Monopole Addition and Antennas Conditional Use PLNPCM2012 ... · PLNPCM2012-00458 American Tower Monopole Addition Published Date: 9/5/2012 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING STAFF REPORT Planning

PLNPCM2012-00458 American Tower Monopole Addition Published Date: 9/5/2012

1

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING STAFF REPORT

Planning Division

Department of Community and

Economic Development

Monopole Addition and Antennas Conditional Use

PLNPCM2012-00458 645 S State Street

Hearing Date: September 13, 2012 Applicant: Brett Griffith, Cricket

Communications

Staff: Daniel Echeverria

(801) 535-7165

[email protected]

Tax ID: 16-06-356-006

Current Zone: D-2 (Downtown

Support )

Master Plan Designation: Central Community Master Plan –

Central Business District Support

Council District: District 4, Luke Garrot

Community Council: Central City

Lot Size: 0 .31 Acres

Current Use: Restaurant

Applicable Land Use Regulations: 21A.54.080 Standards for

Conditional Uses

21A.40.090 Antenna regulations

Attachments: A. Site Plan & Elevations

B. Dept/Division Comments

Request

A request by Brett Griffith, representing Cricket Communications, for a

conditional use to extend an existing monopole an additional 10 feet to a height

of approximately 90 feet and install new antennas and support structures greater

than 2 feet in width for a total height of approximately 94 feet at 645 South

State Street.

Staff Recommendation

Based on the findings listed in the staff report, it is the Planning Staff’s opinion

that overall the project meets the applicable standards and therefore

recommends that the Administrative Hearing Officer approve the petition.

mailto:[email protected]


2

Background

Project Description

The request is for conditional use approval to add an additional 10’ in height to an existing 80’ monopole with

additional antennas and structures for a total height of approximately 94 feet. Additional cabinets and

equipment will be located within the existing fenced leased area of approximately 25’ x 30’ at the rear of the

lot. The equipment will be located in a 10’ x 15’ elevated platform at a height of 20.5’ and includes a utility

rack, cabinets, and an icebridge. The location of all proposed antennas and equipment can be reviewed in

Attachment A.

Public Notice, Meetings and Comments

The following is a list of public meetings that have been held related to the proposed project:

An open house was held for the item at the Salt Lake City Main Library on August 16th, 2012. The

Downtown, Central City, and Ball Park Community Councils received notice of this meeting, as well as

property owners within 300 feet of the proposal. No comments were received.

Notice of the public hearing for the proposal includes:

Public hearing notice mailed on August 30, 2012.


3

Public hearing notice posted on property on August 30, 2012.

Public hearing notice posted on City and State websites on August 30, 2012.

Public hearing notice e-mailed to the Planning Division list serve on August 30, 2012.

Public Comments

Prior to publication of this report, staff did not receive any public comments for or against the proposal.

City Department Comments

Comments were solicited from all applicable City Departments and Divisions. The review comments have been

attached to this report as Attachment B. None of the comments would preclude approval of the project.

Analysis and Findings

Conditional Use Standards

21A.54.080 B. Specific Standards: A conditional use shall be approved if reasonable conditions are proposed,

or can be imposed, to mitigate the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed use in accordance

with applicable standards set forth in this section. If the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of a proposed

conditional use cannot be substantially mitigated by the proposal or the imposition of reasonable conditions to

achieve compliance with applicable standards, the conditional use shall be denied.

A. Approval Standards: A conditional use shall be approved unless the planning commission, or in the case

of administrative conditional uses, the planning director or designee, concludes that the following standards

cannot be met:

1. The use complies with applicable provisions of this title;

2. The use is compatible, or with conditions of approval can be made compatible, with surrounding uses;

3. The use is consistent with applicable adopted city planning policies, documents, and master plans; and

4. The anticipated detrimental effects of a proposed use can be mitigated by the imposition of reasonable

conditions.

Analysis: The proposed use is an addition to an existing monopole that would extend the height of the

monopole to 90 feet. The proposed 10 feet of additional height requires a conditional use review as

listed in the table for the D-2 zone in 21A.40.090E. The proposed antennas are also over 2 feet in width

and also require conditional use approval as per the same table.

In addition to the general standards for conditional uses, the proposal must also be evaluated with regard

to the additional conditional use provisions found in 21A.40.090.E.9:

a. Compatibility of the proposed structure with the height and mass of existing buildings and utility structures;

b. Whether collocation of the antenna on the other existing structures in the same vicinity such as other towers, buildings, water towers, utility poles, etc., is possible without significantly impacting antenna transmission or reception;


4

c. The location of the antenna in relation to existing vegetation, topography and buildings to obtain the best visual screening;

d. Whether the spacing between monopoles and lattice towers creates detrimental impacts to adjoining properties.

The proposed monopole addition is higher than the buildings adjacent to the property by approximately

50 to 70 feet. Existing utility poles within 600 feet of the site appear to reach the proposed 90’ height of

the monopole. The 10 foot addition will be placed on the existing monopole at this location and

collocates a new antenna array on the monopole.

The antenna will be located in the rear of the lot and is buffered from the front of the property by a

parking lot. The monopole and associated equipment directly abut the windowless side of a neighboring

commercial building on the east. As this is an addition to an existing monopole, the location cannot be

adjusted to improve screening.

