HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 07.12.2010Exhibits — Limited Impact Review — Scott and Debra Robinson. — LIPA 6336 BoCC Public
Hearing (7/12/2010)
A
Proof of Publication, Posting, and Mailing
13
Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended
C
Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 2000, as amended
D
Application
E
Staff Memorandum
F
Staff Powerpoint
G
Memo from Jake Mall, Garfield County Road and Bridge, dated June I, 2010
H
Email from Dan Roussin, Colorado Department of Transportation, dated June 1, 2010
I
Email from Steve Anthony, Garfield County Weed Management, dated June 15, 2010
J
Letter from Garfield County Development Engineer, dated June 15, 2010
III■
IM
BOCC 7/12/2010 TV
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST LIPA 6339 — Limited Impact Review for
"Communication Facility"
APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER Scott and Debra Robinson
REPRESENTATIVE Jeff Sherer/Black and Veatch
PARCEL ID 2179-054-00-589
PROPERTY SIZE/SITE AREA 23.8 acres
LOCATION approximately %2 miles west of Silt, CO and north
of Highway 6 & 24
ACCESS
Direct drive access off of SR 6 & 24
EXISTING ZONING Rural
I. GENERAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The property owner requests approval to construct a "Tele-Communications Facility", also
defined by the Unified Land Use
Resolution of 2008 as
"Communications Facility" The
proposed site is located between
two accessory buildings on a rural
acreage parcel. The vicinity map
to the left illustrates the general
location of the site west of Silt, CO
and north of SR 6 &24. The
applicant has provided a vicinity
Map in Tab E.
The request, noted in the
application narrative, includes
approval for a Tele-
Communications Tower and
1
adjoining equipment building. The narrative states that the new tower and equipment building
will be a "stealth" design, constructed as an agricultural silo (for the tower) and agricultural
storage building (for the equipment building). Both tower and building elevations are shown in
the application in Tab J.
II. SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is located approximately 1/2 mile west of Silt, CO and north of SR 6 & 24 with direct
access to the State highway via a shared private road connecting directly to State Routes 6 & 24.
The site is currently used as a rural residential site containing a single family home with
numerous out buildings and corrals for horses. The property is contained on a bench
approximately 100 feet above the Highway access point with no visibility of the existing
structures on site. The site
plan, attached to the
application (Tab J) and shown
to the left, demonstrates the
gated access point to the parcel,
driveway easement, accessory
structures (barns), a corner of
the existing home, and the
proposed location of the tower
and equipment building. A
transmission Tower and power -
line crosses the site from north
to south near the gated
entryway into the property.
The majority of the site
topography is relatively flat but
slopes downhill to the east into the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch along the site's southern and
eastern property line.
III. REVIEW STANDARDS & STAFF COMMENTS
Limited Impact Reviews are required to adequately address topics in Section 4-502(D) Land
Suitability Analysis, Section 4-502(E) Impact Analysis, and the general development standards
found in Article VII of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 (ULUR).
Pursuant to Divisions 1-3 of Article VII all applications for land use change shall conform to the
listed standards. Divisions 1-3 discuss General Approval Standards, Resource Protection, and
Site Planning and Development. The applicant has addressed all of the requirements of the
ULUR that apply to this Limited Impact Review and specifically for "Tele-Communications
Facility" with standards listed in Section 7-823, Additional Standards Applicable to Tele -
2
. ._
\\✓,�..,
\
l
,/
/
/ / %
,/ ,..-�_.....,.1_._._..../"�y, Tei/
i
'
VPIJ}j1/1VnIB121
LSAT
r-r;,=�
sR.: -,
A2.0
III. REVIEW STANDARDS & STAFF COMMENTS
Limited Impact Reviews are required to adequately address topics in Section 4-502(D) Land
Suitability Analysis, Section 4-502(E) Impact Analysis, and the general development standards
found in Article VII of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 (ULUR).
