Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplication Completeness ReviewA.M Planning May 30, 2014 Todd Fiebig, Project Manager New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC 19801 SW 72nd Avenue Tualatin, OR 97062 Subject: Completeness Review for New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Ministries (CU 14-3) Dear Todd: I am writing in response to your Conditional Use Permit application for a new wireless telecommunication facility on behalf of New Cingular Wireless, PCS, LLC (AT&T) and the property owner. As referenced above, the City has assigned a file name and number (CU 14-3). We have already received public testimony about the current name of the church being "Crossfire" rather than "Calvary." While Cavalry Church still appears to be the current owner of the property, we have revised the application name to clearly reference Crossfire Ministries. Please update your application materials accordingly, throughout.. As indicated in the enclosed materials, there are several other additional pieces of information needed before we schedule a public hearing and start the public notice and review process. The first step of the application process is "Completeness Review" to determine whether we have enough information to evaluate the approval criteria and standards. Enclosed is information about the Completeness Review process, including a form for you to complete and return to me, about how you would like to proceed (entitled "Incomplete Land Use Application - 180 Day Completeness Review Process"). We have not completed a full evaluation of the application materials. Completeness Review is a process by which we outline the minimum expectations of an applicant with regard to evidence and written text that articulates that evidence to the approval criteria. At this point, the evidence and narrative are insufficient. Even if you are able to produce the evidence and narrative as expected, this does not guarantee a favorable outcome, as we have serious concerns about this project being viable underthe applicable approval criteria and standards. Before proceeding with collecting additional information, I would like to discuss potential alternatives. Let.me know if you have any questions. City of Eugene • 99 W. 10th Ave. • Eugene, OR 97401 • 541-682-5481 • 541-682-5572 Fax www.eugene-or.gov/planning Sincerely, Becky Taylor, Associate Planner becky.g.taylor@ci.eugene.or.us 541-682-5437 cc: Sharon Gretch, Ken Lyons 9-APINN" Planning Incomplete Land Use Application: 180 Day Completeness Review Process Please Complete and Return to: Eugene Planning Division Attn: Becky Taylor, Associate Planner File New Cingular Wireless - Crossfire Ministries (CU 14-3) 99 West 10`" Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 Completeness Review Step (Check ONE box) ❑ I intend to submit all of the missing or incomplete materials as identified by the City in completeness review. I understand that according to State law I have up to 180 days from the date the application was submitted to provide the missing or incomplete materials and that after that date, if I have not submitted the missing information, my application will be void. I also hereby agree to allow the City a reasonable period of time for a review and determination of completeness upon submittal of the missing or incomplete materials and the required number of copies. ❑ I intend to submit some, but not all, of the missing or incomplete materials as identified by the City in completeness review. I understand that according to State law I have up to 180 days from the date the application was submitted to provide the missing or incomplete materials that I intend to submit and that after that date, if I have not submitted the missing information, my application will be void. I also hereby agree to allow the City a reasonable period of time for a review and determination of completeness, upon submittal of the missing or incomplete materials and the required number of copies. The materials I do not intend to submit are those items I have listed on the lines below (attach additional sheets if necessary). ❑ I do not intend to submit any of the missing or incomplete materials as identified by the City in the completeness review. I understand that the City will proceed with review of the application materials previously submitted. I also understand that incomplete applications may not provide adequate evidence to demonstrate compliance with applicable criteria and standards. Please deem my application complete as of the date this form is received by the City of Eugene Planning Division. Printed Name of Applicant or Applicant's Representative Signature of Applicant or Applicant's Representative Date City of Eugene • 99 W. 10th Ave. • Eugene, OR 97401 • 541-682-5481 • 541-682-5572 Fax www.eugene-or.gov/planning Attachment A Completeness Review of Conditional Use Permit Criteria: Excerpt from City of Eugene Land Use Code, Chapter 9 The application materials for New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Ministries (CU 14-3) are lacking sufficient information to evaluate and determine compliance with the applicable Conditional Use Permit approval criteria at Eugene Code (EC) 9.8090. The