Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM II-A-1 AGENDA BILL APPROVAL FORM Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 5905 for Application No. CUP04-0007 Department: Planning Date: March 28, 2005 Budget Impact: I Attachments: HE Decision, Staff Report, Vicinity Map, Application Administrative Recommendation: City Council to conduct a closed record hearing on Application Number CUP04-0007. Background Summary: The Hearing Examiner on February 23, 2005 conducted a public hearing on the request of Washington State Parks Development Service Center on behalf of Cingular and Sprint for a Conditional Use Permit to locate a wireless communications facility (\J\JCF) on an athletic field light in a P1 (Public Use) zoning district. The proposal is to increase the height of the existing structure by 30 percent within the Auburn Game Farm Park located at 3030 R Street SE. Auburn City Code (ACC) section 18.04.912 defines such a proposal as a Type 1-D wireless communications facility. Subsequent to the hearing, the Examiner recommended to the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit. The City Council heard the case on March 21, 2005 and scheduled a closed record hearing for April 4, 2005. Councilmember Wagner requested clarification of several aspects of the project. His comments are numbered and provided in italics below, followed by staff responses. Because of the nature of the closed record hearing, staff responses are limited to information that is already part of the record of the open record public hearing. HE\APP\CUP04-7 AND ORD5905 L0404-1 03.10.1 CUP04-0007 Reviewed by Council & Committees: D Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: D Airport 0 Finance [8J Hearing Examiner 0 Municipal Servo o Human Services 0 Planning & CD o Park Board OPublic Works o Planning Comm. 0 Other Reviewed by Departments & Divisions: [8J Building [8J M&O o Cemetery 0 Mayor o Finance [8J Parks [8J Fire [8J Planning o Legal 0 Police [8J Public Works D Human Resources Action: Committee Approval: Yes No Council Approval: Yes No Call for Public Hearing _/_/- Referred to Until _/_/- Tabled Until _/_/- Councilmember: Singer I Staff: Krauss Meeting Date: April 4,2005 I Item Number: 11.A.1 Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 5905 for Application No. CUP04-0007 Date: March 28, 2005 (1) Noise too high close to the building. Need better acoustic treatments on the fans, etc. (see attachment - Average Decibel Sound Levels for Common Noises) The report described the existing background sound levels within Game Farm Park as, "The averaged ambient noise level was 57.4 dBA and this is primarily the result on local traffic along R Street and 29th Street SE." The Acoustic Report by SSA Acoustics dated September 7,2004, which accompanied the Conditional Use Permit application indicated, "The combined sound level of all the Spring (sic) and Cingular cabinets including future cabinets is 70.1 dBA." The report based this result on sound level measurements taken approximately three feet from the equipment. The report concluded that at the nearest property line, approximately 220 feet away, predicted sound levels originating from the equipment cabinets would be 32.8 dBA. The predicted sound levels did not take into account attenuation that would be provided by enclosing the equipment within a building that would reduce the sound levels. It also did not take into account building-mounted fans that would operate periodically to regulate equipment room temperatures. Since the original noise study did not specifically assess the noise levels expected in the immediate vicinity of the proposed equipment building and did not take into account the equipment's location within the building, the project could be conditioned that prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall provide a noise study that demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Parks Director that sound levels from all project sources as measured at a distance within ten feet of the building will be less than 55 dBA daytime and less than 45 dBA nighttime which is generally consistent with the maximum sound levels established for residential uses from the Washington State Noise Standards of WAC 173-60. (2) Landscaping is too little. ACC 18.48.100(2) specifies the following circumstances under which landscaping is required associated with wireless communication facilities (\J\JCF): 2. Landscaping. a. Where aboveground support equipment is visible from public right-of-way, a minimum width of five feet of Type II landscaping as defined in ACC 18.50.040 will be provided on the exterior of the enclosing fence in order to effectively screen the equipment from the public right-of-way. b. Where facilities are visible from adjacent residential uses, a minimum width of five feet of Type I landscaping as defined in ACC 18.50.040 will be provided on the exterior of the enclosing fence in order to effectively screen the equipment from the adjacent residential uses. c. Existing on-site vegetation may be used to meet the landscape requirements if approved by the planning director. The equipment cabinets will not be visible from public right-of-way or adjacent residential uses. Since the project's at grade support equipment is proposed within a building that is specifically