Pursuant to Divisions 1-3 of Article VII all applications for land use change shall conform to the
listed standards. Divisions 1-3 discuss General Approval Standards, Resource Protection, and
Site Planning and Development. The applicant has addressed all of the requirements of the
ULUR that apply to this Limited Impact Review and specifically for "Tele-Communications
Facility" with standards listed in Section 7-823, Additional Standards Applicable to Tele -
2
Communications Facilities. The following provides a review of specific standards that are of
interest to the Board when considering the impacts caused by "Tele-Communications Facilities"
followed by a Staff Response:
A. Section 4-502(E) Land Suitability Analysis (Tab Q in the application)
1. Public Access to Site. Show historic public access to or through the site.
2. Access to adjoining Roadways. Identify access to adjoining roads and site distance and
intersection constraints.
3. Easements. Show all easements defining, limiting or allowing use types and access.
Staff Response (For items 1-3): The property has public road access via SR 6 & 24 with a
shared access road and a direct connection to the State Highway System. The site has an
individual private drive off of the shared private roadway. There are no known issues with
site access and no access constraints identified. The applicant has adequately demonstrated
adequate access to the site.
4. Topography and Slope. Topography and slope determination.
Staff Response: The property is located on a bench above the Colorado River plain and an
area of gentle slope. Construction of the tower and equipment building will require some
grading for site preparation. There are no significant slope or topographic impacts
identified in the Garfield County Geographic System for development of the site.
5. Natural Features. Significant natural features on-site and off-site.
Staff Response: The property is located on an area of gentle slope with no significant
natural features located on the proposed communication tower site. Off-site, to the east and
south, the property slopes downhill to the Lower Cactus Valley Ditch along the site's
southern and eastern property line.
6. Drainage Features. Existing drainages and impoundments, natural and manmade.
Staff Response: The site drains from the north to the south. The Lower Cactus Valley
Ditch along the site's southern and eastern property line. There are no other natural or
manmade drainage features located on the site.
7. Water. Historic irrigation, tailwater issues, water demands, adequate water supply
plan pursuant to Section 7-104.
Staff Response: The proposed communication facility site does not have any historic water
usage or other identified water demand. There are no potable water wells or other potable
water intensive used proposed for operation of the communication tower and equipment
building. Personnel will only be on-site during construction and during routine
maintenance.
3
8. Floodplain. Flood plain and flood fringe delineations.
Staff Response: The Garfield County Geographic Information System does not identify any
designated flood plain or flood hazard area.
9. Soils. Soils determination, percolation constraints, as applicable.
Staff Response: An on-site ISDS is not proposed or any other waste -water disposal system.
10. Hazards. Geologic hazards on-site, and adjacent to site.
Staff Response: The Garfield County GIS maps do not identify any areas of geologic
hazard on the site.
11. Natural Habitat. Existing flora and fauna habitat, wetlands, migration routes.
Staff Comments: The proposed communication tower and equipment building site would
be constructed on an existing home site with out -buildings. No impacts to flora or fauna
are anticipated. There are no wetlands or drainage features identified on the site.
12. Resource Areas. Protected or Registered Archaeological, cultural, paleontological
and historic resource areas.
Staff Response: The Application contains a letter prepared by The Colorado Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation which located at the end of Tab R. The letter states
that there are no archeological or historic sites identified within the project area.
B. Section 4-502(E) Impact Analysis (Tab R in the application) The Impact
Analysis shall provide a description of the impacts that the proposed land use change may
cause, based upon the standards that the proposed use must satisfy. The Impact Analysis
shall include a complete description of how the applicant will ensure that impacts will be
mitigated and standards will be satisfied. The following information shall be included in
the Impact Analysis.
1. Adjacent Property. An address list of real property adjacent to the subject property, and
the mailing address for each of the property owners.
Staff Comments: The Applicant provided an address list for property owners within 200
feet of the parcel for public notice which is located in Tab M of the application.
2. Adjacent Land Use. Existing use of adjacent property and neighboring properties within
1500' radius.
Staff Comments: The site is located in an area of rural residential and surrounding
agricultural uses.
3. Site Features. A description of site features such as streams, areas subject to flooding,
lakes, high ground water areas, topography, vegetative cover, climatology, and other
features that may aid in the evaluation of the proposed development.
Staff Comments: The relatively flat communication tower site is located on a bench
approximately 100 feet above the Colorado River Plain and west of Silt, CO. The site
4
contains an existing home with numerous out buildings, pastures, and corrals on a 24 acre
parcel. There are no drainage features identified on the parcel or the proposed development
site. Off-site, to the east and south, the property slopes downhill to the Lower Cactus
Valley Ditch along the site's southern and eastern property line. There are no identified or
visible geologic or topographic features on the site.
