Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02- Tristar Communications ; . Lux.ToWeRMAJOFfSITE PLAN Z-02143 BEFORE THE BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA IN THE MA TTER OF THE APPLICATION OF TRISTAR FINDINGS COMMUNICATIONS FOR PLACEMENT OF A OF FACT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER FOR USE BY THIRD PARTY AND ORDER SERVICE PROVIDERS This matter came before the Bozeman City Commission on August 12,2002, for review and decision pursuant to the Bozeman 2020 Community Plan, and Title 18 of the Bozeman Municipal Code. The applicant presented to the Commission a proposed major site plan for a monopole tower to host third party telecommunication service providers as submitted in its original form on June 10, 2002, and identified as application number Z-02143. As required by Chapter 18.52 BMC, the Commission held a public hearing on the major site plan and considered all relevant evidence relating to the public health, safety, and welfare, including the recommendations of the Development Review Committee and Design Review Board, to determine whether the major site plan should be approved, conditionally approved, or disapproved. It appeared to the Commission that all parties wishing to appear and comment were given the opportunity to do so, and therefore, being fully advised of all matters having come before it regarding this application, the Commission makes the following written Findings of Fact, as required: FINDINGS OF FACT I. On June 10, 2002, Tristar Communications, submitted an application for approval of a major site plan for construction of a monopole tower to host third party telecommunication -1- LUX TOWER MAJOR SITE PLAN Z-02143 service providers. The property is legally described as Lot 2, Tract 7, Gardner-Simmental Plaza, City of Bozeman, Gallatin County, Montana. The subject property is zoned M-l (Light Manufacturing District) and lies within the Interstate 90 and North 19th Avenue entryway corridor overlay districts. II. The comments of the Development Review Committee and Design Review Board, along with those of Planning & Community Development Staff, were incorporated into a Staff Report with suggested conditions of approval, which was provided to the City Commission. III. Notice of the time and date ofthe public meeting and public hearing was posted at the site and mailed to adjoining property owners on July 19, 2002. Notice of the time and date of the public hearing was advertised in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle on July 28, 2002. Said notices also served to inform interested persons that materials were available for review at the Bozeman Planning & Community Development Department. IV. The application was considered at the regular meeting held on August 12, 2002 of the Bozeman City Commission and weighed against the review criteria established by the zoning ordinance: After the Mayor opened the public hearing, Staff presented its report followed by the applicant's presentation. Staffs written report and a copy ofthe application had been provided to the Commission for review prior to the public hearing as usual. Having heard from both Staff and applicant the Mayor opened the hearing to comment from the public. Several persons spoke in -2- ---- - . . LUX TOWERMAJORSITEPLAN Z-02143 opposition to the application whose comments and submitted written testimony are in the custody of the Clerk of the Commission. All members ofthe public who wished to speak having been given the opportunity to do so, the City Commission began its discussion of the matter. The City Commission discussed the application materials and staff report which had been presented and the public testimony which had been offered. Commissioners described the concerns that they had regarding the scale ofthe tower height in relationship to other elements of the community, uncertainty as to the desirability of the tower in the location proposed and whether it would adequately serve the needs of telecommunication providers in the absence of propagation studies or similar evidence of true suitability by the actual service providers, aesthetic impacts on viewsheds within the community, and whether the height of the tower was needed when no carriers had submitted actual documentation of needing such height. After further discussion the City Commission identified eight issues of concern for which they desired additional information. These issues were: I. Property Values 2. Radio Frequency interference with private equipment and systems 3. Tower proliferation 4. Equitable implementation of Condition 1 in the staff report 5. "Dark towers" and removal of excess equipment 6. Perpetual maintenance of towers and prevention of abandonment due to bankruptcy or similar events -3- . . . LUX TOWERMAJORSITE PLAN Z-02143 7. Shielding of FAA warning lights from the ground to prevent glare to adjacent properties 8. Requirement tor a completed tormallease by a tower tenant prior to construction of the tower. Following its previously established procedure the City Commission continued the consideration of the application for one week to allow time for adequate consideration of the issues identified and directed Staff to provide additional information on the identified items for the continued public hearing on August 19,2002. On August 19,2002 the City Commission continued with their review of the major site plan. Staff had provided a memo to the City Commission on August 15, 2002 providing additional information and possible courses of action to address the concerns the City Commission had previously identified. The applicant and members of the public had also submitted written testimony and evidence during the period between meetings. The public hearing was reopened and Staff reviewed the information and action options available to the commission as outlined in the August 15, 2002 memo. Applicant and public testimony was also recognized as having been received prior to the meeting and additional testimony was received as shown in the minutes of the meeting. Due to the controversial nature of a prior agenda item and the extensive time required to address it, the continued public hearing did not begin until after 10 pm. After hearing from Staff, applicant, and the public, in order to provide careful and thoughtful consideration of the matter, and in order to also be able to address other items remaining on the agenda, the City Commission continued their decision until August 26, 2002, after closing the public hearing. On August 26, 2002, the matter was again considered by the City Commission. After confirming with the Clerk ofthe Commission that the public testimony portion ofthe hearing had -4- -- ---.