code standard is provided in bold with staff concerns identified under each. EC 9.8090(1): The proposal is consistent with applicable provisions of the Metro Plan and applicable refinement plans. The written statement does not identify the Metro Plan land use diagram designation, which is low-density residential. As such, the Metro Plan Residential Land Use policies should be reviewed with an explanation to determine applicability. More information also appears necessary to show compliance with Policy E:4 of the Metro Plan, in light of recent case law established in Northgreen Properties v. City of Eugene. Staff advises the applicant to closely review that recent case history for the type of findings and evidence that is necessary to demonstrate that the facility is "designed and located in a manner that preserves and enhances desirable features of the local and neighborhood areas and promotes their sense of identity." EC 9.8090(2): The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposal are reasonably compatible with and have minimal impact on the livability or appropriate development of surrounding property, as they relate to the following factors: (a) The proposed building(s) mass and scale are physically suitable for the type and density of use being proposed. The written statement needs to better articulate compliance with this criterion with supporting evidence. The conclusive statement without supporting evidence and findings are insufficient. The statement says the monopine is designed to look like other evergreen trees in the immediate area, but the photos show few evergreen trees in close proximity. The statement also concludes that the ancillary equipment shed will look like an extension of the chapel. This needs to be illustrated and better explained as to how it fits within the area in terms of mass and scale and impact on the surroundings. The applicant should also consider the possibility that a variance may not be granted to allow above ground ancillary facilities, and provide for alternative designs (e.g. underground or fully enclosed with additional sound buffering) as a contingency or means to better address the approval criteria. (b) The proposed structures, parking lots, outdoor use areas or other site improvements which could cause substantial off-site impacts such as noise, glare and odors are oriented away from nearby residential uses and/or are adequately mitigated through other design techniques, such as screening and increased setbacks. Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Church (CU 14-3) Page 1 of 3 Attachment A Screening is not addressed at all in the written statement or adequately shown on the plans. The expectation on screening has been clarified in other cases which the applicant should review for a better understanding of what is required. Noise -The evidence about noise levels casts doubt regarding compliance. Glare - Lighting is not discussed (i.e. around the equipment area). Visual Impacts -The photo simulations show significant visual impacts, which are not adequately addressed in the written statement or otherwise addressed within the application materials. Staff believes that the applicant would needs to undertake extensive work to better represent the visual impact of the tower with more sophisticated and accurate photo simulations, and from a variety of additional viewpoints (e.g. views from nearby homes). Even then, it may be that a different design or location would be appropriate under these approval criteria. Setbacks - While the application mentions that the proposed tower is located at least 75 feet from property lines in response to the telecommunication standards elsewhere in the application, the materials do not sufficiently address this related criterion. At a minimum, the application should include exact measurements from all adjacent property lines as well as nearby residences, and better explain the choice for siting the proposed tower and ancillary equipment in context with this standard. EC 9.8090(3): The location, design, and related features of the proposal provides a convenient and functional living, working, shopping or civic environment, and is as attractive as the nature of the use and its location and setting warrant. The "as attractive as the nature of the use and its location and setting warrant" requirement is not addressed. Staff is concerned that this particular stealth design may not respond appropriately to the setting and recommends that the applicant evaluate alternatives or additional comparative analysis to better show that the proposed design fits the setting. EC 9.8090(4): The proposal demonstrates adequate and safe circulation exists... Instead of just saying "no impact," that applicant must explain the existing conditions and how access to the equipment will be provided. EC 9.8090(5): The proposal is designed and sited to minimize impacts to the natural environment by addressing the following... The statement does indicate that the property is not on the City's acknowledged Goal 5 inventory. It just says that the project will have minimal impact on the environment. Describe the on-site vegetation; confirm that there are no rare plants or species, or other features