PC Minutes 6/22/15

ITEM NO. 2         SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR VERIZON WIRELESS; 2001 MOODIE RD (SLD)

SUP-15-00185: Consider a Special Use Permit for Verizon Wireless LLC to construct a new communication tower, located at 2001 Moodie Rd. Submitted by PAMCORP on behalf of Verizon Wireless LLC for Ottawa Cooperative Association, property owner of record.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Ms. Sandra Day presented the item.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mr. Curtis Holland, Polsinelli Law Office, representing Verizon Wireless. He said this was a compromise to the last application that was denied by City Commission. He said the site was needed to improve coverage and phone calling capacity. He said the tower was moved to where the City Commission directed that it be moved for it not to be an issue. He said the zoning and adjoining land uses were almost all industrial. He stated the adjoining property owner to the north was Duane and Steve Schwada. He said he mistakenly reached out to Free State Bottling thinking that they owned the property when it was really owned by the Schwada’s. He said the Schwada’s concern was about the fall zone and that it could fall over onto their property. He said there wasn’t really any flexibility in moving the tower because of the overhead Westar power lines and the location of Ottawa Cooperative Association deliveries. He said the tower was put in the best spot in terms of where the property owner wanted it and where the power lines were located. He said with respect to concerns about a cell tower falling over, they were built not to fall over. He said cell towers were designed to fail at the top and the pole will crimp. He stated they were not designed to fall over at the base. He said the project met the Code. He showed pictures of other cell towers in Lawrence that were close to buildings and had not had any issues.

PUBLIC HEARING

No public comment.

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Commissioner Denney asked if the tower was capable of housing other co-locations.

Mr. Holland said yes, it would hold at least two other users.

Commissioner Struckhoff asked about some of the technical challenges of a stealth tower.

Mr. Holland said the biggest issue with a stealth designed tower was that it was hard to use as a co-location for other carriers. He said if a carrier was restricted to a stealth pole they would end up having to stack the technology into a canister type tower that could potentially take up 30’ of space. He said it was harder to co-locate on those types of structures. He said that would mean more short and small towers versus a single taller tower that could accommodate other users.

Commissioner von Achen said a previous application talked about five carriers.

Ms. Day said that was a tower out in the county that was a little taller.

Commissioner von Achen said future carriers would need to negotiate with the land owner to build pad sites. She wondered if that would be an issue in the future.

Mr. Holland said there was ground space but the land owner wanted to control the ground leases and the location of them.

Commissioner von Achen asked if the fall zone was the length of the tower.

Mr. Holland said that was what Mr. Schwada thought. He said the fall zone was the zone of where it would fall if there was a failure. He said the failure point was designed at the upper portion of the tower so it would fall into itself. He said tower setbacks had little to do with a tower falling over and hitting property. He said it was more for aesthetic reasons. He stated skyscrapers did not just fall over and there weren’t fall zones for skyscrapers. He said it was the same for monopoles. They were designed and engineered not to fall over.

Commissioner von Achen inquired about different setbacks for different zonings.

Commissioner Kelly said the applicant was saying not to worry about the fall zone.

Ms. Day said tower regulations were adopted in the mid 1990’s. She said the Code gave the option for a tower to be setback a certain distance with an established fall zone. She said the applicant had to provide statements of special inspection and engineer reports about the structure so that there was a high level of confidence.

Commissioner Kelly asked if there was no ability to move the tower. He asked if the engineering documents could support the safety of it.

Ms. Day said the tower had been closer to the property and the street. She said staff encouraged the applicant talk to the adjacent property owner. She said the tower moved a little bit in the same general location.

Commissioner Britton asked how high the grain elevator was.

Mr. Holland said it was roughly 130-140’.

Ms. Day said the grain elevator was taller than the tower.

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Commissioner Struckhoff, seconded by Commissioner Denney, to approve the Special Use Permit for a communication tower located at 2001 Moodie Road and forwarding the request to the City Commission with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following conditions:

1. Applicant shall submit a revised site plan to show five (5) additional street trees along the north 200 feet of Moodie Road to mitigate the proposed use from the residential use to the south. 

2. Prior to release of the site plan for issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the following changes and documentation:

a. Submission of documentation to demonstrate the tower fall zone will be maintained within the parent parcel.

Commissioner Kelly said Planning Commission received communications regarding requests for mitigation and that it was beyond the scope of Planning Commission.

Commissioner Britton said cell towers were always difficult because people want the technology but without seeing it or being near their property. He said he appreciated hearing from the public but that Planning Commission had a narrow focus and the applicant did a good job of finding a compromised location.

          Unanimously approved 7-0.