HomeMy WebLinkAboutCardoza Decision Ltr Denis Law Mayor
City Clerk-Jason A.Seth,CMC
June 26, 2019
Rick Cardoza
LDC Engineering
20210 142nd Ave NE
Woodinville, WA 98072
Subject: Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decision
RE: Verizon SEA Bloom Monopole - LUA-19-000083
Dear Mr. Cardoza:
Enclosed please find the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final
Decision dated June 25, 2019. Also, this document is immediately available on our website:
• If you go to: Rentonwa.gov; "How do I"; Hearing Examiner (under Contact); "Land
Use Decisions". The Decisions are filed by year and then alphabetical order by
project name.
I can be reached at (425) 430-6510 or jseth@rentonwa.gov. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Jason /:"SethICMC
City Clerk
cc: Hearing Examiner
Alex Morganroth,Associate Planner
Jennifer Henning, Planning Director
Vanessa Dolbee, Current Planning Manager
Brianne Bannwarth, Development Engineering Manager
Craig Burnell, Building Official
Jennifer Cisneros,Office Assistant II
Julia Medzegian, City Council Liaison
Parties of Record (2)
1055 South Grady Way, Renton,WA 98057 • (425)430-6510/Fax (425)430-6516 • rentonwa.gov
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 )
10 RE: Verizon SEA Bloom Monopole )
) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
I I Conditional Use Permit ) LAW AND FINAL DECISION
)
12 LUA19-000083, CU-A )
13 )
14 )
15 Summary
16 The Applicant is requesting an administrative conditional use permit to construct a 59.9 foot Type 1
17 monopole at 2701 E Valley Rd. The application is approved subject to conditions.
18 Testimony
19 Alex Morganroth, City of Renton Associate Planner, summarized the staff report. In response to
20 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
21 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
22 proposed chain link fencing is of compatible materials for the equipment shelter.
23
Rick Cardoza, Applicant representative, noted that the RF justification map exhibit shows a coverage
24 hole at the project site. 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
25 the antenna. This was the best location with a party willing to lease. The height is the minimum
26 necessary. There's a warehouse to the north that would otherwise block the signal if the monopole
weren't 59.9 feet. There is a COW providing service to the area right now that will be removed once
CONDITIONAL USE - 1
1 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
2 Applicant will still provide an assessment of stability.
3
Exhibits
4
Exhibits 1-5 identified at Page 2 of the June 18, 2019 staff report were admitted into the record during
5 the hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during the hearing:
6
Exhibit 6: City staff power point.
7 Exhibit 7: Google earth aerial photographs
Exhibit 8: City of Renton COR maps
8
9
10 FINDINGS OF FACT
11 Procedural:
12 1. Applicant. Verizon Wireless c/o Rick Cardoza, 20210 142nd Ave NE, Woodinville, 98072.
13 2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the application at 11:00 am on January 18, 2019 in the
14 Renton Council Chambers.
15 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
16 adjacent to an existing tilt-up industrial building. Ground equipment associated with the monopole
17 would be located in a cabinet along the south side of the existing building and west of the proposed
monopole. The site is approximately 2.3 acres in size. No changes are proposed to the existing parking
18 lot or landscaping. The Applicant submitted an RF study and photo-simulations with the application.
19 The proposed Type 1 monopole would utilize a design typical for wireless communication facilities
20 (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
21 equipment would extend approximately 6 feet from the monopole in all directions.
22 4. Surrounding Uses/Colocation. The project site is surrounded by primarily industrial uses
23 comprised of warehouses, metal manufacturing and vehicle storage. As to availability of alternative
sites for co-location, staff determined that the Applicant submitted satisfactory evidence that no
24 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
25 a number of new proposals from Verizon and other providers for new WCFs in the Valley and
26 downtown area.
CONDITIONAL USE - 2
1 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal.
Pertinent impacts are more specifically addressed as follows:
2
3 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
4 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
5 geotechnical report may be required as part of the building permit submittal at the
6 discretion of the Building Official.
7 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
8 this project. The only area of potential vegetative impact is in the location of the ground
9 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
10 the proposed Type 1 monopole. The Applicant will not be removing any trees from the
site.
11
12 C. Height. The proposed height is the minimum necessary for project objectives and the
design is compatible with surrounding development.