that require review under this criterion. Discuss trees on the property as required by this criterion; to the extent that existing trees may need to be preserved in order to assist with the compatibility of the proposed design, the applicant needs to address the preservation standards. Staff recommends that the applicant obtain the services of a licensed arborist or landscape architect to provide an evaluation Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Church (CU 14-3) Page 2 of 3 Attachment A of the size, species, health and condition of existing trees and recommendations for ensuring protection over time. The site plans and elevations should also be revised to clearly depict the size, location and species of the existing trees in relation to the proposed tower. EC 9.8090(6): The proposal provides adequate public facilities and services including, but not limited to utilities, streets, and other infrastructure. The statement assumes that no new services are necessary. The applicant needs to address whether impervious surfaces be added or replaced; and if so, how stormwater runoff will be managed in compliance with applicable standards for stormwater management. EC 9.8090(7): The proposal does not create any significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to soil erosion and flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency response. Public health and safety is primarily addressed in the Telecommunication Standards, but this criterion also talks about soil erosion, flood hazard, and emergency response, which is not addressed in the written statement. EC 9.8090(8): The proposal complies with all applicable standards, including but not limited to... Many of the standards referenced under this criterion appear to be inapplicable, but the written statement should respond to each to confirm applicability. For access, confirm the frequency of vehicle access to the equipment area. For stormwater, identify any added/replaced impervious surfaces. Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Church (CU 14-3) . Page 3 of 3 Attachment B Completeness Review of Telecommunications Standards: Excerpt from City of Eugene Land Use Code, Chapter 9 The application materials for New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Church (CU 14-3) are lacking sufficient information to evaluate and determine compliance with the applicable telecommunication standards at Eugene Code (EC) 9.5750. The code standard is provided in bold with staff concerns identified under each. 9.5750 Telecommunication Devices-Siting Reauirements and Procedures. (1) Purpose. The provisions of this section are intended to ensure that telecommunication facilities are located, installed, maintained and removed in a manner that: (a) Minimizes the number of transmission towers throughout the community; (b) Encourages the collocation of telecommunication facilities; (c) Encourages the use of existing buildings, light or utility poles or water towers as opposed to construction of new telecommunication towers; (d) Recognizes the need of telecommunication providers to build out their systems over time; and (e) Ensures that all telecommunication facilities, including towers, antennas, and ancillary facilities are located and designed to minimize the visual impact on the immediate surroundings and throughout the community, and minimize public inconvenience and disruption. Nothing in this section shall apply to amateur radio antennas, or facilities used exclusively for the transmission of television and radio signals. While purpose statements are not directly applicable as approval standards, it would be helpful for context to have the applicant respond to these. In particular, staff is still concerned that the applicant may not have exhausted other collocation alternatives. Page 4 of the applicant's written statement has minimal discussion and raises questions or makes comments like "due to zoning ordinances prohibiting the location" as a reason for not considering light and utility poles. Staff would like to get more information and discuss the applicant's efforts to collocate in the area before entirely ruling out alternatives. Consistent with the City's telecom ordinance, collocation is certainly preferable to a new tower when possible. (6) Application Requirements. (b) Construction of Transmission Tower. In addition to standard required application material, an applicant for a transmission tower shall submit the following information; additional application material is required, as specified in paragraph (c) below, for applications requiring a site review or conditional use process: 1. A description of the proposed tower location, design and height. Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Ministries (CU 14-3) Page 1 of 10 Attachment B The location is shown on the site plans (Sheet SV1). Elevations are shown (SheetA-3.0), but distance from grade to lowest branches is missing. Please provide this information. Also, dimension the adjacent building to provide a clearer determination of scale. Additional measurements including setbacks from all property lines and homes, and the relationship of the tower to existing trees on the site should also be provided on the site plans and elevations. Plan note says "Antennas to be painted green to match monopine." Please provide paint color samples for the pole and faux branches, and discuss the color choice in context with the surroundings. The design is required to reasonably blend in with the surroundings and the photo simulation "View from Amazon Drive" shows that the tower will be about the same height and shape as the nearby fir tree. Since that tree appears to be on the same property, staff requests that the applicant gather actual samples of the branches and bark and compare that to the proposed tower; also, submit a sample of the tower (as an oversized exhibit), which was provided by AT&T on another case. Provide as much comparative information as possible, like the height of that tree compared to the tower and the distance between the two. The tower seems to really stick out in the photo simulation entitled "Intersection of Amazon Drive and Fox Hollow Road." The tower sticks out amongst the shorter, deciduous trees along the street. Is there room to plant more fir trees in that area to create an atmosphere that softens the bulk and scale of the tower? The arborvitae proposed around the fence enclosing the ancillary facilities seem to only emphasize the monotony; would another plant mix with a variety of species help create a better blending effect? The applicant should consider additional screening that may be needed beyond the perimeter of the tower and equipment, depending on visual impacts from nearby homes and other strategic locations along the property lines that would help to buffer the facility. The photo simulation entitled "View NE from Dillard and Fox Hollow" shows the top of the tower branches rising above the tree-lined ridge line. Conversely, there's a power pole in the area that appears to be taller. It may be helpful to put those two features into perspective with the tower- being a utility. Is there any way to vary the branch alignment to more closely resemble the tree canopy on the horizon? Again, the application needs to better address the proposed design in context with surrounding features. 2. The general capacity of the tower in terms of the number and type of antennas it is designed to accommodate. The explanation to this standard (page 8 of the applicant's written statement) appears to only discuss carriers, not the number and type of antennas. Please provide more information about the full extent of collocation and what those visual impacts might be with the maximum amount of collocated antennas. 3. Documentation demonstrating compliance with non-ionizing Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Ministries (CU 14-3) Page 2 of 10 Attachment B electromagnetic radiation (VIER) emissions standards as set forth by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Submitted report from Hatfield & Dawson, Consulting Electrical Engineers. 4. A signed agreement; as supplied by the city, stating that the applicant will allow collocation with other users, provided all safety, structural, and technological requirements are met. This agreement shall also state that any future owners or operators will allow collocation on the tower. Applicant states that they will sign an agreement if supplied by the City. 5. Documentation that the ancillary facilities will not produce sound levels in excess of those standards specified in subsection (7) of this section, or designs showing how the sound is to be effectively muffled and reduced pursuant to those standards. The applicant submitted a report prepared by SAA Acoustics. It implies that the greatest sound generator is from the air-conditioning unit. Are there other devices, like a generator? On another case, the generator was the greatest sound producer. The noise level provided is 73 dBA, which exceeds the 45 dBA code limitation. The factors for "predicting" noise level reductions were just the building edge and distance. Even with those factors, the dBA is only reduced to the maximum allowable. It seems like more sound mitigation is necessary. For example, how much sound reduction would occur if the equipment were enclosed in a building or installed underground? As noted.previously, it is unclear whether the requested underground variance would be granted without more information to justify the request, particularly related to noise and visual impacts in a residential area. In any event, it seems critical to have comparative evidence about the effects of undergrounding. For.example, would undergrounding require other noise generating equipment like an elevator? This would also need to be measured and addressed in the event that undergrounding may be required; alternatively, the applicant should consider an underground vault design that does not require additional sound generating equipment, or provide additional sound buffering as necessary. In another recent case (AT&T at Oakway Golf Course, a.k.a. Northgreen Properties v. City of Eugene the variance for undergrounding ancillary facilities was denied; as such, the applicant was required to submit a revised noise study to demonstrate compliance without the variance. Assuming that could happen in this case, please provide noise studies under both scenarios. That could be definitive evidence about the basis for a variance. 