constructed to contain the equipment and to reduce visual impacts, no landscaping treatments were recommended by staff or required by the Hearing Examiner. Page 2 of 4 Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 5905 for Application No. CUP04-0007 Date: March 28, 2005 (3) Asphalt path access must be capable of heavy truck load support. Sheet A-1.1 (Cingular) and Sheet A-1.2 (Sprint) and of the project plans, accompanying the Conditional Use Permit application show the construction of approximately 220 feet of 4-foot wide asphalt path south of the proposed building. The path connects the existing trail to the south side of the building where a picnic shelter will be located. The plan sheet also notes that the access path is not currently designed (plan states: "provided by others under separate permit"). Finding of Fact number 10 in the staff report to the Hearing Examiner indicates that vehicle access to the completed project would not use the path, but instead utilize the existing on-site vehicle parking lot for routine access. If vehicle access to the picnic shelter or the WCF is desired by the council, the project could be conditioned such that prior to issuance of building permits, a plan shall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer and Parks Director demonstrating that the asphalt path is of sufficient width and structural section to support trucks. (4) Construction timing, restoration, and penalties need an agreement since this isn't a franchise and may not be covered by our standard franchise ordinance. The proposed WCF would not be subject to the City's standards under a franchise agreement because it is not located within public right-of-way where franchise agreements apply. The standards for construction timing, restoration, and penalties are expected to be addressed as part of the lease agreement between the wireless service provider and the Park's Department. (5) Do we get compensated for this lease? If not, why not? Yes, while the negotiations between the City and wireless service provider has not been concluded, the City would be compensated for use of the area within Game Farm Park. (6) How can we lease when the state still owns the land? The WCF is proposed on property that currently owned by Washington State Parks Department. The municipal park was allowed on state property by a previous agreement. The City is currently in negotiations to acquire the property from the State and the land exchange is expected to be completed by summer. The lease agreement with the wireless carriers would occur after ownership is transferred and after the City secures replacement park land to satisfy funding obligations from the time of the original development of the park. (7) How will the electromagnetic warning signs be posted so that we don't get complaints, for example, about heart pacemaker interference risks? Sheet A-4.1 (Cingular) and Sheet A-3.1 (Sprint) of the plans show that the west elevation of the building will contain two doors, one access to each carrier's equipment room. While not shown accurately on these sheets, at the public hearing, the Hearing Examiner inquired and the applicant explained that each access door on the proposed building would contain two (2) signs. The first sign is a site identification sign (12"x16") located on each door. The identification signage will have the carrier logo, site name, site number, FCC number (if applicable), and emergency contact number. The second sign is the FCC Notice sign (18"x12") that will be placed directly under the identification sign. The second sign cautions against radio frequency (RF) emission exposure beyond this point. See Cingular drawing sheets A-4.1 & A-5.1 for details. The applicant explained that most of the electromagnetic emissions are coming from the antennas, which have no public access and are over 10-meters from the ground, making them exempt from FCC monitoring. No heart pacemaker interference risks associated with the proposed facility are therefore anticipated. Page 3 of 4 Agenda Subject: Ordinance No. 5905 for Application No. CUP04-0007 Date: March 28, 2005 (8) Are they paying for the scoreboard and guaranteeing its operation? An agreement is needed since it's in their area and may have electromagnetic interference issues. The scoreboard already exists west of the light pole in the project vicinity but is planned to remain undisturbed by the construction. The scoreboard is hard-wired and therefore not likely to be adverse affected by RF emissions. Additional measures to avoid adverse impacts could be made a requirement of the Park's Department negotiations on the lease agreement. (9) What does "by others" mean on the plan drawings with respect to the building and pole permits? Is that because they contracting it out? "By others" simply means that that particular portion of the project is being designed/engineered by a party other than the architect who prepared the Conditional Use Permit application drawings. For example, the architect is not designing/engineering the proposed light standard; therefore it is provided by others. A separate professional engineer's report will be submitted with the building permit application showing that the light standard/foundation design meets all of the proposed loading requirements. Page 4 of 4