Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/25/2000 . . . I. ~~~o' - 'R~ T}.lv NrGEL,ES I . - ,. V ~!!I ~-'" .=, ,._~!) '_~_.~_'_"_.. .n". _.__ WAS H I N G TON, U. S. A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION 321 East Fifth Street October 25,2000 CALL TO ORDER 7 p.m. II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Meeting of October 11, 2000. IV. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 00-08 - BREEN, 402 East Eighth Street: A request for a conditional use permit to allow a wireless communication use that requires the installation of a 58' tower in the Commercial Neighborhood District. (Continued from October 11,2000.) V. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC VI. STAFF REPORTS VII. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS VIII. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Fred Hewins (Chair,), LindaNullcr (Vicc Chair);Bob King, Fred Norton, Bob Philpott, Charles Schramm, Mary Craver PLANNING STAFF: Brad Collins, Planning Director; Sue Roberds, Planning Specialist; Debra Barnes, Associate Planner. . . . MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION Port Angeles, Washington 98362 October 25, 2000 7:00 p.m. ROLLCALL Members Present: Bob Philpott, Linda Nutter, Fred Norton, Fred Hewins, Bob King, Chuck Schramm, Mary Craver Members Absent: None Staff Present: Brad Collins, Sue Roberds, Debra Barnes, Larry Dunbar Public Present: Charles Beaudette, Terry Kennedy, Jared Emery APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Philpott moved to approve the October 11, 2000, meeting minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner King and passed 5-0 with Commissioners Nutter and Norton abstaining due to absence at the meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - CUP 00-08 - BREEN, 402 East Eighth Street: A request for a conditional use permit to allow a wireless communication use that requires the installation of a 581 tower in the Commercial Neighborhood District. (Continued from October 11,2000.) Associate Planner Debra Barnes reviewed the Plaming Department's staff report recommending denial of the conditional use permit as proposed and made corrections and additions to the October 11, 2000, staff report. She indicated that the corrections and additions were made following continued review with the City's Attorney. Written confirmation of a desired permanent facility was noted from Burst Wireless with regard to the recently approved telecommunications tower at 716 South Chase Street. Chair Hewins read the October 18, 2000, letter from Rick Compton, PhD., Vice President, Burst Wireless indicating that it is the company's intention to remain in the community as a service provider if they are successful in obtaining a permanent license to operate in the area. Terry Kennedy, 181 Lotus Lane, Sequim, Washington, 98382, an employee of the applicant, stated emphatically that a representative of Burst Wireless told him personally that the company does not intend to remain in Port Angeles as the area is too small. Burst is testing its equipment at this time and has not developed a product or service as yet. Their Planning Commission Minutes October 25. 2000 Page 2 . service is not the same as Burst's. It is not economically feasible to co-locate on the Burst antenna as they are not staying in the area and they have not constructed a permanent tower but are using a mobile testing unit. In response to Commissioner King, Mr. Kennedy stated that his employer will not be bidding for the licensed transmission spectrum against Burst this winter. The applicant would be operating within an unlicensed spectrum. It is not economically feasible for the applicant to relocate or to co-locate at another site. The site currently contains all the needed support equipment for the proposed service and is owned by the applicant. Charles Beaudette, 372 Walker Valley Road, Port Angeles, stated that in an effort to compromise the applicant is willing to reduce the size of the tower and to place a monopole rather than a lattice tower for aesthetic purposes. They have experimented with a 45' to 50' tower and have found that limited service would be available at that height. Forty-five (45') feet is the absolute minimum to operate. There being no further comments, Chair Hewins closed the public hearing. . In response to a question from the Commission, Larry Dunbar, City of Port Angeles Power Resources Manager, answered that the main difference between monopoles and lattice towers is the aesthetics. They are not technically different. In response to Commissioner Philpott, Terry Kennedy responded that monopoles are more difficult to service as they cannot be climbed as can a lattice tower. Small monopoles are less noticeable, however, lattice towers can be seen through. Fewer antennas can be placed on a monopole. The applicant would prefer a lattice tower due to the ease of servicing. One antenna would be mounted on the proposed tower if approved. It is possible to add flat receivers flush with a lattice tower for increased service. Commissioners Philpott and Craver suggested considering the merits of approval of the proposal before considering denial of the pennit. Chair Hewins suggested the Commission consider staffs recommendation before considering another course of action. . Commissioner Philpott noted that it is his belief that trees destroy more view than towers. Commissioner Nutter commented that trees lend to the aesthetics of a site. Commissioner Philpott responded that competition should be encouraged between wireless providers for the economic well-being of the community. He did not see a big difference between the lattice tower and monopole tower structures. Commissioner Schramm commented that the community has every reason to encourage new technologies to develop in the area but this is not a matter of public safety but an internet service provider request. It is more a matter of zoning compatibility. A working arrangement where providers co-locate is much more appropriate and desirable. It is not necessary to have towers on every corner in every neighborhood. Commissioner Craver was concerned that a denial of the proposal might not be based on the direction outlined in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. It seems the only premise for denial at this point would be due to aesthetics which is not supported by public Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2000 Page 3 . . . testimony. Commissioner Hewins stated that aesthetics is a primary concern but in this instance the main concern is that the proposal is in a zone where such a use is less compatible than with the tower recently approved for an internet provider one block to the west where a zone change occurs. Commissioner Nutter moved to deny the conditional use permit citing the following findings and conclusions: Findings: The following findings are based on the information provided in the October 11, 2000, Staff Report for CUP 00-08, including all of its attachments. Consideration was also given to the comments and information presented during the October 11, 2000, public hearing, and the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation. Consequently, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds: 1. The conditional use permit is for the placement of a utility structure within the Commercial Neighborhood zone. The utility structure consists of a freestanding telecommunications tower with five attached antennas for the provision of internet wireless services in the Port Angeles area utilizing the 2.4 GHX (non-FCC licensed) band. The application states that the estimated length oftime for needing of this type of service is 3-5 years after which time fiber optic or other technology will be more fully developed, resulting in increased capacity of local phone services. The application is for a permanent use, not a temporary use. 2. The site is located along the 8th Street corridor at 402 East Eighth Street. The properties consist of Lots 7-9, Block 271, Townsite of Port Angeles. The tower would be located east of the existing office building and would replace an existing, temporary metal storage building. The current use ofthe property by Pacific Office EquipmenUOlypen is a retail/office facility which offers computer and office supplies and services, as well as local internet services. The building currently contains the equipment necessary for providing local internet services, including the high speed T1 phone lines. Required off-street parking at the subject property will not be impacted by the structure. The surfacing materials for the parking areas consist of both asphalt and gravel. A total of 37 spaces is provided. 3. The tower will extend approximately 20 feet above the temporary tower shown in Photo 1 of Attachment B which is approximately 35-40 feet in height. The proposed tower is a T700 design consisting of a 33" by 33" square foot base which tapers to 1 foot by 1 foot at the top. The tower design could be described as having a 'lattice' or 'ladder' appearance. Excavation for construction of the foundation or base ofthe structure will occur which will be approximately 5' by 5' by 5' feet in dimension. Up to five antennas will be attached. One antenna is approximately 18" in length and cylindrical in shape. The other four antennas are relatively flat and square in shape (11.5" by 7.5" by 3.5"). Cumulatively, the tower, base and antennas will not exceed Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2000 Page" . . . 58-feet in height. The requested height of the pole is to allow for maximum coverage (approximately 80%) of the targeted Port Angeles area. 4. Landscaping exists on the site near the parking area and buildings. One tall tree, approximately 3D-feet in height exists at the southeast property comer. The only other tall tree in the area is to the west, across Peabody and south of the 8/9 alley. 5, Commercial Neighborhood (eN) zoning designation and commercial land uses abut the subject property on the east, north and west sides. Nearby businesses consist of a dental clinic, an engineering/surveying office, and a restaurant/office complex. The extent ofthe commercial 'strip' on each side of Eighth Street. Residential Single Family (RS7) zoning designation and residential land uses are located across the alley to the south. The majority of adjacent residential units are single family, single story homes. An average height of a residential story is 15-20 feet, depending on the pitch of the roof. The majority of the commercial building~ are also 1-2 stories in height. Eighth Street is one ofthe major east-west street corridors in Port Angeles and is designated as a Minor Arterial. In 1992, the average daily traffic count was 10,156 on Eighth Street, east of Peabody and 4,960 average daily trips on Peabody north of Eighth Street. 6. The proposal is the second telecommunications tower placement in Port Angeles that has not been co-located on an existing structure. Since January 1999 to date, four applications for telecommunication facility co-locates have been approved within the City. One new facility was approved at Eighth and Chase and proposes similar wireless internet services. That approval was made due to the close vicinity of 60-80 foot trees that can mitigate the impact ofthe height of proposed tower, in addition to conditions oflandscaping and removal ofthe tower should a permanent FCC license not be granted for the particular spectrum chosen by that facility. The applicant has provided photos of other towers that exceed 58', including those associated with the City Police Department, US West and BP A The location, selected for the new tower, which is not a co-location, is preferred by the applicant due to the economic costs of co-locating or re-Iocating existing, installed equipment at the current location, as well as the need for maintenance of the equipment. There are currently no tower facilities between the Peninsula College area (BPA site) and US West/Quest at 4thlLaurel; one new tower has been approved at Eighth and Chase which is one block west of the subject property and would provide the same services as what is proposed by the applicant. The proposal indicates that the tower is necessary for a period of 3-5 years, after which time improved phone services through fiber optics may be available. These are included in Attachment B. 7. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Commercial [C]. 8. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Commercial Goals and Policies, Goal E states: "To provide shopping opportunities which meet the needs of all City residents and visitors in safe, usable shopping areas that are compatible with the Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2000 Page 5 . 