Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07RESOLUTIONN0.2000- 07 GAS: 2/16/00 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-29, WHICH SOUGHT TO REPLACE AN EXISTING SCREENED 35 FOOT CELLULAR MONOPOLE WITH AN UN5CREENED 60 FOOT CELLULAR MONOPOLE LOCATED AT 1234 SOUTH MAIN STREET WHEREAS, Santa Ana Municipal Code Section 41-198.3(b) requires a conditional use permit for major wireless facilities in the City; and WHEREAS, this Commission held a public hearing on March 13, 2000, on Conditional Use Permit No. 99-29, to replace an existing screened 35 foot cellular monopole with an unscreened 60 foot cellular monopole located at 1234 South Main Street. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: 1. Based upon the evidence submitted at the abovesaid hearing this Commission finds and determines as follows: • A. Will the proposed use provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or the community. The cellular facility will provide a service which will contribute to the well being of the community, however, issuance of a CUP to increase the height of the antenna to 60 feet, without providing a contextual setting to minimize the monopole's aesthetic impacts, will seriously detract from the well being of the neighborhood. Generally, two live palm trees are installed for a contextual setting so the neighborhood and community is not impacted by the unmitigated visual blight created by the antenna. The applicant, Nextel, is not proposing to perform any required site improvements which staff has determined will mitigate impacts to the surrounding properties. Therefore, the project as proposed, will not contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood. B. Will the proposed use, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity. The Federal Communication Commission regulates the wireless telecommunication industry through the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Local jurisdictions are not permitted to address electrical magnetic emissions in • 1 considering land use issues and are not considered as a part of these findings. The Nextel lease site is located at the rear of the sub}ect property abutting a 15 foot wide alley that also abuts a residential development. The existing monopole is a stealth palm design, screened with a contextual setting created by two live palm trees approximately 20 and 25 feet in height. This height corresponds with other structures in the area, thereby creating a contextual setting that is less intrusive than the proposed unscreened height extension. The proposed monopalm will extend approximately 38 feet above surrounding buildings without the benefit of the screening provided by two (2) live palm trees of corresponding height, which were determined by staff, to establish a proportional contextual setting without being detrimental to the general welfare of those in the immediate vicinity. Without the screening, the use will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing and working in the area. C. Will the proposed use adversely affect the present economic development of property in the surrounding area. The economic viability of the surrounding properties, both commercial and residential, may be affected by the proposed unscreened 60 foot high monopalm and equipment facility. The building on site ranges in height from 15 feet at the lowest parapet to 22 feet at the skylight. Since the proposed project does not • include the screening provided by two (2) live palm trees that are proportional in height to the monopalm, the monopalm will be visible approximately 38 feet above the skyline. The lack of on site improvements and visual intrusion may impact the economic development of the surrounding area for those who will not live or develop near the aesthetic intrusion created by the use of this property. D. Will the proposed use comply with the regulations and conditions specified in this chapter for such use. The proposed monopole does not comply with the regulations or conditions for a Major Wireless Communication Facility Development criteria or guideline. The project does not meet the site selection or screening guidelines for major wireless facilities. The guidelines recommend a major wireless communication facility be a minimum of 140 feet from residential properties and the existing lease area is 15 feet from residential development. More importantly, this project does not comply with the screening criteria and guidelines to minimize aesthetic intrusion to the surrounding community.. Generally, this is achieved by proposing a stealth design in context with the surrounding architecture or developing a contextual setting for the stealth design. The applicant does not propose any screening or contextual setting to minimize the aesthetic intrusion created by this project. 2 . E. Will the proposed use adversely affect the general plan of the city or any specific plan applicable to the area of the proposed use. The proposed monopole is not consistent with the General Plan's Urban Design Element goal which is to improve the physical and aesthetic appearance of the City through development that is proportionally and aesthetically related to the district. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-29 is hereby denied, based upon the findings. ADOPTED this ~~ day of ,~~~ , 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Mondo, Verino, Solorio, and Cribb NOES: Commissioners None ABSENT: Commissioners Nalle, Domgfity, and Richarson ABSTENTIONS: Commissioners None ATTEST: Kenneth Adams ondo Planning Manager Ch ' erson Planning and Building Agency TO FORM: `Gary at Assistant Cit ttorney • 3