4. Soil Characteristics. A description of soil characteristics of the site which have a
significant influence on the proposed use of the land.
Staff Comments: The project site does not have any soil constraints to use the site as
proposed. The Garfield County GIS identifies the northern two thirds of the site as "Prime,
Irrigated" farmland and the southern one third as "Irrigated, Not Prime". This site is an
unmanned communications tower and an on-site ISDS is not proposed or any other waste-
water disposal system.
5. Geology and Hazard. A description of the geologic characteristics of the area including
any potential natural or man-made hazards, and a determination of what effect such
factors would have on the proposed use of the land.
Staff Comments: The Garfield County GIS maps do not identify any areas of geologic
hazard on the site.
6. Effect on Existing Water Supply and Adequacy of Supply. Evaluation of the effect of the
proposed land use on the capacity of the source of water supply to meet existing and
future domestic and agricultural requirements and meeting the adequate water supply
requirements of Section 7-104.
Staff Comments: The site is proposed for "Tele Communications Facility" with an
accessory equipment building. Following construction there are no requirements for on-
site staff with only regular maintenance visits. There are no potable water wells or other
potable water intensive uses proposed for operation of the site.
7. Effect on Groundwater and Aquifer Recharge Areas. Evaluation of the relationship of
the subject parcel to floodplain, the nature of soils and subsoils and their ability to
adequately support waste disposal, the slope of the land, the effect of sewage effluents,
and the pollution of surface runoff, stream flow and groundwater.
Staff Comments: The site is proposed for "Tele Communications Facility" with an
accessory equipment building. Following construction there are no requirements for on-
site staff with only regular maintenance visits. An on-site ISDS is not proposed or any
other waste -water disposal system.
8. Environmental Effects. Determination of the existing environmental conditions on the
parcel to be developed and the effects of development on those conditions, including:
a. Determination of the long term and short term effect on flora and fauna.
5
Staff Comment: The proposed communication facility site is on a previously disturbed
area containing a single family residence, out buildings and a corral. The proposal does not
appear to affect the local flora and fauna on the approximately 1,200 square foot site.
b. Determination of the effect on significant archaeological, cultural, paleontological,
historic resources.
Staff Comment: The Application contains a letter prepared by The Colorado Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation which located at the end of Tab R. The letter states
that there are no archeological or historic sites identified within the project area.
c. Determination of the effect on designated environmental resources, including critical
wildlife habitat.
(1) Impacts on wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous
attractions, alteration of existing native vegetation, blockade of migration routes,
use patterns or other disruptions.
Staff Comment: There are no designated environmental resources identified on this site
and no impacts wildlife or domestic animals due to hazardous attractions.
d. Evaluation of any potential radiation hazard that may have been identified by the
State or County Health Departments.
Staff Comment: There are no radiation hazards identified for this site.
e. Spill Prevention Control and Counter Measures plan, if applicable.
Staff Comments: The Application does not include a Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure Plan since the site will not be used for storage for operation of the
communication tower.
9. Traffic. Assessment of traffic impacts based upon a traffic study prepared in compliance
with Section 4-502(J).
Staff Comments: The property has public road access via SR 6 & 24 with a shared access
road and a direct connection to the State Highway System. The site has an individual
private drive off of the shared private roadway. There are no known issues with site access
and no access constraints identified by Garfield County Road and Bridge. The Colorado
Department of Transportation reports that the access is adequate but a new access permit is
required due to the change to commercial use. The applicant has adequately demonstrated
adequate access to the site. Once construction of the communication facility is completed
there will be minimal traffic to the site for maintenance.
The application includes a discussion on traffic impacts as part of the Impact Analysis, Tab
R. There do not appear to be any additional traffic impacts to the State Highway System.
Construction traffic will occur over a period of 60 days.
6
10. Nuisance. Impacts on adjacent land from generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare
or vibration, or other emanations.