9. . . surrounding area and uses, the environment, and the desired urban design of the City". Policy E3 states: "Commercial development should buffer its impacts on adjacent residential uses. Where commercial development is adjacent to residential uses, the commercial development should incorporate elements into the site design to soften the impacts on the residential uses." The Comprehensive Plan Utilities and Public Services Element Goal A is "To provide or allow the opportunity for services and facilities which enhance the quality of life for Port Angeles citizens of all ages, characteristics, needs, and interests." Goal D is "To provide utility services in an efficient and cost-effective manner." 10. The Comprehensive Plan Conservation Element, Goal A is: "To create and maintain a community with a high quality of life where the land is used in a manner that is compatible with the areas's unique physical features, its natural, historical, archaeological, and cultural amenities, and the overall environment". Goal B states: "To protect and enhance the areals unique physical features, its natural, historical, archeological, and cultural amenities, and the overall environment." Policy B 17 states that "The City should identify and preserve significant public scenic view corridors. " 11. The Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Element Goal A states: To create and maintain a balanced and stable local economy with full employment and emphasis on strengthening the community's traditional natural resource related industries as well as diversifying the overall economic base." Policy A3 states: "The City should promote long-term economic stability by encouraging businesses and industries to invest in modernization and environmentally sound technology." Policy AS states: The City should promote the location, retention, and expansion of small and medium sized businesses which access their markets and suppliers through telecommunications and available shipping and transit." Goal B states: "To have a healthy local economy that co-exists with the community's high quality of life through the protection, enhancement, and use of the community's natural, historical, and cultural amenities. Policy Bl states: "The City should promote the region's quality of environment and available natural resources as factors in attracting and retaining business, industry, and individual enterprises." 12. Zoning Code, PAMC 17.22.160 requires a conditional use permit approval for a utility building or structure. P AMC 17.08.1 05(E) defines utility building or structure as an installation to provide utility service. P AMC 17.96.050 specifies: "A. The Planning Commission shall consider applications for Conditional Use Permits of uses as specified in the applicable Chapter of the Zoning Regulations. The Planning Commission may grant said permits which are consistent and compatible with the purpose of the zone in which the use is located, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and not contrary to the public use and interest. The Planning Commission may refuse to issue a Conditional Use Permit if the characteristics of the intended use as related to the specific proposed site are such as would defeat the purpose of these Zoning Regulations by introducing incompatible, detrimental, or hazardous Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2000 Page 6 . 13. 14. 15, . . conditions." and "R In each application the Planning Commission may impose whatever restrictions or conditions they consider essential to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and to prevent depreciation of neighboring property." Approval ofthe CUP for a 3-5 year period may still result in short-term, detrimental effects to neighboring residential property owners that are adjacent to, or within a several block distance. The Zoning Code, P AMC 17.21.160, requires a conditional use permit approval for a utility building or structure. PAMC 17.08.1 05 (E) defines utility building or structure as an installation to provide utility service. The purpose of the zone (pAMC 17.21.010) is to create and preserve areas for business which provide goods and services for the day-to-day needs ofthe surrounding residential neighborhoods. Businesses are to be designed and located to be compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. Because the proposed lattice tower structure and attached antennas would be less than 60-feet in height and are located within a commercial zone, the project is categorically exempt by the State Environmental Policy Act under WAC 197-11- 800(27)(a)(iii) and RC.W. 43.21C.0384. 16. Through the State Environmental Policy Act or local Zoning Ordinance, local governments are responsible for requiring the information necessary to evaluate both the individual and cumulative impacts of such proposals that may individually or cumulatively degrade the quality oflife and be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning requirements including conditional use permit approval criteria. For proposals that may affect aesthetics or views, view impact analyses can be completed to help identify the extent of potential, adverse aesthetic impacts. 17. The installation of this and other similar facilities would expand the variety of telecommunication services available to the community. The potential negative aesthetic impacts can be addressed by site location, structure height and design and vegetation preservation in order to ensure the continued, scenic views and overall, environmental quality of Port Angeles for its residents, as well as visitors. 18. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has the overall responsibility for regulating the telecommunication industry under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Preservation of local zoning authority is specified in the Act under Section 704 (a)(7)(A) which states: "GENERAL AUTHORlTY - Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or effect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentally thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. (B)(i) LIMITATIONS states: "The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentally thereof - (1) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2000 Page 7 . . 20. 21. . prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Other requirements specify acting on applications within a reasonable time period, issuing a written decision with substantial evidence to deny applications, and deferring to the FCC to address and regulate the frequency emissions and their potential environmental effects. 19. Needs of the industry include minimum distances and line of sight requirements to other antennas, as well as adequate power and phone services. These needs are analyzed by the proponent in detennining the preferred location for the structure, as well as the needed height of the structure, both of which are factors in determining the amount of coverage that can be provided. It is sometimes difficult to discern the needs of a particular provider, given the ever-changing technology, as well as competition between providers. According to a recent article in the Peninsula Daily News, as well as other sources, fiber optic telephone cables have been extended from the Hood Canal area to Port Angeles last month. The fiber optic cables will allow for increased capacity in telephone services and may alleviate the need for high-speed wireless phone services. The costs of connection are not known. As found in a recent federal appeals court case, ..."mandating approval of all wireless facilities would act as a disincentive for wireless service providers to develop and deploy new technology that will provide better transmission and reception with less intrusive towers, effectively undermining the Telecommunications Act's goal of increased innovation." [Sprint Spectrum L.P. v WiIloth]. Several federal court cases involving compatibility issues with telecommunication towers concluded that local government, while reviewing permit decisions for such proposals, a) must allow service providers to fill gaps in wireless telephone coverage, b) may reject an application if the service can be provided bY less intrusive means, such as a less sensitive site, a lower tower, a pre-existing structure, or a camouflaged antenna, c) reject all application for more towers that the minimum required to provide wireless services and d) was not only entitled to consider cumulative impacts of future applications for towers, but was required to do so under state environmental law. The Telecommunications Act requires that decisions to deny applications must be supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record which has been explained as to be the amount necessary to prevail in a civil lawsuit. It must be more than testimony about concerns about safety, property values and aesthetics. It can include facts that the visual impact of the tower would harm the local economy, or the character of the community for future attraction of commerce and industry. Between 1998-1999, three federal appeal courts have found that aesthetic considerations were justifiable grounds for denial of applications. 22. Telecommunication providers often argue that a decision denying an application for a tower illegally discriminates against them. In another court case, the court said that Planning Commission Minutes October 25,2000 Page 8 . 23. 24. 25. . local governments have the flexibility to treat different facilities differently under their zoning codes, even ifthose facilities provide functionally equivalent services. The recent CUP approval for a new telecommunications facility at Eighth/Chase Street by Burst Wireless, Inc. to provide wireless internet services is located one block west of the proposal. The Burst Wireless, Inc. location has excess parking spaces and tall trees, some of which are taller than the height of the approved tower on two sides of the property that would assist in buffering the impacts of the new tower. No letters of comment were received from the public regarding this application during the public comment period which concluded September 1, 2000. Section 17.21.200(5) of the Zoning Code sets forth a 30-foot height limit for the CN zone. Section 17.21.200(4) requires a 15' setback from alleys or residential zones. Section 17.94.170 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code exempts antennas from the Zoning Code's height restrictions. It has been the policy of the Planning Department that the exemption was intended for ham radio or television antennas and not commercial utility structure, such as the proposal. It also has been the policy of the Planning Department to not require that an additional variance application be submitted for utility structures which exceed the height limitations because the height issue can be adequately addressed through the conditional use process. Conclusions: The following conclusions are based on the information provided in the October 11,2000, Staff Report for CUP 00-08, including all of its attachments. Consideration was also given to the comments and information presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, and the above listed findings. Consequently, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby concludes: A. The project, as conditioned, is inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Planl specifically Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal E and Policy E3; Utilities and Public Services Element Goal D; Conservation Goal A, B and Policy B17; and Economic Development Policies A3 and B 1. B. . The proposal is not consistent with the criteria of approval of a CUP under PAMe 17.96.050, as the approval: 1) would be inconsistent and incompatible with the purpose of the zone which it is located; 2) would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan; and 3) would be contrary to the public use and interest. A conditional use permit may be denied as it would result in defeating the purpose of the zone by introducing incompatible and detrimental conditions. C. The proposed use is incompatible with the character of the adjacent residential land uses, as well as those within a several block area and cannot reasonably be conditioned to lessen the incompatibility. The character of the these neighborhoods Planning Commission Minutes October 25. 