Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-630 Staff SummaryS-630 (7/16) Page 1 of 7 SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST Planning Board Meeting July 7, 2016 CASE: S-630 PETITIONER: Hellman, Yates, and Tisdale for Optima Towers IV REQUEST: Special Use Permit to develop a telecommunications tower in a PD, Planned Development zoning district ACREAGE: 0.80 acres LOCATION: 2020 Corporate Drive PID: R02620-003-041-000 2006 CAMA LAND CLASS: Transition 2016 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN PLACE TYPE: Employment Center EXISTING CONDITIONS: Existing Zoning and Land Uses The site is zoned PD, Planned Development, and classified as commercial/office/light industrial by the master plan for this section of Northchase, which was approved when the property was rezoned to PD in 1985. Light industrial uses predominate the area, including adjacent to the south of the subject site, and across Corporate Drive from the site. Adjacent to the north of the site is a stormwater management feature. Olsen Park, a public active recreation area, abuts the subject property to the east. Laney High and Trask Middle schools are in the vicinity to the west of the site. The nearest residential uses are approximately 1,600’ to the northwest of the site on SE Northchase Parkway, which are within 500’ of the water tower hosting the existing antennas. S-630 (7/16) Page 2 of 7 Existing Site Conditions The subject property is currently vacant, and is mostly cleared except for the rear (east) of the property which is encumbered by a drainage easement and remains vegetated. Conservation, Historic, and Archaeological Resources The subject property does not host any known conservation, historic, or archaeological resources. PETITIONER’S REQUEST: Hellman, Yates, and Tisdale, attorneys and counselors at law, are petitioning on behalf of Optima Towers IV to develop a 185’ monopole-style wireless communications facility at 2020 Corporate Drive, in the Northchase commerce park on a site owned by Home Life, Inc. The request for this telecommunications tower is spurred by the decommissioning and removal of an existing water tower at 2607 SE Northchase Parkway, approximately 1,200’ from the subject site. The water tower currently hosts a number of telecommunications antennas, and the proposed tower will provide a new structure to host antennas to provide service to the area. The tower is designed to accommodate at least 5 additional wireless communications providers to collocate their antennas on the tower. STAFF POSITION: Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Considerations The Planned Development zoning district was created in the zoning ordinance to foster the mixing of various land uses to realize a number of benefits including unified and compatible development between land uses for the benefit of all County residents. As with the county’s other zoning districts, certain uses are permitted in the PD zoning district by special use permit through high standards of planning and design, as well as the potential for conditions, in order to minimize any negative effects that a particular use may have on the surrounding area. Four conclusions must be met supported by findings of fact as part of the approval process for a special use permit. A conceptual site plan is included as part of the application. If this application is approved, the property must be developed in accordance with the site plan. Further, the proposed development must also go S-630 (7/16) Page 3 of 7 through the County’s site plan/building permit review process. The process includes the review of the technical standards of the County’s development regulations, including landscaping, fire services delivery, stormwater, and sediment and erosion control. Traffic Trip generation from the proposed use will be very minimal with only routine maintenance visits necessary after the tower is constructed. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is not required for the development due to the low trip generation realized from the proposal. Corporate Drive is a public road (SR 2653) and is classified as a local street by NCDOT, and is functioning at a high level of service based on its design capacity and existing volume. Traffic counts were conducted at the entrance to Olsen Park in February 2014, showing an average daily trip count of 307 trips with a capacity of approximately 1,000 and yielding a volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.31 and a Level of Service of “A”. The new use would require a driveway permit from NCDOT. Environmental The property does not contain any Special Flood Hazard Areas or Significant Natural Heritage Areas. Based on the Soil Survey of New Hanover County, the soils on site are Leon sand and Seagate fine sand. The topography of the site is relatively flat and drains to the north to the retention pond and east to the drainage easement that feeds towards Smith Creek. 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan Considerations The site is classified as Transition by the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan. The purpose of the Transition class is to provide for future intensive urban development on lands that have been or will be provided with necessary urban services. The location of these areas is based upon land use planning policies requiring optimum efficiency in land utilization and public service delivery. 