Staff Comments: The proposed communication facility site is located on a bench
approximately 100 feet above the Colorado River plain. The proposed stealth
communication facility consisting of a 40 foot tower and equipment building are designed
to mimic an agricultural silo and out building. The buildings will be painted to match the
existing agricultural buildings on site. No nuisance impacts are anticipated. The standards
of Section 7- 823 Additional Standards Applicable to Telecommunications Facilities will
be implemented during site development. The proposed use, as conditioned, meets the
requirements of the ULUR of 2008, as amended.
11. Reclamation Plan. A reclamation plan consistent with the standards in Section 7-212
(B).
7-212 (B) Areas disturbed during development shall be restored as natural -appearing
landforms that blend in with adjacent undisturbed topography (Reso 2009-53).
I. Contouring and Revegetation. Abrupt angular transitions and linear placement on
visible slopes shall be avoided. Areas disturbed by grading shall be contoured so they
can be re -vegetated, and shall be planted and shall have vegetation established and
growing based on 70% coverage as compared with the original on-site vegetation within
two (2) growing seasons, using species with a diversity of native and/or desirable non-
native vegetation capable of supporting the post -disturbance land use.
a. Revegetation of Disturbed Areas. To the maximum extent feasible, disturbed
areas shall be revegetated to a desired plant community with composition of
weed free species and plant cover typical to that site.
2. Application of Top Soil. Top soil shall be stockpiled and placed on disturbed areas.
3. Retaining Walls. Retaining walls made of wood, stone, vegetation or other materials
that blend with the natural landscape shall be used to reduce the steepness of cut slopes
and to provide planting pockets conducive to revegetation.
4. Slash Around Homes. To avoid insects, diseases and wildfire hazards all vegetative
residue, slushiness, branches, limbs, stumps, roots, or other such flammable lot -
clearing debris shall be removed from all areas of the lot in which such materials are
generated or deposited, prior to final building inspection approval.
5. Removal of Debris. Within six months of substantial completion of soil disturbance all
brush, stumps and other debris shall be removed from the site.
6. Time Line Plan. Every area disturbed shall have a time line approved for the
reclamation of the site approved by the County and a security shall be provided to
Garfield County in an amount of $2,500 per disturbed acre to be reclaimed prior to the
issuance of a Land Use Change Permit.
7
Staff Comments: The proposed communication facility site is on a previously disturbed
area containing a single family residence, out buildings and a corral. The Impact
Assessment (Tab R) states that the site area is approximately 1, 2000 square feet in area
and currently used as a hay storage area between two existing out buildings. Garfield
County Weed Management did not comment on the requirements for re -vegetation due to
the small size of the site disturbance. The Applicants response in the Impact Analysis
affirmed that any remaining disturbed areas would be reseeded with an appropriate mix of
local grasses.
C. Section 7-100 GENERAL APPROVAL STANDARDS FOR LAND USE
CHANGE PERMITS (Tab I in the application)
1. Section 7-101 Compliance with Zone District Use Restrictions
Staff Comments: The proposed use complies with the development standards of the Rural
Zoning District and the development standards of Section 7-823 of the ULUR.
2. Section 7-102 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan and Intergovernmental
Agreements
Staff Comments: The property is located in Study Area 2 of the Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan of 2000 and is located within the "influence area" of the Town of Silt.
As required by Intergovernmental Agreement, the Town of Silt was sent a copy of the
application for comment.
3. Section 7-103 Compatibility
Staff Comment: The site is located in an area of rural residential and agricultural uses.
The, proposed "stealth" design of the tower and equipment building will cause minimal
compatibility impacts. The proposed use meets the requirements of the ULUR of 2008, as
amended.
4. Section 7-104 Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water
5. Section 7-105 Adequate Water Supply
6. Section 7-106 Adequate Water Distribution and Wastewater Systems
Staff Comments (For items 4-6): The proposed communication facility site does not have
any historic water usage or other identified water demand. There are no potable water
wells or other potable water intensive used proposed for operation of the communication
tower and equipment building. Personnel will only be on-site during construction and
during routine maintenance. An on-site ISDS is not proposed or any other waste -water
disposal system.
8
7. Section 7-107 Adequate Public Utilities
Staff Comments: There are no additional public utilities required for the operation of this
site. Existing power and telephone services will be extended to the communications
facility.
8. Section 7-108 Access and Roadways
Staff Comments: The property has public road access via SR 6 & 24 with a shared access
road and a direct connection to the State Highway System. The site has an individual
private drive off of the shared private roadway. There are no known issues with site access
and no access constraints identified. The applicant has adequately demonstrated the
adequacy of access to the site.
9. Section 7-109 No Significant Risk from Natural Hazards
Staff Comments: The Garfield County GIS maps do not identify any areas of geologic
hazard on the site.
11 Section 7-200 GENERAL RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS FOR
LAND USE CHANGE PERMITS
1. Section 7-201 Protection of Agricuftural Lands
Staff Comment: The use of the site will not adversely affect surrounding agricultural uses.
2. Section 7-202 Protection of Wildlife Habitat Areas
Staff Comment: The proposed communication facility site is on a previously disturbed area
containing a single family residence, out -buildings and a corral. The proposal does not
appear to affect wildlife habitat on the approximately 1,200 square foot site. The Garfield
County Geographic Information Systems does identify the area as overall range for Elk,
Mule Deer, and Mountain Lion.
3. Section 7-203 Protection of Wetlands and Waterbodies
Staff Comment: The site drains from the north to the south. The Lower Cactus Valley
Ditch along the site's southern and eastern property line. There are no other natural or
manmade drainage features located on the site.
4. Section 7-204 Protection of Water Quality from Pollutants
Staff Comment: The Application does not include a Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasure Plan since the site will not be used for storage during operations. The site
is proposed for "Tele-Communications Facility" with an accessory equipment building.
Following construction there are no requirements for on-site staff with only regular
maintenance visits. An on-site ISDS is not proposed or any other waste -water disposal
system. No impacts to water quality are anticipated.
9
5. Section 7-205 Erosion and Sedimentation
Staff Comment: No significant erosion or sedimentation impacts are anticipated from the
construction of a new communication facility.
6. Section 7-206 Drainage & Section 7-207 Stormwater Run -Off
Staff Comments: The site does not appear to affect drainage or stormwater run off patterns
due to the small disturbance with minimal impervious surface for the rooftops of the stealth
tower and equipment building.
7. Section 7-208 Air Quality
Staff Comments: Following construction the communication facility will be unmanned.
No air emissions or air quality issues are expected for this site's proposed use.
8. Section 7-209 Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards
Staff Comments: The site is identified as a "Low Hazard" on the Garfield County Wildfire
Hazard Map.
9. Section 7-210 Areas Subject to Natural Hazards and Geologic Hazards
Staff Comments: The Garfield County GIS maps do not identify any areas of geologic
hazard on the site.
10. Section 7-211 Areas with Archeological, Paleontological or Historical Importance
Staff Comments: The Application contains a letter prepared by The Colorado Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation which located at the end of Tab R. The letter states
that there are no archeological or historic sites identified within the project area.
11. Section 7-212 Reclamation
Staff Comments: The proposed communication facility site is on a previously disturbed
area containing a single family residence, out buildings and a corral. The Impact
Assessment (Tab R) states that the site area is approximately 1, 2000 square feet in area
and currently used as a hay storage area between two existing out buildings. Garfield
County Weed Management did not comment on the requirements for rev -vegetation due to
the small size of the site disturbance. The Applicants response in the Impact Analysis
affirmed that any remaining disturbed areas would be reseeded with an appropriate mix of
local grasses.
E. Section 7- 823 Additional Standards Applicable to Telecommunications
Facilities (Tab H in the application)
A. Shared Facilities. Shared use/co-location of wireless communication facilities on
existing structures, towers or buildings in a manner that precludes the need for the
construction of a freestanding structure of its own shall be utilized unless it can be
10
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners that shared
use/co-location is not feasible or practical.
Staff Comments: The Applicant identified an existing utility tower for co -location but the
utility provider would not agree to lease space on their facility.
B. New Towers and Facilities. No new transmission tower or facility shall be permitted
unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the County that no existing
tower, structure or utility facility can be used by the applicant. To gain approval to
construct a new transmission tower or facility, the applicant must demonstrate that:
1. No existing transmission tower, facility or utility structure is located within a
distance which meets the applicant's engineering requirements; or
2. No existing transmission tower, facility or utility structure is located within a
distance which meets the applicant's engineering requirements and which has
sufficient structural strength or space available to support the applicant's
telecommunication facility and related equipment; or
3. The applicant's proposed telecommunication facility will not cause unreasonable
electromagnetic or other interference with the antennas on existing towers,
structures or utility structures or the antennas of existing transmission towers,
facilities or utility structures or that such existing facilities would interfere with
the applicant's uses such that co -location is not possible; or
4 No owner of existing towers, structures or utility structures, within a distance
that meets the applicant's engineering requirements, will allow the applicant to
place its telecommunication facility thereon.