2000 Page 9 . . . can be described as single family residences that are 1-1.5 stories in height who enjoy significant territorial, mountain and marine views that are not interrupted by existing tall trees. D. The installation of this and other similar facilities would expand the variety of telecommunication services available to the community and region. However, it would duplicate services proposed to be provided one block west of the subject property, and would result in negative impacts on territorial and/or water views, property values, and overall quality oflife. E. The economic hardship oflocating elsewhere has been stated by the applicant The application states that the use will most likely not be needed after 3-5 years when phone service technology is increased in the Port Angeles area. The application could be approved with a condition of removal of the facility in 3-5 years, or planting of fast-growing evergreens that would shield the base of the structure but would not of sufficient height for at least 10-15 years to buffer the top of the structure. F. The proposed project would be detrimental to the public interest by degrading the community character of Port Angeles. G. Denial ofthe proposal is consistent with Section 704 ofthe Telecommunications Act, as it does not unreasonably discriminate between providers and will not prohibit the provision of wireless internet services to the community. A similar proposal was approved at a site located approximately one block west of the subject property by Burst Wireless, Inc. The approval ofthe Burst application and denial of the Breen application is not based on unreasonable discrimination against the type of service proposed by the applicant. It is based on the different site characteristics between the two proposed locations, including the increase of negative, envirorunental impacts by the proposed tower location that is contrary to the character ofthe neighborhood which cannot be mitigated through buffering or conservation easements, which would result from approval ofthe subject application. H. If approved, the subject proposal will result in negative aesthetic impacts onto properties to neighborhoods to both the north and south that have territorial or marine views which cannot be mitigated by tall trees or other buffers. Properties located directly north of the property could be impacted by the pole construction; this could be mitigated by landscaping at the base ofthe structure. Properties to the east and west, and along Ninth and Tenth Streets between Chase and Eunice Streets would also by view obstruction. Residential properties north ofPifth Street along Peabody would not be affected. Residential properties south of the topographic break along 11 th and 12th Streets between Chase and Eunice Streets would also be affected (except for those areas where tall trees currently disrupt the marine or mountain views). Comprehensive Plan Land Use Policy IX (B)(17) states that the City should identify and preserve significant public scenic view corridors. To date, scenic corridors have not been identified in an adopted plan or regulation. It can be assumed that the Lincoln Street corridor would be included as an area identified as scenic due to the Planning Commission Minutes October 25.2000 Page 10 . . . mountain and marine views observed while traveling both north and south within this corridor. The subject proposal could be seen from Lincoln Street while traveling or walking south. 1. The potential negative aesthetic impacts of the height of the tower onto a significant number of residential land uses with territorial or marine views, and the overall scenic quality of the City cannot be avoided. Landscaping around the structure or subject property would somewhat mitigate the impacts for those at or near the same elevation of the subject property. Assuming that the structure may no longer be needed after 5 years and could then be removed, if approved, the negative impacts could be considered as short-term. However, even for a short duration, the proposed use is incompatible with the adjacent land uses and does not meet the intent of the eN zone. 1. The proposal would be located along one of the major traffic corridors in Port Angeles. The proposal is sufficiently out of character with the neighborhood, cannot be buffered or hidden by trees on-site or within close proximity, and creates a material impact on the character of the neighborhood and public welfare. The territorial and marine views enjoyed by this neighborhood, as well as citizens and visitors traveling by, is of significant importance to the community of Port Angeles. Commissioner King seconded the motion which/ailed 4 - 3 with Commissioners Nutter, King, and Hewins voting for the motion, and Commissioners Philpott, Norton, Craver, and Schramm voting against the motion. Commissioner Schramm began a discussion as to how approval of the proposed tower could be mitigated with consideration of concerns raised during previous discussion. Commissioner Nutter was still concerned that the site zoning would conflict with the proposal. In response to a question from Commissioner Schramm as to whether the applicant has exhausted all possible options for co-location with Burst Wireless, Mr. Kennedy answered "yes". He added that even ifit meant denial of the permit, there would not be a possibility of co-location with Burst Wireless as he is certain that Burst Wireless is only a temporary structure. Mr. Kennedy responded to further questions from Commissioner Schramm regarding the height of a temporary tower at the subject property (30') which has been removed, and stated that tower height determines service capacity but does not affect other technical issues. The Commission took a ten minute break at 8:40 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m. Following review of findings and conclusions in support of approval of the use, Commissioner Schramm moved to permit a temporary tower at the subject site with the following conditions, findings, and conclusions: . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 25. 2000 Page 11 Conditions: 1. The structure shall consist of a monopole not to exceed 48' in height. 2. The equipment and its operation shall be in compliance with Federal Communication Commission licensing requirements for such facilities. 3. A City of Port Angeles building permit shall be obtained for the tower structure prior to placement. 4. A landscaping plan shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permit for the tower. The plan shall be limited to the screening of the base structure and tower and shall incorporate fast-growing, tall evergreens on the subject property. The plan shall be implemented prior to final approval of the building permit. 5. The tower shall be removed within six (6) months at the owner's expense upon cessation of use. 6. Co-location of other wireless communication ante1U1as at a reasonable rate shall be allowed. 7. Approval is for six (6) months or until the City adopts a Telecommunications Ordinance whichever occurs first. 