6. A landscape plan drawn to scale showing proposed and existing landscaping, including type, spacing, size and irrigation methods. Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Ministries (CU 14-3) Page 3 of 10 Attachment B The proposed landscaping around the tower is shown, but it does not appear adequate to meet the screening requirements. The landscape of the surroundings needs better illustration, particularly if this tree design is intended to blend in with surroundings, which would typically mean other trees. Is there a more vegetated portion of the site that would be a better location? 7. Plans showing the connection to utilities/right-of-way cuts required, ownership of utilities and easements required. Shown 8. Documents demonstrating that necessary easements have been obtained; Applicant states that easements will be included in the lease of the property. 9. Plans showing how vehicle access will be provided; Shown 10. Signature of the property owner(s) on the application form or a statement from the property owner(s) granting authorization to proceed with development permit and land use processes; The property owner has signed the application form. 11. Documents demonstrating that the FAA has reviewed and approved the proposal, and Oregon Department of Aviation has reviewed the proposal. Alternatively, when a site review or conditional use process is required, submit a statement documenting that notice of the proposal has been submitted to the FAA and Oregon Department of Aviation. The site review or conditional use process may proceed and approval may be granted for the proposal as submitted, subject to FAA approval. If FAA approval requires any changes to the proposal as initially approved, then that initial approval shall be void. A new application will need to be submitted, reviewed and approved through an additional site review or conditional use process. No development permit application shall be submitted without documents demonstrating FAA review and approval and Oregon Department of Aviation review. A letter from the Oregon Department of Aviation dated January 24, 2014 confirms that an aeronautical study resulted in the determination that notice to the FAA is not required and that Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Ministries (CU 14-3) Page 4 of 10 Attachment B no marking or lighting are necessary for aviation safety. (c) Site Review and Conditional Use Permit Applications. In addition to the application requirements specified in paragraph (b) above, applications for site review or conditional use permits also shall include the following information: 1. A visual study containing, at a minimum, a graphic simulation showing the appearance of the proposed-tower, antennas, and ancillary facilities from at least 5 points within a 3 mile radius. Such points shall be chosen by the provider with review and approval by the planning director to ensure that various potential views are represented. The initial visual study provided is insufficient. The photo simulations provided cast serious doubt about compatibility with the surroundings. The quality is poor, looking more artificial and even "cartoonish" than an actual, accurate representation. The number of photos and locations is also deficient. The applicant needs to provide more extensive analysis of the visual impact from nearby homes and other potential viewpoints in the area. In addition to photo simulations of the tree design, that applicant should also consider including scenarios for an alternate stealth design such as a monopole with enclosed antennas. Elevations should also be verified with balloon testing as well, to provide a more credible photo simulation and analysis. 2. Documentation that alternative sites within a radius of at least 2000 feet have been considered and have been determined to be technologically unfeasible or unavailable. For site reviews, alternative sites zoned C-4,1-1,1-2, and 1-3 must be considered. For conditional use permits, alternative sites zoned PL, C-2, C-3, C-4,1-1,1-2,1-3 and S-WS must be considered. Does the table provided on pages 10 and 11 of the applicant's statement include all sites zoned PL, C-2, or C-2 within 2,000 feet? 3. Evidence demonstrating collocation is impractical on existing tall buildings, light or utility poles, water towers, existing transmission towers, and existing tower facility sites for reasons of structural support capabilities, safety, available space, or failing to meet service coverage area needs. The reference to utility pole height "guidelines" is not an absolute barrier. This should be investigated further. 