13
According to the Applicant, the height proposed is the minimum necessary to avoid signal
14 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
15 submitted by the Applicant supports its position and it is determined that the proposed
16 height is the minimum necessary to provide adequate service.
17 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
18 future. Ensuring the feasibility of collocation for at least one other carrier's equipment on
19 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
20 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
21 monopole, and needs of another carrier. If additional height was required to accommodate
22 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
23 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
24 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.
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE - 3
1 D. Residential Areas. No residential districts or structures are located near to the proposed
project. The nearest residential use is located approximately 1/4 mile east on the east side of
2 Hwy 167. Due to the large distance between the proposed monopole and the residential
3 uses, staff concurs with the Applicant that the WCF would not have a negative impact on
any residential uses in the nearby area.
4
E. Traffic. Vehicular access to the project site would be provided via existing driveways off
5 of SW 27th St an East Valley Rd. No changes are proposed to the existing vehicular
6 access to the project site.
7 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
8 maximum decibel limit, the Applicant would be required to bring the proposed facility into
9 compliance with code.
10 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
11 in its proposed industrial environment. The Applicant has proposed a neutral grey finish
12 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
13 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.
14
Due to the placement of the equipment cabinet between the building facade and a city
15 water main easement, additional landscaping is not feasible around the majority of the
16 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
17 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
18 adverse effects of the proposed use. Therefore, no new landscaping would be necessary.
19
20
Conclusions of Law
21
22 1. Authority. Hearing examiner conditional use permits 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
23 hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the
Renton City Council.
24
2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The subject property is within the Employment
25 Area Comprehensive Plan land use designation and the Medium Industrial (IM) zoning designation
26
CONDITIONAL USE - 4
1 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
2 communication facilities such as monopoles are governed by RMC 4-9-030(E). Applicable conditional
3 use standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law.
4 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
5 obtrusiveness.
6 4. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5C. the monopole is of the minimum height necessary to
7 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.
8
RMC 4-2-0601b. Proximity to Surrounding Uses: The nature of uses on adjacent and nearby
9 properties and the proximity of the tower- anti or antenna to residential .structures and residential
10 district boundaries.
11 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
12 the vicinity and the absence of residential development anywhere within a quarter mile of the project
13 site.
14 RNIC 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
15 effects on adjacent property.
16 6. As determined in Conclusion of Law No. 5. the proposed use is fully compatible with adjoining
17 uses. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, the proposal will not create any significant adverse
impacts. For these reasons, the proposal w ill not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on
18 adjacent property.
19 RMC 4-2-0601d. Topography and Vegetation: The surrounding topography and tree canopy
20 coverage.
21 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5B. the proposal will not create any significant impacts
to topography or vegetation.
22
23 RMC 4-2-0601e. Ingress/Egress: The proposed ingress and egress.
24 8. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5E. the proposal will not necessitate any chant-le in
access and staff did not find any need for additional access.
25
26 RMC 4-2-0601g. Collocation Feasibility: The availability of suitable existing towers and other
structures to accommodate the proposal.
CONDITIONAL USE - 5
1
9. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 4, there are no other suitable areas available for co-
2 location.
3
RMC 4-2-0601 h. Consistency with Plans and Regulations: The compatibility with the general
4 purpose, goals, objectives and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, this Title, and any other City
plan, program, map or ordinance.
5
6 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.
7
RMC 4-2-0601i. Landscaping: Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent
8 properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use.
9
10 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
11 the equipment shed.
12
DECISION
13
14 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 conclusions of this decision and for
is that reason is approved subject to the following conditions:
16
1. The Applicant shall submit an engineering analysis with a specific finding that providing a
17 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.
18
2. The Applicant utilize black vinyl coated chain-link for the cabinet fencing. Specifications
19 for the fence shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and
approval by the Current Planning Manager.
20
3. The Applicant shall provide documentation from a professional RF engineer
21 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
22 documentation shall be submitted to the Current Planning Project Manager for review and
23 approval prior to building permit issuance.
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE - 6
1
DATED this 25th day of June 2019.
2
-4-2'6'49
4 Phi A.Olbrechts
5 City of Renton Hearing Examiner
6
7 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
8
RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III application(s)
9 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.
10 A request for reconsideration to the hearing examiner may also be filed within this 14-day appeal
I I period.
12 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE - 7