Staff Comments: The Applicant identified an existing utility tower for co -location but the
utility provider would not agree to lease space on their facility. The engineering and design
requirements for the area can not met and unless a new communication facility is constructed.
C. Structural and Engineering Standards. The applicant shall submit evidence
concerning structural and engineering standards prepared by a qualified professional
engineer licensed by the State of Colorado. The safety of the property and the
neighborhood shall be protected.
Staff Comments: A letter from a structural engineer is in Tab 0 of the application.
D. Interference. Every transmission tower and telecommunication facility shall meet
the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding
physical and electromagnetic interference.
Staff Comment: The wireless provider, Verizon, provided a letter of affirmation that the facility
will meet all FCC requirements in Tab N.
11
E. Health Standards. Transmission towers and telecommunication facilities shall
meet applicable health and safety standards for electromagnetic field (EMF)
emissions as established by the FCC and/or any other federal or state agency having
jurisdiction.
Staff Comment: The wireless provider, Verizon, provided a letter of affirmation that the facility
will meet all FCC requirements in Tab N. The letter also acknowledges that the site will meet
all applicable safety standards for EMF emissions.
F. Public Utility Structures. Transmission towers or telecommunication facilities
mounted on existing structures of public utilities that have a franchise or other
written permission from the County and use concealed transmission towers and
telecommunication facilities are permitted in all non-residential zoning districts,
unless otherwise specified by this Code. The County may approve the placement,
extension or replacement of a transmission tower or telecommunication facility on
an existing public utility structure up to fifty (50) feet above the highest point on the
same; the County may waive public notice and other submittal requirement if the
Director believes that the public interest will not be harmed by such a waiver.
Staff Comment: This standard does not apply.
G. Design, Materials and Color. Transmission towers and telecommunication facilities
shall be designed and maintained to minimize visual impact; carry gravity and wind
loads required by law; and concealment or stealth methods, such as camouflaging
transmission Towers to look like light poles or trees are encouraged. At a minimum, the
transmission towers and facilities shall meet the following design standards:
1. Architecturally integrated with existing buildings, structures and landscaping,
including height, color, style, massing, placement, design and shape.
2. Located on existing vertical infrastructure such as utility poles and public
building or utility structures.
3. Roof mounted antennas shall be located as far away as feasible from the edge of
the building. Antennas attached to the building should be painted or otherwise
treated to match the exterior of the building.
4. Equipment shelters and antennas shall not extend more than ten (10) feet from
the top of the building unless expressly approved by the County.
5. Located in areas where the existing topography, vegetation, buildings or other
structures provide screening.
Staff Comments: The proposed communications facility is a "stealth" design mimicking an
agricultural silo for the tower and an agricultural storage building for the equipment building
and is shown below. Color and design of the structures will match the existing residential
12
buildings and agricultural out -buildings. The site is well screened from the surrounding rural
residential and agricultural uses and blends in well with the existing site.
H. Landscaping and Screening. The property on which a telecommunication facility or
tower is located shall be landscaped and screened, in accordance with the following
standards:
1. A free-standing transmission tower or telecommunication facility shall include
landscaping planted and maintained according to a landscaping plan approved by
the County.
2. A freestanding transmission tower or telecommunication facility shall be
surrounded by a six (6) foot high wall or fence or other suitable buffer yard.
Chain link with slats shall not constitute acceptable fencing nor shall it satisfy
the screening requirement.
Staff Comments: The site is not in public view and located on a rural home site. It appears that
this standard does not apply.
I. Lighting and Signage. Only lighting required by a federal agency is allowed. Only
signage that is required by state or federal law is allowed. No advertising shall be
permitted.
Staff Comments: The proposed telecommunications facility meets this standard.