---- . . . . LUX TOWERMAJOR SITE PLAN Z-02143 been closed at the end of the previous meeting, the Commission continued their discussion and decision. The Commission requested Staff to again review the memo of August 15,2002 reviewing the previously identified concerns and directed several questions relating to the application to Staff. The City Manager also directed several questions to Staff regarding various portions ofthe topics of Commission concern .After this review the Commission discussed various options to address the concerns and whether the application was responsive to the requirements ofthe Bozeman Municipal Code relating to this application. The Commission identified remaining areas of concern relating to this specific application of whether a true demonstration of need for the facility had been established as required by ordinance, whether the application met the criteria for aesthetic and community compatibility required for major site plans due to the scale and obtrusive nature ofthe proposed structure, lack of objective evidence of telecommunication service provider need for the facilities, and that evidence had not been submitted establishing that the proposed application was the least obtrusive and intrusive means of meeting the requirements for the provision of telecommunication systems. After discussion a motion to approve the application with conditions was made and seconded. All City Commission motions are made in the positive. The conditions of approval included with the motion were: 1. In the event the City undertakes a study or studies and/or affirmative actions to prevent interference with public safety and services communications with its consequent risk to life, health and welfare ofthe public, each telecommunications provider shall pay an equitable and roughly proportionate share of the costs of such study or studies and/or affirmative actions. Payment shall be made prior to the issuance or renewal of any city permit or license necessary for the installation ofthe tower tenants equipment, rehabilitation of existing sites, or continued operation of existing sites, in order for the City to recoup no more than its actual -5- ~ . . LUX TOWER MAJOR. SITE-PLAN Z-02143 costs in undertaking such a study and/or affirmative actions. If such a study and/or affirmative action is contemplated or underway at the time a tower tenant applies for approval of equipment installation, rehabilitation, or continued licensing the tenant shall pay 150% of the estimated equitable and roughly proportionate share of such costs. When the final costs of a study and/or affirmative actions are determined the City shall return to each tenant the difference between the amount paid and the actual equitable and roughly proportionate costs. The following actions by the City shall be considered affirmative actions to prevent interference: a. The conducting of a study by qualified professionals to evaluate the public safety and services communications system(s), assess areas of weakness relating to telecommunications interference, and make recommendations of actions to be taken to ensure the continued safe operations of the public safety and services communications systems. Such study may be conducted as a portion of a more comprehensive study. However, the financial participation shall be limited to those costs of the study relating to telecommunications interference. b. Replacement of equipment needed to conduct public safety and services communications due to existing or reasonably foreseeable interference from other telecommunication users. c. Relocation of equipment needed to conduct public safety and services communications due to existing or reasonably foreseeable interference from other telecommunication users. d. Purchase and installation of additional equipment needed to counteract the effects of telecommunications interference. e. Other actions clearly necessitated by telecommunications interference with the public safety and services communication system(s). The following actions are not affirmative actions to prevent interference: a. Replacement of equipment due principally to age or physical damage. b. Replacement of equipment with like or similar equipment utilizing the same frequencies, except when constituting an affirmative action as described above. c. Relocation of equipment due to office relocations, construction of emergency services stations to service expanding areas, or other non-interference related relocations. d. Upgrades to existing systems to provide additional capabilities that are not related to telecommunications interference. -6- . . LUX TOWERMAJORSITEPLAN.. Z-02143 2. Prior to the City Commission hearing the applicant shall provide for consideration a narrative addressing the issue of ice fall. 3. Any mature vegetation removed during the installation ofthis project shall be replaced. The number of total caliper inches in the existing vegetation removed and the total number of caliper inches in the replacement vegetation, which may consist of one or more trees, shall be the same at the time the replacement vegetation is installed. 4. The site shall be reconfi!:,TUfed to comply with the required setbacks for Gardner-Simmental Plaza. Setbacks are: Front yard - 100 feet; Rear yard - 50 feet; Side yard - 40 feet. 5. Any proposed rooftop mechanical equipment proposed on future equipment shelters shall be screened from view and incorporated in some manner into the roof form of the building. 6. A letter of approval from the Gardner-Simmental Plaza building review committee shall be included with the final site plan submittal to the City. 7. The final improvement drawing shall be adequately dimensioned. A legend of all pertinent line types used shall also be provided. 8. All existing utility and other easements must be shown on the final site plan. 9. Runoff from all proposed site improvements shall be directed to on-site landscape areas to remove solids, silt, oils, grease, and other pollutants, and provide retention and/or detention prior to off-site discharge. The final site plan must provide drainage directions and sufficient spot elevations demonstrating adequate drainage from proposed site improvements to on-site landscape areas. 10. Prior to final site plan approval, the applicant shall provide a financial guarantee for removal of the tower in the event that it no longer supports carriers, in an amount equal to the estimated costs of removal. 11. The applicant shall be responsible for perpetual maintenance of the tower and surrounding site. In the event that the applicant is no longer owner ofthe tower, the property owner shall assume ownership and responsibility for maintenance of the tower through an agreement entered into prior to final site plan approval. 12. The tower shall not be lit. In the event that future changes in FAA regulations would require the tower to be lit, it shall be modified to mitigate that requirement. -7- .. . .. LUX T0WERMAJ0RStTEPLA.N.. Z~02143 13. Prior to final site plan approval, the applicant shall provide to the Planning Office a minimum of two executed leases for the first 100 feet of tower height plus one additional lease for each additionall 00 feet or portion thereof. 14. Pursuant to Section 18.57.030.B.3., the applicant shall provide clear written demonstration that no stealth or other less obtrusive options are available in the community to meet the needs provided by the proposed monopole tower, for Commission review and approval prior to final site plan approval. After further discussion upon the motion a vote was taken with votes of aye being two (2) and with votes of nay being three (3). Three affirmative votes being required by state law for passage of a motion, the motion to approve failed. ORDER After considering all matters of record and testimony presented at the public hearing, the Bozeman City Commission found that the application did not meet the standards of the Bozeman Municipal Code and that the conditions required for approval did not exist. Therefore, as authorized by Section 18.52.030.F.3 BMC, the application was not approved. DATED this 28th day of October ,2002. BOZEMAN CITY COMMISSION BY:~ - 7<;~ Steven R. Kirchhof , Mayor ATTEST: M: ~d::!P~ Clerk of the Commission -8-