questionable on the following grounds:
1. The proposed structure and associated antennas will be partially
obscured by one 17" 40' high tree, a 17" 31' high tree and a 48" 30' high
tree. A schematic depicting the location of tt a proposed facility and
other features on the site is shown on page' ir
2. Conversations with US West/New Vector has indicated that five (5) sites
were rejected due to visual impact.
B. Carina Sander, the owner of Lot #2 in the Senor Mesa Subdivision Exemption,
has submitted a letter of objection to the proposed SUP on the grounds that it
may disrupt TV, radio or satellite reception, and will also decrease property
values in the area (see letter on page /1- ). Staff does not have the engineering
expertise to address Carina Sander's concern, however, the lease submitted with
the application has a provision that reads as follows:
"The cellular phone system operates 011 a specific set of frequencies set aside by
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for the purpose of preventing
interference from different users. Filtering of spurious signals is very tightly
regulated, and no interference with radio, television or other electronic devices,
5A general description of the concept of view easements can be found in Site Planning, by Kevin Lynch, MIT
Press, 1990. p. 343.
'f
including satellite receiving stations, occurs as a result of TENANT'S
operations. In the event of suspected interference from TENANT'S cellular
facility, 'TENANT will investigate within 48 hours of receipt of written
notifications from LESSOR and resolve the issue. All improvements shall be at
TENANT'S expense".6
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
tr�t3 1. That all applicable regulations regarding a Zone District Amendment have been
complied with including, but not limited to, Section 10.00 of the Garfield County
Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended.
5 TGey''`r'3.
5V.
/
c
f�CPc t.'-.0 7 f41,
Ga T4 J z 4.L
�, � p 2. All utilities shall be placed underground. c-'91 c1 ° bA
�1 <,.b�'`t�- SASS k4,oT�fl V t'c N PPL -V ...; . Lica .
7 xi
- ft,
'c, 30''_ ft, structures shall be painted in c r-k-green-ei-r_colors approved by the
may, oard of County Commissioners.
That the public 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 that meeting.
That the proposed Special Use Permit is in general compliance with surrounding
'landandzoning i
Cuses n Garfield County. C W n-fi Mn-[6_rZ(,161
6= -c --r0(2-5
RECOMMENDATION
ION
Assuming the concern of adjacent property owners can be addressed to the satisfaction
of the Board of County Conunissioners, staff recommends APPROVAL based on the
following conditions:
1.
All representations of the applicant, either contained within the application or
stated at a hearing, shall be considered conditions of approval.
C
e5 e
't:.;7 ►fit
62
w o� Ab' - 4. All i i generation shall be in accordance with state law.
5.
A1/4
L �•
sT ^1 t' /26.
tt,
CTS zti X45
S -v
�YJ
%Ul .
Ole f
160C �ti� S�
keys r 1 �_rVPi�ionrN�� �ZF C'J Nsi� A l�IoVENt(3E� Z1
ry G7wlt -r) C014 r -r• i S
All new cut slopes or grading shall be revegetated with certified weed -free seed.
A revegetation/erosion protection plan shall be submitted prior to any
excavation being conducted. CQ r eo
O� r '14o9 urtr1-( o v r
No external lighting shall be allowed.
O 1-101.10tV
I/ 'oop
is rpm
Po --s 173 L- -t
F 1 (4AL-TEx- GAP
1'113 LBTTtr Z -To AP1Pcg,g7
OP fr,treoV at .
6excerpt from Option and Lease Agreement, p. 7 - submitted with the application.
jfe
\-' 11.t. �Utt— El-- a�Vol) l t= -t-- csJ O F T aLt�-t
G wk At -co occ.urC o^i k•Ar_
-Pe > f &K LC Co "S tSiE.- t
°pbo.0t0,0p
EXEMPTION PLAT.
r
. ,
. ; LEGAL DESCRIPTION
•;•'• •
; •
- 10' UTILITY EASEMENT
•
AN EASEMENT, 10.00 FEET IN WIDTH, OVER AND ACROSS A PORTION
LOT 3, SENOR MESA EXEMPTION PLAT AS RECORDED AT RECEPTION NUMBER'1^' 4,7429625, 4
_ING A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 17,,
35, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 90 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING 5.00 FEET g'
ON EITHER SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTERLINE:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LEASE
•
PARCEL; THENCE SOUTH 76°41'13" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID !,
LEASE PARCEL A DISTANCE OF 5.60 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES ALONG THE
CENTERLINE OF SAI[) EASEMENT:
1. THENCE SOUTH 54°04'35" WEST A DISTANCE OF 78.15 FEET;
2. THENCE SOUTH 32°34'59" EAST A DISTANCE OF 60.42 FEET;:'•
3. THENCE SOUTH 47°07'34" WEST A DISTANCE OF 48.41 FEET TO THE.
POINT OF TERMINUS OF SAID EASEMENT, BEING ON AN EXISTING:
TELEPHONE POLE.
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I, CREIGHTON P. MOORE, A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR REGISTERED ,
IU THE STATE OF COLORADO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT A BOUNDARY AND TOPO
GRAPHICAL SURVEY OF THE ABOVE-DESCRIBED LEASE PARCEL WAS MADE
UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION. I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS AND ATTACHED DRAWING ARE Tfr4J.E AND CORRECT TO
, THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
• v„
•
• ,
•
CREIGH ON R. MOORE
PLS NO. 10945
AUGUST 26, 1993
; 1 !'.,•,IA,Ij
/
• I / •
\.•.!
;111
1f; )
I
61
_ ; (", • ,
r- .)1 •‘:•'
c • , 1,t
. 1%5800
re i'ef
3.1 DNS
. •
1 '
,S•il.
t\ '
vin
'... t t , v"--•0!
•' -- -- ---.;
- ' _ ,..r i ,
4 ,._ 62
D
EXIT 109
)
•
,
i-• -
t-----1,:,-.4''\•
---
..' ,-,-...\'„,-c.,,y, • 7.r: ,.
, !,,,1 11 i----,:„, .?.1,,• ,,, n —, -,
1,. >j
/1‘;„ 1 ' ' , f\' ' -
` I' ' ' ''
if,i .., ,•, i , ,.,/ , (
, , )
-, / - //,' 6:, „I 7,,,.
1 ,k ,,
, f, %1(,'
I .-. ''1___.,.' ._:' )1N . -I ... \Ct—'," . /,'1.',i'•''' .zt'i'
, -,\ 1,._
. I /
t „
,,,..4.....
VICINIT,)' MAP
SCALE: 1 = 2000
DATE
Surveyed By
FJS •
Dr a Avn By
VLM •
,
10
•;•:1
*0"14014tt
•