The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Estes Valley Planning Commission 2002-06-18BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Regular Meeting of the Estes Valley Planning Commission June 18, 2002,1:30 p.m. Board Room, Estes Park Municipal Building Commission: Attending: Also Attending: Absent: Chair Cherie Pettyjohn, Commissioners Wendell Amos, DeeDee Hampton, Joyce Kitchen, Edward Pohl, Ed McKinney, and Dominick Taddonio Chair Pettyjohn, Commissioners McKinney, Kitchen, Pohl, Amos, and Taddonio Town Attorney White, Director Joseph, Planner Shirk, Planner Chilcott and Recording Secretary Williamson Commissioner DeeDee Hampton, Town Board Liaison Habecker Chair Pettyjohn called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA a Estes Valiev Planning Commission Minutes dated May 21, 2002. .... , i.-cb. Development Plan 02-16 and Rezoning, Taharra Mountain Lodge - continued to the July 16, 2002 meeting at the request of the applicant. It was moved and seconded (Amos/MoKinney) that the Consent Agenda be accepted and it passed unanimously with one absent. 2. PlIRLIC COMMENT None. 3 ...cMncn nFVFLQPMFNT PLAN 02^ r.OLDWATER CONnOMINIUMS, LOT_L Sdwart^rhConrdominkjms?nSFebruary of ^002-Thepropo^J^Muded^^o^cl^p^exes,Joteling four units, located along the south bank °f DOrti0n ofthe driveway to be located in the Approval included a minor modification tota,l°^3.7 ofthe Estes landscape setback. The applicant requests a nprcent encroachment of a portion of the Valley Development Code, to allow a twenty-five ( ) p . . f th driveway. Approval driveway in the landscape setback.^ Atlie^ight-of-v^^ instead of L15 would allow the drive to be located 11. nninion that there are special circumstances that feet normally required by the Cod®n't's fgL /50) fo^t river setback on the opposite property Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and impervious coverage requirements. and the driveway will vary from 1 foot to 3 foot. Public Comment: None. It was moved and soconded iAmos/McKinneyi to appraye tho amondedD^^^ unanimously 02.06, Coldwater Condominiums, Loti, Stauffer Subdivision anu h with one absent and Kitchen abstaining. BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - June 18,2002 Page 2 4. SPECiAL REViEW 02-02. VOiCESTREAM. SW 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTiON 25, T5N, R73W OF THE 6TH P.M. CONTAiNiNG TEN ACRES MORE OR LESS AND NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 : SI/2 OF THE NE 1/4: El/2 OF THE NW 1/4 ALL iN SECTiON 36. T5N, R73W OF THE 6TH P.M.. PROSPECT MOUNTAiN. Appiicant: VoiceStream Wireiess Planner Shirk reviewed the staff report. This is a request by VoiceStream Wireless to construct an unguyed and unlit, ninety-five (95) foot tall tower on top of Prospect Mountain. The proposed tower would be able to hold up to four wireless service providers. The applicant has had discussions with AT&T, who wishes to place antennas at the top of the tower. VoiceStream would then place antennas slightly below that, and two additional locations would be available for future providers. Currently, VoiceStream Wireless has two (2) existing facilities operating in Estes Park The sites are limited, and allow no room for expansion. The proposed site would increase the coverage area in Estes Park by six (6) times, and eliminate the need for one of the existing sites located at 1271 Range View Road. This proposal meets the requirements of Section 3.5 “Special Review Uses” of the Estes Valley Development Code by mitigating to the maximum extent feasible, potential adverse impact on nearby land uses and the erivironnrient ThlsZposa would have no adverse impacts on public facilities and services. Nearby land useswouTd be minimally impacted. The proposed antenna is internal tothe par^l on -h,ch ,t ^ to be located and would be approximately 850 feet from the nearest property line. A new^ntenn^tower isa permitted use^n the “RE” district; fSntvPNew SSrS facHittes jo the least oreferred commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) facility. New CMKb Tac imes must use the most preferred facility type (co-location) where technically feasible. The aPPllc^nt™sSsubmWed'a wn?ten statement addreLing there are noo*hef provision of public services. a^anCTre*questionsfibmtherCoibmtMtorinfXi.rKenn^ySd?