There is one other monopole visible from this location, located on the neighboring block to the west at

approximately 57 E 700 South. As such, no detrimental concentration of monopoles or lattice towers

exists that would impact adjoining properties.

The proposed tower addition and antennas are located on an existing monopole on a commercial

property and is located within an area that is dominated by commercial uses. The monopole does not

abut any low density residential properties that may be impacted by the proposed equipment or height.

The Central Community Master Plan is silent on matters related to wireless telecommunication

equipment.

Finding: Staff finds that the proposed monopole addition and associated antennas comply with the

applicable master plans and Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance standards. The proposed use is compatible

with the surrounding uses at this location. As per section B below, there are no anticipated detrimental

effects from the proposed use.

B. Detrimental Effects Determination: In analyzing the anticipated detrimental effects of a proposed use,

the planning commission, or in the case of administrative conditional uses, the planning director or

designee, shall determine compliance with each of the following:

1. This title specifically authorizes the use where it is located;

2. The use is consistent with applicable policies set forth in adopted citywide, community, and small

area master plans and future land use maps;

3. The use is well suited to the character of the site, and adjacent uses as shown by an analysis of the

intensity, size, and scale of the use compared to existing uses in the surrounding area;

4. The mass, scale, style, design, and architectural detailing of the surrounding structures as they relate

to the proposed have been considered;

5. Access points and driveways are designed to minimize grading of natural topography, direct

vehicular traffic onto major streets, and not impede traffic flows;


5

6. The internal circulation system is designed to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent property from

motorized, nonmotorized, and pedestrian traffic;

7. The site is designed to enable access and circulation for pedestrian and bicycles;

8. Access to the site does not unreasonably impact the service level of any abutting or adjacent street;

9. The location and design of off street parking complies with applicable standards of this code;

10. Utility capacity is sufficient to support the use at normal service levels;

11. The use is appropriately screened, buffered, or separated from adjoining dissimilar uses to mitigate

potential use conflicts;

12. The use meets city sustainability plans, does not significantly impact the quality of surrounding air

and water, encroach into a river or stream, or introduce any hazard or environmental damage to any

adjacent property, including cigarette smoke;

13. The hours of operation and delivery of the use are compatible with surrounding uses;

14. Signs and lighting are compatible with, and do not negatively impact surrounding uses; and

15. The proposed use does not undermine preservation of historic resources and structures.

Analysis: The monopole is located in the rear of the property at the southeast corner. The existing

monopole at this location meets the location requirements for a monopole in the D-2 zone. The proposed

electrical equipment is also located in the same location within an existing fenced equipment lease area

and is permitted.

The uses at this site and the surrounding properties are predominantly commercial and the proposal does

not change the character of the site. The monopole does not impact the existing site configuration and

does not have any impact on the above considerations relating to vehicles. The proposal also does not

impact utilities or have any significant environmental impacts.

The use is not located in a historic district, nor is the property considered a landmark or contributing site.

Finding: Staff finds that the proposed conditional use is not associated with any detrimental effects that

require mitigation with conditions.

C. Conditions Imposed: The planning commission, or in the case of administrative conditional uses, the

planning director or the director's designee, may impose on a conditional use any conditions necessary

to address the foregoing factors which may include, but are not limited to:

1. Conditions on the scope of the use; its character, location, hours and methods of operation,

architecture, signage, construction, landscaping, access, loading and parking, sanitation, drainage and

utilities, fencing and screening, and setbacks; and

2. Conditions needed to mitigate any natural hazards; assure public safety; address environmental

impacts; and mitigate dust, fumes, smoke, odor, noise, vibrations; chemicals, toxins, pathogens, gases,


6

heat, light, and radiation.

Analysis: As discussed in section B, this proposal does not appear to pose any detrimental effects to

surrounding properties.

Finding: Staff finds that no conditions are necessary to reduce any detrimental effects on surrounding

properties.

D. Denial Of Conditional Use: A proposed conditional use shall be denied if:

1. The proposed use is unlawful; or

2. The reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed conditional use cannot be substantially

mitigated as proposed in the conditional use application or by the imposition of reasonable conditions to

achieve compliance with applicable standards set forth in this section.

Analysis: No legal issues have been identified with additional height for the monopole or the proposed

antennas at this location. No detrimental effects have been identified that require mitigation measures.

Finding: Staff finds that the proposed use is lawful and any detrimental effects can be mitigated with

reasonable conditions.


7

ATTACHMENT A

Site Plan & Elevation Drawings


8

ATTACHMENT B

Department Comments


9

PLNPCM2012-00458

Additional Height for Monopole Conditional Use

Department Comments

Public Utilities

The project does not impact the city's public utilities. We have no objection to the proposal.

Zoning

No comments.

Building

No comments.

Engineering

No objections.

Transportation The division of transportation review comments and recommendations are as follows:

The proposed equipment installation within the existing fenced service area presents no impact to the required

vehicular parking or circulation for this site.

Sincerely,

Barry Walsh

Monopole Addition and Antennas Conditional Use PLNPCM2012 ... · PLNPCM2012-00458 American Tower Monopole Addition Published Date: 9/5/2012 1 ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING STAFF REPORT Planning

Documents