4. A current overall system plan for the city, showing facilities presently constructed or approved and future expansion plans. Provided Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Ministries (CU 14-3) Page 5 of 10 Attachment B 5. A statement providing the reasons for the location, design and height of the proposed tower or antennas. Provided (7) Standards for Transmission Towers and Antennas. Installation, construction or modification of all transmission towers and antennas shall comply with the following standards, unless a variance is obtained pursuant to the provisions of subsection (9) of this section: (a) Separation Between Transmission Towers. No transmission tower may be constructed within 2000 feet of any pre-existing transmission tower. Tower separation shall be measured by following a straight line from the portion of the base of the proposed tower which is closest to the base of any pre-existing tower. For purposes of this paragraph, a tower shall include any transmission tower for which the city has issued a development permit, or for which an application has been filed and not denied. Transmission towers constructed or approved prior to February 26, 1997 may be modified to accommodate additional providers consistent with provisions for collocation in this section. Applicant confirms no towers within 2,000 feet. (b) Height Limitation: Transmission tower heights shall be governed by this section except as provided for below. No transmission tower shall exceed the maximum heights provided below. In no case shall a variance be granted from the limitations of subparagraphs (1) through (4) below. 5. If located within an R-1 zone, the maximum height of a transmission tower, including antennas, is 75 feet, unless a variance is granted pursuant to the provisions of subsection (9) of this section. In no event shall a variance be granted to construct such a tower in excess of 100 feet. Proposed height is 75 feet. (c) Collocation. New transmission towers shall be designed to accommodate collocation of additional providers: 2. New transmission towers of a height of at least 60 feet and no more than 80 feet shall be designed to accommodate collocation of a minimum of 1 additional provider either outright or through future modification to the tower. Applicant confirms that the tower can accommodate 2 additional providers. Please provide Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Ministries (CU 14-3) Page 6 of 10 Attachment B additional information as noted above about visual impacts with the maximum amount of collocated antennas and related equipment. (d) Setback. The following setbacks from adjacent property lines and adjacent streets shall be required unless a variance is granted pursuant to the provisions of subsection (9) of this section: 2. If located within an R-1, C-1, or GO zone, the transmission tower shall be set back from adjacent property lines a minimum number of feet that is equal to the height of the transmission tower. 3. In the R-1, PL, C-1 and GO zones, transmission towers shall be set back from adjacent public street(s) a minimum number of feet that is equal to the height of the tower. In all other zones, the setback from adjacent public streets shall be a minimum of 25 feet. Sheet A-1.0 clearly shows the tower set back 75 feet from the street, but the distance to property lines needs to be called out. The dashed "tower setback" line doesn't appear to be to the same scale to the rear property line. (e) Buffering. In all zones, existing vegetation shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. In the C-4,1-1,1-2 and 1-3 zones, no buffering is required beyond that required by this land use code. In all other zones, landscaping shall be placed completely around the transmission tower and ancillary facilities located at ground level except as required to access the facility. Such landscaping shall consist of evergreen vegetation with a minimum planted height of 6 feet placed densely so as to form a screen. Landscaping shall be compatible with other nearby landscaping and shall be kept healthy and well maintained. Arborvitae hedges surround the facility, but as noted above, about compatibility with surroundings, more and different landscaping may be necessary. (f) Noise Reduction. In R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, C-1,' and GO and in all other zones when the adjacent property is zoned for residential use or occupied by a dwelling, hospital, school, library, or nursing home, noise generating equipment shall be sound-buffered by means of baffling, barriers, or other suitable means to reduce sound level measured at the property line to 45dBa. The noise analysis doesn't include any other sound-buffering means, like baffling, other than distance. And at that, it's just at the limit and based on a prediction. This evidence would be weak under opposing evidence, of which we've seen plenty of from this neighborhood. See Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Ministries (CU 14-3) Page 7 of 10 Attachment B previous comments about the need for additional information, analysis, and sound buffering alternatives. (g) Status of Location. No permit may be issued for the location of a new telecommunications facility within an R-1 or C-1 zone unless the lot on which it is to be placed is vacant or developed with a non-residential use at the time the permit application is submitted. This restriction does not apply within other zones. The R-1 property is developed with a church. Are there any residential uses on the site? (h) Lighting. No lighting shall be permitted on transmission towers except that required by the Federal Aviation Administration. No high intensity white lights may be located on transmission towers in an R-1, C-1, or