Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_HEX_Decision_Verizon SEA Bloom Monopole Conditional Use Permit_1906251 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE - 1 CAO VARIANCE - 1 RE: Verizon SEA Bloom Monopole Conditional Use Permit LUA19-000083, CU-A ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION Summary The Applicant is requesting an administrative conditional use permit to construct a 59.9 foot Type 1 monopo le at 2701 E Valley Rd. The application is approved subject to conditions. Testimony Alex Morganroth, City of Renton Associate Planner, summarized the staff report. In response to examiner questions, Mr. Morganroth noted that the equipment shed wasn’t depicted in the renderings of the monopole, but if it were it wouldn’t be very visible as it’s located in a part of the property that’s only visible to an adjoining lot to the south with similar enclosures. Mr. Morganroth also responded that the building is a tilt up concrete structure and there’s a lot of chain link fencing in the area so the proposed chain link fencing is of compatible materials for the equipment shelter. Rick Cardoza, Applicant representative, noted that the RF justification map exhibit shows a coverage hole at the project sit e. There have been many complaints by many businesses in the area due to inadequate service. Numerous other properties were considered, including using existing buildings for the antenna. This was the best location with a party willing to lease. The height is the minimum necessary. There’s a warehouse to the north that would other wise block the signal if the monopole weren’t 59.9 feet. There is a COW pro viding service to the area right now that will be removed once 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE - 2 CAO VARIANCE - 2 the pole is installed. The pole can be made extendable for colocation, depending upon geotechnical issues. As to stability, towers don’t tip over, they tend to collapse upon themselves. However, the Applicant will still provide an assessment of stability. Exhibits Exhibits 1-5 identified at Page 2 of the June 18, 2019 staff report were admitted into the record during the hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during the hearing: Exhibit 6: City staff power point. Exhibit 7: Google earth aerial photographs Exhibit 8: City of Renton COR maps FINDINGS OF FACT Procedural: 1. Applicant. Verizon Wireless c/o Rick Cardoza, 20210 142nd Ave NE, Woodinville, 98072. 2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the application at 11:00 am on January 18, 2019 in the Renton Council Chambers. 3. Project Description. The Applicant is requesting an administrative conditional use permit to construct a 59.9 foot Type 1 monopole. The monopole would be located on the south side of the site adjacent to an existing tilt -up industrial building. Ground equipment associated with the monopole would be located in a cabinet along the south side of the existing building and west of the p roposed monopole. The site is approximately 2.3 acres in size. No changes are proposed to the existing parking lot or landscaping. The Applicant submitted an RF study and photo -simulations with the application. The proposed Type 1 monopole would utilize a design typical for wireless communication facilities (WCFs). The pole would be approximately 60 feet tall and would be mounted with four (4) RRUs, one microwave antenna, and eight (8) panel antennas. At the widest point, the antennas and associated equipment would extend approximately 6 feet from the monopole in all directions. 4. Surrounding Uses/Colocation. The project site is surrounded by primarily industrial uses comprised of warehouses, metal manufacturing and vehicle storage. As to availability of alternative sites for co -location, staff determined that t he Applicant submitted satisfactory evidence that no existing tower or support structure can accommodate the proposed equipment relocation. A lack of existing towers in the Valley area and an increase in traffic volumes on I -405 and Hwy 167 have led to a number of new proposals from Verizon and other providers for new WCFs in the Valley and downtown area. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE - 3 CAO VARIANCE - 3 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal. Pertinent impacts are more specifically addressed as fo llows: A. Critical Area. Critical areas at the site are limited to geologically hazardous areas. The proposed WCF would be located within a High Seismic Hazard area. A geotechnical report was waived as part of the land use submittal application, as it is expected that building codes would mitigate any impacts related to the Seismic Hazards. However, a geotechnical report may be required as part of the building permit submittal at the discretion of the Building Official. B. Topography and Vegetation. The proposal will not create any significant impacts to topography and vegetation. No significant clearing or grading is proposed as a result of this project. The only area of potential vegetative impact is in the location of the ground equipment which would result in a 200 square foot area of scrub grass cleared. There are existing significant trees located on the project site that would not be affected as a result of the proposed Type 1 monopole. The Applicant will not be removing any trees from the site. C. Height. The proposed height is the minimum necessary for project objectives and the design is compatible with surrounding development. According to the Applicant, the height proposed is the minimum necessary to avoid signal blockage by nearby buildings and other structures as well as to achieve RF Line of Sight required for adequate service/coverage. Staff concurs in this assessment. The RF report submitted by the Applicant supports its position and it is determined that the proposed height is the minimum necessary to provide adequate service. However, based on the Applicant’s submittal, it is unclear whether or not the proposed monopole could support another carrier’s equipment if collocation is proposed in the future. Ensuring the feasibility of collocation for at least one other carrier’s equipment on the proposed monopole would reduce the visual obtrusiveness and impacts of an additional monopole in the future. Therefore, a condition of approval requires that the Applicant provide documentation from an RF engineer that future collocation of at least one other carrier is feasible based on the existing site characteristics, design of the proposed monopole, and needs of another carrier. If additional height was required to accommodate colocation, the Type 1 monopole structure would exceed the maximum height of 59.9 ft. and would be considered to be a Type 2. Provided this additional height does not exceed 10 additional feet the findings in this staff report would still be applicable. A Type 2 monopole structure requires the same conditional use permit as required for a Type 1 monopole in the IM zone, staff would not require a new condition use permit application for the Applicant to comply with this condition provided the height did not exceed 69.9 ft. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE - 4 CAO VARIANCE - 4 D. Residential Areas. No residential districts or structures are located near to the proposed project. The nearest residential use is located approximately ¼ mile east on the east side of Hwy 167. Due to the large distance between the proposed monopole and the residential uses, staff concurs with the Applicant that the WCF would not have a negative impact on any residential uses in the nearby area. E. Traffic. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via existing driveways off of SW 27th St an East Valley Rd. No changes are propo sed to the existing vehicular access to the project site. F. Light, noise, glare and visual impacts. The Applicant has stated in their project narrative that they do not anticipate any changes in the noise levels. If noise levels exceed the maximum decibel limit, the Applicant would be required to bring the proposed facility into compliance with code. As to visual effect, photographic renderings of the monopole, Ex. 3, show that it is of the same colors and general type of material as surrounding structures and is not out of place in its proposed industrial environment. The Applicant has proposed a neutral grey finish that is consistent with the colors used on the adjacent structures The barbed wire and chain link fence for the equipment cabinet is not ideal, but is still consistent with the type of fencing and materials that predominates in the area. Further, the cabinet and its fencing will only be visible to adjoining property located to the south. Due to the placement of the equipment cabinet between the building façade and a city water main easement, additional landscaping is not feasible around the majority of the enclosure. In addition, existing mature trees are located between the cabinet and adjacent property and would provide a moderate level of screening when viewed from both the adjacent property and the ROW. The proposed cabinet equipment screen would be sufficient to screen the new ground related cabinet from adjacent properties and mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use. Therefore, no new landscaping would be necessary. Conclusions of Law 1. Authority. Hearing examiner conditional use permit s qualify as Type III review pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(G). As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the Hearing Examiner is authorized to hold hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the Renton City Council. 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is within the Employment Area Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE - 5 CAO VARIANCE - 5 3. Review Criteria/Modification Approval. RMC 4-2-060 requires a hearing examiner conditional use permit for monopoles in the MI zone. Conditional use criteria for wireless communication facilities such as monopoles are governed by RMC 4-9-030(E). Applicable conditional use standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law. RMC 4-2-0601a. Height and Design: The height of the proposed tower and/or antenna as well as incorporation of design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness. 4. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C, the monopole is of the minimum height necessary to provide service in a service deficient area. The monopole is also ideally situated in an industrial area that is developed with similar materials and colors. RMC 4-2-0601b. Proximity to Surrounding Uses: The nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties and the proximity of the tower and/or antenna to residential structures and residential district boundaries. 5. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C and 5D, the monopole is compatible with surrounding development due to the prevalence of similar materials and colors, the industrial use of the vicinity and the absence of residential development anywhere within a quarter mile of the project site. RMC 4-2-0601c. Nature of Surrounding Uses: The nature of uses on adjacent and nearby properties. The proposed use at the proposed location shall not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property. 6. As determined in Conclusion of Law No. 5, the proposed use is fully compatible with adjoining uses. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not create any significant adverse impacts. For these reasons, the proposal will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent pro perty. RMC 4-2-0601d. Topography and Vegetation: The surrounding topography and tree canopy coverage. 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5B, the proposal will not create any significant impacts to topography or vegetation. RMC 4-2-0601e. Ingress/Egress: The proposed ingress and egress. 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5E, the proposal will not necessitate any change in access and staff did not find any need for additional access. RMC 4-2-0601g. Collocation Feasibility: The availability of suitable existing towers and other structures to accommodate the proposal. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE - 6 CAO VARIANCE - 6 9. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, there are no other suitable areas available for co- location. RMC 4-2-0601h. Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The compatibility with the general purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, this Title, and any other City plan, program, map or ordinance. 10. As determined in Findings of Fact 16 and 17 of the staff report, the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning code. RMC 4-2-0601i. Landscaping: Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use. 11. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5F, landscaping beyond that proposed by the Applicant for the equipment shed is not necessary due to site constraints and the already concealed location of the equipment shed. DECISION As described and limited by this decision, the conditional use permit application satisfies all applicable conditional use criteria for the reasons identified in the findings and conclusio ns of this decision and for that reason is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall submit an engineering analysis with a specific finding that providing a reduced setback for the monopole is safe. The analysis shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for review and approval by the City’s structural engineer. 2. The Applicant utilize black vinyl coated chain-link for the cabinet fencing. Specifications for the fence shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Manager. 3. The Applicant shall provide documentation from a professional RF engineer demonstrating that future collocation of at least one other wireless carrier is feasible based on the existing site characteristics and design of the proposed monopole. This documentation shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 CONDITIONAL USE - 7 CAO VARIANCE - 7 DATED this 25th day of June 2019. City of Renton Hearing Examiner Appeal Right and Valuation Notices RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III application(s) subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council. Appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision must be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the decision. A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day appeal period. Affected property owners may request a change in valuat ion for property tax purposes notwithstanding any program of revaluation. CITY OF RENTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO THE HEARING EXAMINER ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS Project Name: Verizon SEA Bloom Monopole Land Use File Number: LUA19-000083, CU-A Date of Hearing June 18, 2019 Staff Contact Alex Morganroth Associate Planner Project Contact/Applicant Richard Cardoza LDC, Inc 20210 142nd Ave NE Woodinville, WA 98072 Project Location 2701 East Valley Rd The following exhibits were entered into the record by the Hearing Examiner: Exhibit 6: Staff PowerPoint Presentation Exhibit 7 Google Aerial Maps of project site; https://www.google.com/earth/ Exhibit 8: City of Renton (COR) Maps; http://rp.rentonwa.gov/Html5Public/Index.html?viewer=CORMaps Verizon SEA Bloom Monopole Conditional Use Permit Hearing Examiner Public Hearing Alex Morganroth, Associate Planner June 18, 2019 LUA19-000083, CU-H Approvals Requested The applicant, Verizon Wireless, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a Type 1 monopole in the IM zoning district. The application was accepted for review on April 23, 2019 and determined the application complete on April 30, 2019. Staff received no public or agency comments. 2701 East Valley Rd Existing Use –Building material supplier and associated surface parking. 2.23 acre parcel Zoning District –IM, Medium Industrial and Automall Area C Overlay Site Characteristics Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation – EA, Employment Area Critical Areas –High Seismic Hazard Area Access via East Valley Rd and SW 27th St Proposed Wireless Communications Facility Type 1 Monopole (less than 60 feet in overall height) Located on south side of site within existing brick enclosure Approximately 59.9 feet tall 8 panel antennas, 4 RRUs, one microwave antenna 200 sq. ft. equipment cabinet surrounded by 6-foot high chain-link fence with slats topped with barbed wire Project is Categorically Exempt from Environmental Review (SEPA) Site plan provided by applicant Rendering provided by applicant –as viewed looking west Zoning Development Standards A Type 1 Monopole requires an approved Conditional Use Permit in the IM, Medium Industrial zone Wireless Communication Facilities are subject to alternative development standards in RMC 4-4-140 No trees proposed for removal Setbacks –towers shall be set back from each property line by a distance equal to the tower height, unless an engineering analysis concludes that a reduced setback is safe for abutting properties –Condition Recommended by Staff Fencing –Condition Recommended by Staff Conditional Use Permit Analysis for Wireless Communication Facilities Nature of Uses on Adjacent and Nearby Properties Proximity of the Tower to Residential Structures and Districts Height and Design of the Proposed Tower –Condition recommended by staff Topography and Vegetation Ingress/Egress Impacts Colocation Feasibility Consistency with Plans and Regulations Compliant if Conditions of Approval are met Consistency with Plans and Regulations 1.The applicant shall submit an engineering analysis with a specific finding that providing a reduced setback for the monopole is safe.The analysis shall be submitted at the time of building permit application for review and approval by the City’s structural engineer. 2.The applicant shall utilize black vinyl coated chain-link for the cabinet fencing. Specifications for the fence shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the Current Planning Manager. 3.The applicant shall provide documentation from a professional RF engineer demonstrating that future collocation of at least one other wireless carrier is feasible based on the existing site characteristics and design of the proposed monopole.This documentation shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to building permit issuance. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Verizon SEA Bloom Monopole, File No. LUA19-000083, CU-H, subject to three (3) condition of approval: