PLNPCM2012-00458 American Tower Monopole Addition Published Date: 9/5/2012
1
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING STAFF REPORT
Planning Division
Department of Community and
Economic Development
Monopole Addition and Antennas Conditional Use
PLNPCM2012-00458 645 S State Street
Hearing Date: September 13, 2012 Applicant: Brett Griffith, Cricket
Communications
Staff: Daniel Echeverria
(801) 535-7165
Tax ID: 16-06-356-006
Current Zone: D-2 (Downtown
Support )
Master Plan Designation: Central Community Master Plan –
Central Business District Support
Council District: District 4, Luke Garrot
Community Council: Central City
Lot Size: 0 .31 Acres
Current Use: Restaurant
Applicable Land Use Regulations: 21A.54.080 Standards for
Conditional Uses
21A.40.090 Antenna regulations
Attachments: A. Site Plan & Elevations
B. Dept/Division Comments
Request
A request by Brett Griffith, representing Cricket Communications, for a
conditional use to extend an existing monopole an additional 10 feet to a height
of approximately 90 feet and install new antennas and support structures greater
than 2 feet in width for a total height of approximately 94 feet at 645 South
State Street.
Staff Recommendation
Based on the findings listed in the staff report, it is the Planning Staff’s opinion
that overall the project meets the applicable standards and therefore
recommends that the Administrative Hearing Officer approve the petition.
PLNPCM2012-00458 American Tower Monopole Addition Published Date: 9/5/2012
2
Background
Project Description
The request is for conditional use approval to add an additional 10’ in height to an existing 80’ monopole with
additional antennas and structures for a total height of approximately 94 feet. Additional cabinets and
equipment will be located within the existing fenced leased area of approximately 25’ x 30’ at the rear of the
lot. The equipment will be located in a 10’ x 15’ elevated platform at a height of 20.5’ and includes a utility
rack, cabinets, and an icebridge. The location of all proposed antennas and equipment can be reviewed in
Attachment A.
Public Notice, Meetings and Comments
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held related to the proposed project:
An open house was held for the item at the Salt Lake City Main Library on August 16th, 2012. The
Downtown, Central City, and Ball Park Community Councils received notice of this meeting, as well as
property owners within 300 feet of the proposal. No comments were received.
Notice of the public hearing for the proposal includes:
Public hearing notice mailed on August 30, 2012.
PLNPCM2012-00458 American Tower Monopole Addition Published Date: 9/5/2012
3
Public hearing notice posted on property on August 30, 2012.
Public hearing notice posted on City and State websites on August 30, 2012.
Public hearing notice e-mailed to the Planning Division list serve on August 30, 2012.
Public Comments
Prior to publication of this report, staff did not receive any public comments for or against the proposal.
City Department Comments
Comments were solicited from all applicable City Departments and Divisions. The review comments have been
attached to this report as Attachment B. None of the comments would preclude approval of the project.
Analysis and Findings
Conditional Use Standards
21A.54.080 B. Specific Standards: A conditional use shall be approved if reasonable conditions are proposed,
or can be imposed, to mitigate the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed use in accordance
with applicable standards set forth in this section. If the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of a proposed
conditional use cannot be substantially mitigated by the proposal or the imposition of reasonable conditions to
achieve compliance with applicable standards, the conditional use shall be denied.
A. Approval Standards: A conditional use shall be approved unless the planning commission, or in the case
of administrative conditional uses, the planning director or designee, concludes that the following standards
cannot be met:
1. The use complies with applicable provisions of this title;
2. The use is compatible, or with conditions of approval can be made compatible, with surrounding uses;
3. The use is consistent with applicable adopted city planning policies, documents, and master plans; and
4. The anticipated detrimental effects of a proposed use can be mitigated by the imposition of reasonable
conditions.
Analysis: The proposed use is an addition to an existing monopole that would extend the height of the
monopole to 90 feet. The proposed 10 feet of additional height requires a conditional use review as
listed in the table for the D-2 zone in 21A.40.090E. The proposed antennas are also over 2 feet in width
and also require conditional use approval as per the same table.
In addition to the general standards for conditional uses, the proposal must also be evaluated with regard
to the additional conditional use provisions found in 21A.40.090.E.9:
a. Compatibility of the proposed structure with the height and mass of existing buildings and utility structures;
b. Whether collocation of the antenna on the other existing structures in the same vicinity such as other towers, buildings, water towers, utility poles, etc., is possible without significantly impacting antenna transmission or reception;
PLNPCM2012-00458 American Tower Monopole Addition Published Date: 9/5/2012
4
c. The location of the antenna in relation to existing vegetation, topography and buildings to obtain the best visual screening;
d. Whether the spacing between monopoles and lattice towers creates detrimental impacts to adjoining properties.
The proposed monopole addition is higher than the buildings adjacent to the property by approximately
50 to 70 feet. Existing utility poles within 600 feet of the site appear to reach the proposed 90’ height of
the monopole. The 10 foot addition will be placed on the existing monopole at this location and
collocates a new antenna array on the monopole.
The antenna will be located in the rear of the lot and is buffered from the front of the property by a
parking lot. The monopole and associated equipment directly abut the windowless side of a neighboring
commercial building on the east. As this is an addition to an existing monopole, the location cannot be
adjusted to improve screening.