PRO zone. Clarify lighting. So the tower won't be lit, but what about the equipment area? (i) Color. The transmission tower and attached antennas shall be unpainted galvanized steel or painted neutral colors or such shades as are appropriate and compatible with the surrounding environment, as approved by the city. This standard was developed for a reason. It would be helpful to provide photo simulations of a tower that meets this standard to determine whether the "stealth" design is any better. (j) Viewshed. The transmission tower shall be located down slope from the top of a ridgeline so that when viewed from any point along the northern right-of-way line of 18th Avenue, the tower does not interrupt the profile of the ridgeline or Spencer Butte. In addition, a transmission tower shall not interrupt the profile of Spencer Butte when viewed from any location in Amazon Park. Visual impacts to prominent views of Skinner Butte, Judkins Point, and Gillespie Butte shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible. Approval for location of a transmission tower in a prominent view of these Buttes shall be given only if location of the transmission tower on an alternative site is not possible as documented by application materials submitted by the applicant, and the transmission tower is limited in height to the minimum height necessary to provide the approximate coverage the tower is intended to provide. The proposed tower doesn't appear to be within these view sheds. (k) Display. No signs, striping, graphics or other attention getting devices Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Ministries (CU 14-3) Page 8 of 10 Attachment B are permitted on the transmission tower or ancillary facilities except for warning and safety signage with a surface area of no more than 3 square feet. Such signage shall be affixed to a fence or ancillary facility and the number of signs is limited to no more than 2. Applicant states there will be none. (8) Standards for Ancillary Facilities. All ancillary facilities shall comply with the standards of subsections (7)(e) and (7)(f) of this section. In addition, all ancillary facilities within an R-1, PL, C-1, GO, and PRO zone must be located underground to the maximum extent technology allows, unless a variance is obtained pursuant to the provisions of subsection (9) of this section. This. restriction does not apply within other zones. As noted previously, the ability to obtain a variance is questionable. In response to the standard above, provide information about the technological feasibility of undergrounding and consider proposing it an alternative design (along with a noise study that addresses an underground design) in the event that a variance is denied. (9) Variance. (c) The city may grant a variance to the setback and undergrounding requirements of subsections (7)(d) or (8) upon finding that stealth design, proposed landscaping, configuration of the site, or the presence of mature trees obviates the need for compliance. The requested variance for not undergrounding the ancillary facilities is not sufficiently supported by the application materials. Please refer to the case involving the Oakway Golf course, in which the variance was denied (City file numbers PDT 10-2 and CU 11-1). (10) Removal of Facilities. (a) All transmission towers and antennas shall be removed by the person who constructed the facility, by the person who operates the facility, or by the property owner, within 6 months of the time that the facilities have ceased being used to transmit, receive or relay voice and data signals to or from wireless communication devices. The city manager may grant a 6-month extension where a written request has been filed, within the initial 6-month period, to reuse the tower or antennas. (b) If a transmission tower is located within an R-1, PL, C-1 or GO zone, the provisions of subparagraph (a) also shall apply to the tower substructure and all above ground ancillary facilities. (c) The city may require the posting of an open ended bond before development permit issuance to insure removal of the transmission tower, substructure or antennas after the facility no longer is being Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Ministries (CU 14-3) Page 9 of 10 Attachment B used. The written statement did not provide a response to this standard. (11) Application Review and Fees. The city manager shall retain one or more consultants to verify the accuracy of statements made in connection with an application for a building or land use permit for a telecommunications facility. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the city manager shall require the applicant to pay, as part of the application fees, an amount sufficient to recover all of the city's costs in retaining the consultant(s). Third-party review of the application will be required. The applicant will be required to pay an initial deposit to cover the expense, and additional fees may be required. Staff will provide more information on the required third-party review when revised application materials are submitted in response to this completeness review. Completeness Review: New Cingular Wireless Crossfire Ministries (CU 14-3) Page 10 of 10