8. Following the City's adoption of a Telecommunication Ordinance the structure shall be brought into compliance with the ordinance standards or removed from the site within six (6) months at the owner's expense. Findings: The following findings are based on the information provided in the October 25, 2000 Staff Report Addendum for CUP 00-08. Consideration was also given to the comments and information presented during the October 11, 2000, public hearing, and the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation. Consequently, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby finds: 1. The conditional use permit is for the placement of a utility structure within the Commercial Neighborhood zone. The utility structure consists of a freestanding telecommunications tower with five (5) attached ante1U1as for the provision of internet wireless services in the Port Angeles area utilizing the 2.4 GHX (non-FCC licensed) band. The application states that the estimated length of time for needing of this type of service is 3-5 years after which time fiber optic or other technology will be more fully developed, resulting in increased capacity of local phone services. The application is for a permanent use, not a temporary use. Planning Commission Minu/es October 25, 2000 Page 12 . . . 2. The site is located along the 8th Street corridor at 402 East Eighth Street. The properties consist of Lots 7-9, Block 271, Townsite of Port Angeles. The tower would be located east of the existing office building and would replace an existing, temporary metal storage building. The current use of the property by Pacific Office EquipmentJOlypen is a retaiVoffice facility which offers computer and office supplies and services, as well as local internet services. The building currently contains the equipment necessary for providing local internet services, including the high speed TI phone lines. Required off-street parking at the subject property will not be impacted by the structure. The surfacing materials for the parking areas consist of both asphalt and gravel. A total of 37 spaces is provided. 3. The tower will extend approximately 20 feet above the temporary tower shown in Photo 1 of Attachment B which is approximately 35-40 feet in height. The proposed tower is a T700 design consisting of a 33" by 33" square foot base which tapers to 1 foot by 1 foot at the top. The tower design could be described as having a 'lattice' or 'ladder' appearance. Excavation for construction of the foundation or base of the structure will occur which will be approximately 5' by 5' by 51 feet in dimension. Up to five' antennas will be attached. One antenna is approximately 18" in length and cylindrical in shape. The other four antennas are relatively flat and square in shape (11.5" by 7.5" by 3.5"). Cumulatively, the tower, base and antennas will not exceed 58-feet in height. The requested height ofthe pole is to allow for maximum coverage (approximately 80%) of the targeted Port Angeles area. .4. Landscaping exists on the site near the parking area and buildings. One tall tree, approximately 30-feet in height exists at the southeast property comer. The only other tall tree in the area is to the west, across Peabody and south ofthe 8/9 alley. 5. Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning designation and commercial land uses abut the subject property on the east, north and west sides. Nearby businesses consist of a dental clinic, an engineering/surveying office, and a restaurant/office complex. The extent of the commercial 'strip' on each side of Eighth Street. Residential Single Family (RS7) zoning designation and residential land uses are located across the al1ey to the south. The majority of adjacent residential units are single family, single story homes. An average height of a residential story is 15-20 feet, depending on the pitch of the roof. The majority of the commercial buildings are also 1-2 stories in height. Eighth Street is one of the major east-west street corridors in Port Angeles and is designated as a Minor Arterial. In 1992, the average daily traffic count was 10,156 on Eighth Street, east of Peabody and 4,960 average daily trips on Peabody north of Eighth Street. 6. The proposal is the second telecommunications tower placement in Port Angeles that has not been co-located on an existing structure. Since January 1999 to date, four applications for telecommunication facility co-locates have been approved within the City. One new facility was approved at Eighth and Chase and proposes similar wireless internet services. That approval was made due to the close vicinity of 60-80 foot trees that can mitigate the impact of the height of proposed tower, in addition to Planning Commission Minutes October 25. 2000 Page 13 . 7. . . conditions of landscaping and removal of the tower should a permanent FCC license not be granted for the particular spectrum chosen by that facility. The applicant has provided photos of other towers that exceed 58', including those associated with the City Police Department, US West and BP A. The location selected for the new tower, which is not a co-location, is preferred by the applicant due to the economic costs of co-locating or re-Iocating existing, installed equipment at the current location, as well as the need for maintenance of the equipment. There are currently no tower facilities between the Peninsula College area (DP A site) and US West/Quest at 4thlLaurel; one new tower has been approved at Eighth and Chase which is one block west ofthe subject property and would provide the same services as what is proposed by the applicant. The proposal indicates that the tower is necessary for a period of 3-5 years, after which time improved phone services through fiber optics may be available. These are included in Attachment B. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation for the site is Commercial [C]. 8. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, Commercial Goals and Policies, Goal E states: "To provide shopping opportunities which meet the needs of all City residents and visitors in safe, usable shopping areas that are compatible with the surrounding area and uses, the environment, and the desired urban design of the City". Policy E3 states: "Commercial development should buffer its impacts on adjacent residential uses. Where commercial development is adjacent to residential uses, the commercial development should incorporate elements into the site design to soften the impacts on the residential uses." 9. The Comprehensive Plan Utilities and Public Services Element Goal A is "To provide or allow the opportunity for services and facilities which enhance the quality oflife for Port Angeles citizens of all ages, characteristics, needs, and interests." Goal D is "To provide utility services in an efficient and cost-effective manner." 