J. Free Standing Transmission Tower or Telecommunication Facility Equipment
Building(s) or Cabinet(s). Exterior tower or telecommunication facility equipment
building(s) or cabinet(s) shall not contain more than four hundred (400) square feet of
gross floor area, shall not be more than twelve (12) feet in height, and shall maintain the
minimum setback, landscaping and screening requirements of the zone in which it is
located.
13
Staff Comments: The proposed equipment building is 14 x 28 feet or 392 square feet in area
(the narrative says 12 x 26 feet or 312 square feet) with a maximum of 12 feet in height. The
proposed facility will meet the Rural Zoning District standards for setbacks.
K. Modification or Demolition. Any transmission tower or telecommunications facility
being modified, demolished or rebuilt shall be in compliance with the standards adopted
in this Code.
L. Maintenance. Every owner of a transmission tower or telecommunications facility
shall take special care to operate, repair and maintain all such facilities so as to prevent
failures and accidents which cause damage, injuries or nuisances to the neighborhood
and public. All wires, cables, fixtures and other equipment shall be installed in
compliance with the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code and all FCC,
FAA, state and local regulations, and in such a manner that will not interfere with radio
communications, electronic transmissions or all other electromagnetic communications
or otherwise cause a safety hazard.
M. Review. Each new tower or facility shall be subject to a two (2) -year review by the
Director. The review will determine whether or not the originally approved number of
antenna and design are still appropriate and necessary to provide adequate
communications services.
N. Abandonment. The wireless telecommunication facility owner shall remove all
wireless telecommunications facilities which are not in use for any six (6) -month period,
within three (3) months of the end of such six (6) month abandonment. As a part of
such removal, the owner shall re -vegetate the site so that it is compatible with the
neighborhood. The Board of County Commissioners shall only determine abandonment
after the owner has had notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Staff Comments (for items K -N): The Applicant acknowledges and agrees to the above
standards.
0. Federal Aviation Agency ("FAA") Form. The applicant shall submit FAA Form
7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, except that such form shall not
be required for the following:
1. An amateur radio antennae if owned and operated by a federally licensed
amateur radio operator or used exclusively for a receive -only antennae.
2. Any existing tower and antennae provided a building permit was issued for a
tower or antennae prior to the adoption of this Code.
14
3. Any emergency telecommunications facilities used exclusively for emergency
services including, but not limited to, police, fire and operation of governmental
entities.
4. Any antennae used for Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licensees
engaged in AM, FM or television broadcasting.
Staff Comments: The Applicant has provided FAA Form 7460-1 in Tab P.
P. Telecommunications Act. All telecommunications facilities shall comply with the
standards of this Code, all applicable standards of the Federal Telecommunications Act
of 1996, and all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Staff Comment: The Applicant acknowledges and agrees to the above standards.
IV. REFFERAL AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments have been received from the following agencies / community groups and are
integrated throughout this memorandum as applicable.
1. Garfield County Road and Bridge Department (Exhibit G): Garfield County Road and
Bridge has no objection to this application and acknowledges that the Colorado Department
of Transportation has control over the driveway access.
2. Colorado Department of Transportation (Exhibit H): CDOT requests an application for a
new access permit for the commercial use.
3. Garfield County Vegetation Management (Exhibit I): No comments.
4. Garfield County Engineer (Building and Planning, Exhibit J): No comments.
V. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
Should the BOCC decide to approve the request of Scott and Debra Robinson for
Communications Facility, through this Limited Impact Review, Staff suggests the BoCC make
the following findings:
1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of
County Commissioners.
2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and
complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be
submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the Land Use Change Permit for a
Communications Facility is in the best interest of the health, safety, morals,
convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
15
4. That the application, if all conditions are met, can be in conformance with the applicable
Sections of the Garfield County Unified Land Use Resolution of 2008 as amended.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Applicant has applied for a Land Use Change Permit for a new Communications Facility
consisting of a "stealth" tower and equipment building. As conditioned, the request addresses
the ULUR requirements for approving a Limited Impact Review and issuing a permit for this
specific use. Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the request from
Scott and Debra Robinson for a Land Use Change Permit for a Communications Facility on Lot
1 of the Antonelli Subdivision Exemption in the SE 1/4 of Section 5, Township 6 South, Range
92 West, in Garfield County with the following conditions:
1. That all representations made by the Applicant in the application, and at the public hearing
before the Board of County Commissioners, shall be conditions of approval, unless
specifically altered by the Board of County Commissioners.