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Considerations The County is nearing adoption of a new comprehensive land use plan. The current draft of the new Comprehensive Plan classifies the area of the property subject to development as Employment Center on the Future Land Use Map. S-630 (7/16) Page 4 of 7 The Employment Center place types serve as employment and production hubs, with office and light industrial uses predominating. Densities are dependent in part on the type of industries located here; office uses can be multi-story and nearer the street, while light industrial uses will likely be one story with large setbacks and ample room for trucks and other large vehicles. Employment Centers can also include residential, civic, and recreational uses, but should be clearly delineated from rural and conservation areas. Commercial uses designed to serve the needs of the employment center are appropriate. Employment Centers require arterial or major collector road access connecting them to areas outside their boundaries GENERAL INFORMATION REGARDING SPECIAL USE PERMITS: Special use permits add flexibility to the Zoning Ordinance. Subject to high standards of planning and design, certain property uses may be allowed in the several districts where these uses would not otherwise be acceptable. By means of controls exercised through the special use permit procedures, property uses which would otherwise be undesirable in certain districts can be developed to minimize any bad effects they might have on surrounding properties. Any use or development designated by applicable zoning district regulations as a special use, or as allowed only pursuant to a special use permit, may be established in that district only after the use or development is authorized by a validly issued special use permit. The applicant bears the burden of presenting sufficient evidence in support of the application to allow the Planning Board, after weighing such evidence against that presented in opposition to the application, to make findings of fact that reasonably support each of the required conclusions. If that burden is met, the Planning Board should recommend to the Board of Commissioners to approve the application. If that burden is not met, the Planning Board should recommend denial of the application, provided that if the Planning Board determines that specific minor changes or additions to, or restrictions on, the proposed development are necessary and sufficient to overcome impediments to its reaching the required conclusions, it may recommend approval of the application subject to reasonable conditions requiring such changes or additions or imposing such restrictions. Such conditions may include time limits for completion of development or for the start or end of certain uses or activities. S-630 (7/16) Page 5 of 7 The Planning Board may continue the hearing to a later meeting to accommodate additional witnesses or the presentation of additional testimony or evidence. If the time and place of the continued hearing is announced in open session during the hearing, no further notice need be given for the continued hearing. A motion to recommend approval of the application must state the required conclusions and include findings of fact on which the conclusions are based, plus any proposed conditions of approval. The favorable vote of the majority of Planning Board members present is necessary to pass such a motion. A motion to recommend denial of the application must state which of the required conclusions cannot be reached and include findings of fact on which the inability to reach the conclusions is based. The favorable vote of a majority of Planning Board members present is necessary to pass such a motion. Upon receiving the recommendations of the Planning Board and holding a public hearing, the Board of Commissioners may grant or deny the special use permit request. STAFF PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS AND FINDINGS OF FACTS: Staff has conducted an analysis of the proposed use and the information provided as part of the application package and has created preliminary findings of fact to support each of the conclusions required to be reached to approve the special use permit request. These preliminary findings of fact and conclusions are based solely on the information provided to date, prior to any information or testimony in support or opposition to the request that may be presented at the upcoming public hearing at the July 7, 2016 Planning Board meeting. Finding 1: The Board must find that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed and developed according to the plan as submitted and approved. A. Water and sewer infrastructure and capacity are available to serve the site, but not necessary for the proposed use. B. The subject property is located in the New Hanover County North Fire Service District. C. Access to the tower site will be provided by a driveway from Corporate Drive, a public road. D. The subject site does not host any known cultural or archaeological resources. Staff Suggestion: Evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use will not materially endanger the public health or safety where proposed. Finding 2: The Board must find that the use meets all required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. A. Telecommunication Communication Facilities, Cellular, and Related Towers are allowed by Special Use Permit in the Planned Development (PD) zoning district provided that the project meets the Standards of Section 63.5-1 of the Zoning Ordinance. B. Section 63.5-1(A) requires that the setback from any existing residential property line or residential zoning district boundary for any tower, antenna, or related structure in any zoning district be a distance equal to the height of the tower as measured from the base of the tower. The location of the proposed 185’ tall tower is approximately 190’ feet the eastern property line, which abuts R-15 residential zoning, meeting the setback requirement of Section 63.5-1(A). C. Section 63.5-1(B)1 requires that the minimum distance between the tower and any other adjoining parcel of land or road must be equal to the minimum setback of 50’ described in S-630 (7/16) Page 6 of 7 Section 63.5-1(A), plus any additional distance necessary to ensure that the tower, as designed, will fall within the tower site. The proposed location complies with this provision, and no evidence has been submitted suggesting that additional distance is necessary. D. Section 63.5-1(B)2 requires the applicant to submit photographs and statements as to the potential visual and aesthetic impacts on all adjacent residential zoning districts. Information provided in Tab 8 of the application binder suffices this requirement. E. Section 63.5-1(C) requires a landscaped buffer with a base width not less than 25 feet and providing 100% opacity, in addition to a minimum 8 ft. tall fence surrounding the tower base. The proposed plans suffice this requirement. F. Section 63.5-1(D) requires that applicants seeking construction of new towers, antennas, and related structures demonstrate through submitted written evidence that collocation on any existing tower, antenna, or usable structure in the search area for the new tower is not reasonable or possible. A report found in Tab 9 of the application binder meets this requirement. G. Section 63.5-1(E) requires that towers over 150’ tall be engineered to accommodate a minimum of two additional providers. Evidence has been submitted demonstrating that this requirement has been met, and a Collocation Certification was also submitted by the applicant. H. Section 63.5-1(F) requires certification that the construction or placement of the proposed facility complies with several federal regulations. An FCC Compliance Assessment has been submitted and demonstrates compliance with the federal regulations mentioned in Section 63.5-1(F). I. Section 63.5-1(I) regulates the signage allowed on the tower and related equipment. The signage proposed is compliant with this ordinance provision. J. Section 63.5-1(J) prohibits the storage of equipment, hazardous waste, or materials not needed for the operation, prohibits outdoor storage yards in a tower equipment compound, and prohibits habitable space within the compound area. The applicant’s proposal complies with this ordinance section. K. Section 63.5-1(L) requires that, when the proposed tower site is within 10,000 feet of an airport or within any runway approach zone, the applicant submit Form 7460 to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to assure compliance with all FAA standards. An FAA Aeronautical Evaluation was included with the application (Tab 10) and indicates that the site and proposal is in compliance with FAA regulations. Staff Suggestion: Evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use meets all of the required conditions and specifications of the Zoning Ordinance. Finding 3: The Board must find that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property or that the use is a public necessity. A. The location of the proposed telecommunications tower is within an area designated for a mixture of uses, including commercial, office, and light industrial uses. B. The closest residential uses are approximately 1,600 feet away from the site proposed for the telecommunications tower. C. Predominate land uses in the immediate vicinity of the subject site are light industrial uses as well as Olsen Park, a public recreation area. D. A 25’ wide buffer surrounding the tower base will provide visual screening for future development. S-630 (7/16) Page 7 of 7 E. No evidence has been submitted that this project will decrease the property values of adjacent or nearby properties. Staff Suggestion: The evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abutting property. Finding 4: The Board must find that the location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved will be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located and in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. A. The subject site is in an area primarily used for light industrial uses, with some residential uses approximately 1,600’ away. B. The site is classified as Transition by the 2006 CAMA Land Use Plan; the purpose of the Transition class is to provide for future intensive urban development on lands that have been or will be provided with necessary urban services. C. The site is classified as an Employment Center place type by the draft 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan; these areas are meant to serve as employment and production hubs with office and light industrial uses predominating. D. The proposed telecommunications tower is consistent with the land use classification of Transition from the 2006 CAMA land use plan and the Employment Center place type from the 2016 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Staff Suggestion: Evidence in the record at this time supports a finding that the use is in general conformity with the plan of development for New Hanover County. _____________________________________________________________________________________ ACTION NEEDED (Choose one): 1. Motion to recommend approval (with or without conditions) 2. Motion to table the item in order to receive additional information or documentation (Specify). 3. Motion to recommend denial based on specific findings in any of the 4 categories above, such as lack of consistency with adopted plans or determination that the project will pose public hazards or will not adequately meet requirements of the ordinance.