10. The Comprehensive Plan Conservation Element, Goal A is: "To create and maintain a community with a high quality of life where the land is used in a manner that is compatible with the areas's unique physical features, its natural, historical, archaeological, and cultural amenities, and the overall environment". Goal B states: "To protect and enhance the area's unique physical features, its natural, historical, archeological, and cultural amenities, and the overall environment." Policy B17 states that "The City should identify and preserve significant public scenic view corridors." 11. The Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Element Goal A states: To create and maintain a balanced and stable local economy with full employment and emphasis on strengthening the community's traditional natural resource related industries as well as diversifYing the overall economic base." Policy A3 states: "The City should promote long-term economic stability by encouraging businesses and industries to invest in modernization and environmentally sound technology." Policy A5 states: The City should promote the location, retention, and expansion of small Planning Commission Minutes October 25,2000 Page 14 . . . and medium sized businesses which access their markets and suppliers through telecommunications and available shipping and transit." Goal B states: "To have a healthy local economy that co-exists with the community's high quality of life through the protection, enhancement, and use ofthe community's natural, historical, and cultural amenities. Policy B 1 states: "The City should promote the region's quality of environment and available natural resources as factors in attracting and retaining business, industry, and individual enterprises." 12. Zoning Code, PAMC 17.22.160 requires a conditional use permit approval for a utility building or structure. PAM C 17.08.1 05 (E) defines utility building or structure as an installation to provide utility service. P AMC 17.96.050 (A) Conditional Use Permit specifies that the Planning Commission may grant said permits which are: 1) consistent and compatible with the purpose of the zone in which it is located; 2) consistent with the comprehensive plan; and 3) not contrary to the public use and interest. The Planning Commission may refuse to issue the CUP if the characteristics of the intended use as related to the specific proposed site are such as would defeat the purpose of the Zoning regulation by introducing incompatible, detrimental, or hazardous conditions. PAMC 17.96.0S0(B) states that in each application, the Planning Commission may impose whatever restrictions or conditions they consider essential to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and to prevent depreciation of neighboring property. 13. Approval of the CUP for a 3-5 year period may still result in short-term, detrimental effects to neighboring residential property owners that are adjacent to or within a several block distance. 14. The Zoning Code, PAMC 17.21.160, requires a conditional use permit approval for a utility building or structure. P AMC 17.08.105(E) defines utility building or structure as an installation to provide utility service. The purpose of the zone (PAMC 17.21.010) is to create and preserve areas for business which provide goods and services for the day-to-day needs of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Businesses are to be designed and located to be compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. 15. Because the proposed tower structure and attached antennas would be less than 60- feet in height and are located within a commercial zone, the project is categorically exempt by the State Environmental Policy Act under WAC 197-11-800(27)(a)(iii) and R.C.W. 43.21C.0384. 16. Through the State Environmental Policy Act or local Zoning Ordinance, local governments are responsible for requiring the information necessary to evaluate both the individual and cumulative impacts of such proposals that may individually or cumulatively degrade the quality oflife and be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning requirements including conditional use permit approval criteria. For proposals that may affect aesthetics or views, view impact analysis can be completeddto help identify the extent of potential, adverse aesthetic impacts. Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2000 Page 15 . . . 17. The installation of this and other similar facilities would expand the variety of telecommunication services available to the community. The potential negative aesthetic impacts can be addressed by site location, structure height and design and vegetation preservation in order to ensure the continued, scenic views and overall, environmental quality of Port Angeles for its residents, as well as visitors. 18. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has the overall responsibility for regulating the telecommunication industry under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Preservation of local zoning authority is specified in the Act under Section 704 (a)(7)(A) which states: "GENERAL AUTHORITY - Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall limit or effect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentally thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. (B)(i) LIMITATIONS states: "The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government or instrumentally thereof - (1) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and (II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. Other requirements specify acting on applications within a reasonable time period, issuing a written decision with substantial evidence to deny applications, and deferring to the FCC to address and regulate the frequency emissions and their potential environmental effects. 