2. That the operation of the facility be done in accordance with all applicable Federal, State,
and local regulations governing the operation of this type of facility.
3. The facility shall be operated so that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently
generated is not perceptible, without instruments, at any point of any boundary line of the
property on which the use is located.
4. Site operations shall not emit heat, glare, radiation, dust or fumes which substantially
interfere with the existing use of adjoining property or which constitutes a public nuisance
or hazard.
5. All equipment and structures associated with this permit shall be painted with non -reflective
paint in neutral colors to reduce glare and mitigate any visual impacts.
6. Volume of sound generated shall comply with the standards set forth in the Colorado
Revised Statutes.
7. All lighting associated with the property shall be directed inward and downward towards the
interior of the property. _ U
8. The applicant shall obtain a new CDOT access permit prior to issuance of the Land Use
Change Permit.
VII. RECOMMENDED MOTION
"I move to approve a Land Use Change Permit through the Limited Impact Review process
for a Communication Facility to include a new 40 foot tower and equipment building, on a
property owned by Scott and Debra Robinson with the staff recommended findings and
conditions."
16
GARFIELD COUNTY
Building & Planning Department
Review Agency Form
Date Sent: May 25, 2010
Comments Due: June 15, 2010
Name of application: Robinson Telecommunications Tower
Sent to: Garfield Count Road & Bride De aliment
Garfield County requests your comment in review of this project. Please notify the
Planning Department in the event you are unable to respond by the deadline. This form
may be used for your response, or you may attach your own additional sheets as
necessary. Written comments may be mailed, e-mailed, or faxed to:
Garfield County Building & Planning
Staff Contact: Thomas Veljic
109 8th Street, Suite 301
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Fax: 970-384-3470
Phone: 970-945-8212
General Comments: Garfield Count Road and Bride De.artment has no ob'ection to
this as.lication with the fol
o • comments.
As this property is accessed from a CDOT controlled driveway access Garfield County
Road and Brid e has no comments on this a..lication
Name of review agency: Garfield County Road and Bridge Department
By: Jake B. Mall
Date June 1, 2010
Revised 3/30/00
Tom Vel'ic
From: Roussin, Daniel[Daniel.Roussin@DOT.STATE.CO.US]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 4:18 PM
To: Tom Veljic
Subject: Scott and Debra Robinson Cell Tower Approval
Tom — Thank you for the opportunity to review the Telecommunications Facility for the Scott and Debra Robinson property
at 31677 Highway 6 & 24. Conceptually, CDOT doesn't have any concerns with the construction of the cell tower on the
access. It appears that the access is adequate for the proposed change. However, since this is a new use, (commercial
use), CDOT would like a new access permit to document the change in use of the property. I don't anticipate any issues
with the access permit process.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Thanks
Dan Roussin
Region 3 Permit Unit Manager
222 South 6th Street, Room 100
Grand Junction, CO 81501
970-683-6284 Office
970-683-6291 Fax
Tom VeI'ic
From: Steve Anthony
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2010 4:17 PM
To: Tom Veljic
Subject: Robinson Telecommunications Tower
Tom
No comments on this one....
Steve Anthony
Garfield County Vegetation Management Director
POB 426
Rifle CO 81650
Office: 970-625-8601
Fax: 970-625-8627
Email: santhony@garfield-county.com
June 15, 2010
Mr. Thomas Veljic
Garfield County Planning
108 8`I' Street, Suite 401
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
MOUNTAIN CROSS
ENGINEERING, INC.
CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING AND DESIGN
RE: Limited Impact Review of the Robinson Telecommunications Tower, LIPA 6339
Dear Thomas:
This office has performed a review of the documents provided for the Limited Impact application of
the Robinson Telecommunications Tower. The submittal was found to be thorough and well
organized. The review generated no comments.
Feel free to call for any reason.
Sincerely,
Mount. in Cross En in erin Inc.
ris Hale, PE
826 1/2 Grand Avenue • Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
PH: 970.945.5544 • FAX: 970.945.5558 • www.mountaincross-eng.com