^ussed^ereaa|lnstatoraSonron top ofProspect Mountain is a good choice for an antenna tower. Commissioner Amos questionedwhetheranthearitennas^onto Chri^Tenny^radMrequency antennas or if the local radio statl0" c°“lf “' ° :tes therefore a radio station could co-locate. engineer, stated the antenna?f ® “ower than Recurrent cell towers; therefore this could Public Comment: None. D H f It was moved and seconded (Amos/K|tc,wn) to rMommend ^ppl^ 1(4 of the SE 1/4 0f County Commissioners of SpecialReview 02-02, Vo,cebtr^^, or|ess and NE 1(4of the Section 25, T5N, R73W °!NW f M all in Section 36, T5N, R73W of the 6th fu p;otJi\t Mo^ll with Jhe following conditions, and it passed unanimously w.th 0neabrExisting VoiceStream “Brown"f"en^rne:^oleRraA9to^^ appILm removed within six (6) months Department verifying removal of shall be submitted to the Com™" ty ? |1 ° pgr this approval null and void, the tower. Failure to rf','0f' Sers from co-locating on the tower when 2- SS^1sSh^m™urX“ *eo°J;™0bt,l!lydin0gVe0rSom BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - June 18, 2002 Page 3 b. 3. The tower owner is not willing to provide space for other carriers at a fair market rate when it would not impair the structural integrity of the tower or cause interference: or The tower owner modifies the structure in a way to make the co-location impractical or impossible. If approval is revoked, the facility must be removed at the owners’ expense. This facility shall be considered abandoned if it is unused by all providers at the facility for a period of 180 days. The Community Development Director shall determine if the facility has been abandoned. The Community Developnient Director has the right to request documentation from the facility owner regarding tower or antenna usage. Upon abandonment, the facility owner has 90 days to. a Reuse the facility or transfer the facility to another owner who will reuse it; or b. Dismantle the facility. If the facility is not removed within 90 days of abandonment, the County may remove the facility at the facility and/or property owner’s expense. If the facility is removed. County approval of the 4. The facnUyshal|Pcomply with the standards of the Estes 'f.311®''P®v®'0.par2|nt nSdaU all applicable standards of the Federal Telecommun.cations Act of 1996, and all aoolicable reouirements of the Federal Aviation Administration. 5 Approval does not Include manned offices, long-term vehicle storage or other outdoor storaoe or other uses not needed to send, receive or relay transmissions. Signage at the site shall be limited to non-illuminated warning and equipmen There sS be noSexterior lighting on t*'® e—barrier D^turbed a°MS Sb^mvegSXl'Ll^e grass mixture before final building 1O.ArnrtnTsnand?::rshall be gray in color. If painted, equipment color shall be 11 .The following shall be included with ^ulld|".® ctura'i'enqineeflicensed in the state of A llK“?dabTa registered Radio Frequency engineer, stating the co- 12 ComplSewra°revisaed Ifi^plan to contain the following: t SnVSngmsasPhall include locations for future co-locates. The following signature block. 6. 7. 8. 9. a. b. c. OWNER CERTIFICATION: Th® hereby agree that the real property a subject to the Review «®d s°? F®*®s:of f PEZSVal^evS (include owners signature and notary) COUNTY COMMISSION APPROVAL: Kathay Rennels, Chair DATE: 5- ^';^a™Fa™nded (Kitchen/McKinney) that Wendeil Amos be nominated Vice BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO.RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Estes Valley Planning Commission - June 18,2002 with Amos abstaining. 6. REPORTS None. Page 4 There being no further business, meeting was a^ Cherie PetWjdnTOChair Jacquelyn Williamson,Recording Secretary