19. Needs of the industry include minimum distances and line of sight requirements to other antennas, as well as adequate power and phone services. These needs are analyzed by the proponent in determining the preferred location for the structure, as well as the needed height of the structure, both of which are factors in determining the amount of coverage that can be provided. It is sometimes difficult to discern the needs of a particular provider, given the ever-changing technology, as well as competition between providers. According to a recent article in the Peninsula Daily News, as well as other sources, fiber optic telephone cables have been extended from the Hood Canal area to Port Angeles last month. The fiber optic cables will allow for increased capacity in telephone services and may alleviate the need for high-speed wireless phone services. The costs of connection are not known. 20. The Telecommunications Act requires that decisions to deny applications must be supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record which has been explained as to be the amount necessary to prevail in a civil lawsuit. 21. No letters of comment were received from the public regarding this application during it's public comment period which concluded September 1, 2000. 22. Section 17.21.200(5) of the Zoning Code sets forth a 30-foot height limit for the CN zone. Section 17 .21.200( 4) requires a 15' setback from alleys or residential zones. Section 17.94.170 of the Port Angeles Municipal Code exempts antennas from the Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2000 Page 16 . Zoning Code's height restrictions. It has been the policy of the Planning Department that the exemption was intended for ham radio or television antennas and not commercial utility structure, such as the proposal. It also has been the policy of the Planning Department to not require that an additional variance application be submitted for utility structures which exceed the height limitations because the height issue can be adequately addressed through the conditional use process. Conclusions: The following conclusions are based on the information provided in the October 25,2000 Staff Report Addendum for CUP 00-08, including all of its attachments. Consideration was also given to the comments and information presented during the public hearing, the Planning Commission's discussion and deliberation, and the above listed findings. Consequently, the City of Port Angeles Planning Commission hereby concludes: A. The project, as conditioned, is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, specifically Comprehensive Plan Land Use Goal E and Policy E3; Utilities and Public Services Element Goal D; and Economic Development Policies A3 and B 1. B. The proposal is consistent with the criteria of approval of a CUP under P AMC 17.96.050, as the approval: 1) would be consistent and compatible with the purpose of the zone in which it is located; 2) would be consistent with the comprehensive plan; and 3) would not be contrary to the public use and interest. . C. The proposed use may be considered compatible with the adjacent residential land uses, as well as those within a several block area, as it would provide increased wireless telecommunication services. The character of the these neighborhoods can be described as single family residences that are 1-1.5 stories in height who enjoy significant terrestrial, mountain and marine views that are not interrupted by existing tall trees. Landscaping improvements to the site will help mitigate any resulting negative impacts. D. The installation of this and other similar facilities would expand the variety of telecommunication services available to the community and region. E. The application states that the use will most likely not be needed after 3-5 years when phone service technology is increased in the Port Angeles area. F. The potential negative aesthetic impacts of the height of the tower onto a significant number of residential land uses with territorial or marine views, and the overall scenic quality of the City cannot be avoided. Landscaping around the structure or subject property could mitigate the impacts. Assuming that the structure may no longer be needed after 5 years and could then be removed. if approved, the negative impacts could be considered as short-term. . . . . Planning Commission Minutes October 25, 2000 Page 17 G. The proposal would be located along one of the major traffic corridors in Port Angeles. The proposal may be considered to be out of character with the neighborhood as it cannot be buffered or hidden by trees on-site or within close proximity, and creates a material impact on the character of the neighborhood and public welfare. The territorial and marine views enjoyed by this neighborhood, as well as citizens and visitors traveling by, is of significant importance to the community of Port Angeles. The benefits of providing this service to the community outweigh the potential negative aesthetic effects that mayor may not result. Commissioner Schramm indicated that the reasoning behind the 48' requirement rather than the 58' as requested is due to his projection that there is about a 10' drop in elevation from Peabody Street west to Chase Street where the 58' Burst tower is located. Therefore a 48' tower at the higher elevation would be approximately even from views to the south. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Norton and passed 5 - 2 with Commissioners Philpott, Craver, Schramm, King, and Norton voting for the motion, Commissioners Hewins and Nutter voting in the negative. Commissioners Hewins and Nutter noted that their negative votes were due to previously discussed concerns and the inappropriateness ofthe zoning as well as unsubstantiated statements about co-location. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None. STAFF REPORTS Larry Dunbar, City of Port Angeles Power Resources Manager, provided a presentation of the recently approved Telecommunications Action Plan adopted by the City Council in October, 2000, and responded to questions from the Commission. REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMBERS None ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. ~~-' ~ rad CollIns, Secretary t:~ Fred Hewins, Chair PREPARED BY; S. Roberds · ~ORTANGELES WAS H] N G TON, U. S. A. PLEASE; SIGN IN PLANNING COMMISSION ATTENDANCE ROSTER AND TESTIMONY SIGN-UP SHEET Meeting Agenda Of:&;t!:d:J-' c2 ()OO / PLEASE NOTE: IF you plan to testify, by signature below, you certify that the testimony given is true and correct under penalty of perjury by the laws of the State of Washington. Signature below does not REQUIRE you to testify - it only acknowledges your presence. .