There is one other monopole visible from this location, located on the neighboring block to the west at
approximately 57 E 700 South. As such, no detrimental concentration of monopoles or lattice towers
exists that would impact adjoining properties.
The proposed tower addition and antennas are located on an existing monopole on a commercial
property and is located within an area that is dominated by commercial uses. The monopole does not
abut any low density residential properties that may be impacted by the proposed equipment or height.
The Central Community Master Plan is silent on matters related to wireless telecommunication
equipment.
Finding: Staff finds that the proposed monopole addition and associated antennas comply with the
applicable master plans and Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance standards. The proposed use is compatible
with the surrounding uses at this location. As per section B below, there are no anticipated detrimental
effects from the proposed use.
B. Detrimental Effects Determination: In analyzing the anticipated detrimental effects of a proposed use,
the planning commission, or in the case of administrative conditional uses, the planning director or
designee, shall determine compliance with each of the following:
1. This title specifically authorizes the use where it is located;
2. The use is consistent with applicable policies set forth in adopted citywide, community, and small
area master plans and future land use maps;
3. The use is well suited to the character of the site, and adjacent uses as shown by an analysis of the
intensity, size, and scale of the use compared to existing uses in the surrounding area;
4. The mass, scale, style, design, and architectural detailing of the surrounding structures as they relate
to the proposed have been considered;
5. Access points and driveways are designed to minimize grading of natural topography, direct
vehicular traffic onto major streets, and not impede traffic flows;
PLNPCM2012-00458 American Tower Monopole Addition Published Date: 9/5/2012
5
6. The internal circulation system is designed to mitigate adverse impacts on adjacent property from
motorized, nonmotorized, and pedestrian traffic;
7. The site is designed to enable access and circulation for pedestrian and bicycles;
8. Access to the site does not unreasonably impact the service level of any abutting or adjacent street;
9. The location and design of off street parking complies with applicable standards of this code;
10. Utility capacity is sufficient to support the use at normal service levels;
11. The use is appropriately screened, buffered, or separated from adjoining dissimilar uses to mitigate
potential use conflicts;
12. The use meets city sustainability plans, does not significantly impact the quality of surrounding air
and water, encroach into a river or stream, or introduce any hazard or environmental damage to any
adjacent property, including cigarette smoke;
13. The hours of operation and delivery of the use are compatible with surrounding uses;
14. Signs and lighting are compatible with, and do not negatively impact surrounding uses; and
15. The proposed use does not undermine preservation of historic resources and structures.
Analysis: The monopole is located in the rear of the property at the southeast corner. The existing
monopole at this location meets the location requirements for a monopole in the D-2 zone. The proposed
electrical equipment is also located in the same location within an existing fenced equipment lease area
and is permitted.
The uses at this site and the surrounding properties are predominantly commercial and the proposal does
not change the character of the site. The monopole does not impact the existing site configuration and
does not have any impact on the above considerations relating to vehicles. The proposal also does not
impact utilities or have any significant environmental impacts.
The use is not located in a historic district, nor is the property considered a landmark or contributing site.
Finding: Staff finds that the proposed conditional use is not associated with any detrimental effects that
require mitigation with conditions.
C. Conditions Imposed: The planning commission, or in the case of administrative conditional uses, the
planning director or the director's designee, may impose on a conditional use any conditions necessary
to address the foregoing factors which may include, but are not limited to:
1. Conditions on the scope of the use; its character, location, hours and methods of operation,
architecture, signage, construction, landscaping, access, loading and parking, sanitation, drainage and
utilities, fencing and screening, and setbacks; and
2. Conditions needed to mitigate any natural hazards; assure public safety; address environmental
impacts; and mitigate dust, fumes, smoke, odor, noise, vibrations; chemicals, toxins, pathogens, gases,
PLNPCM2012-00458 American Tower Monopole Addition Published Date: 9/5/2012
6
heat, light, and radiation.
Analysis: As discussed in section B, this proposal does not appear to pose any detrimental effects to
surrounding properties.
Finding: Staff finds that no conditions are necessary to reduce any detrimental effects on surrounding
properties.
D. Denial Of Conditional Use: A proposed conditional use shall be denied if:
1. The proposed use is unlawful; or
2. The reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed conditional use cannot be substantially
mitigated as proposed in the conditional use application or by the imposition of reasonable conditions to
achieve compliance with applicable standards set forth in this section.
Analysis: No legal issues have been identified with additional height for the monopole or the proposed
antennas at this location. No detrimental effects have been identified that require mitigation measures.
Finding: Staff finds that the proposed use is lawful and any detrimental effects can be mitigated with
reasonable conditions.
PLNPCM2012-00458 American Tower Monopole Addition Published Date: 9/5/2012
7
ATTACHMENT A
Site Plan & Elevation Drawings
PLNPCM2012-00458 American Tower Monopole Addition Published Date: 9/5/2012
8
ATTACHMENT B
Department Comments
PLNPCM2012-00458 American Tower Monopole Addition Published Date: 9/5/2012
9
PLNPCM2012-00458
Additional Height for Monopole Conditional Use
Department Comments
Public Utilities
The project does not impact the city's public utilities. We have no objection to the proposal.
Zoning
No comments.
Building
No comments.
Engineering
No objections.
Transportation The division of transportation review comments and recommendations are as follows:
The proposed equipment installation within the existing fenced service area presents no impact to the required
vehicular parking or circulation for this site.
Sincerely,
Barry Walsh