My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2018 01 11
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2018 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2018 01 11
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 1:27:49 PM
Creation date
7/9/2020 11:55:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
1/11/2018
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />Page 2of7 <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA <br />None. <br />NEW BUSINESS — PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS <br />363 Centennial Parkway Roof Mounted CMRS Special Review Use: A request for a <br />special review use to allow the construction of a rooftop mounted CRMS facility (SRU- <br />0106-2017.) <br />• Applicant and Representative: Sure -Site, LLC <br />• Owner: CV 363 Centennial Parkway, LLC <br />• Case Manager: Lisa Ritchie, Associate Planner <br />Brauneis asked for disclosures from the Commission. Seeing none, he invited staff to present. <br />Public notice published in the Boulder Daily Camera on December 24th, 2017. Posted in City <br />Hall, Public Library, Recreation Center, and the Courts and Police Building and mailed to <br />surrounding owners on December 22"d, 2017. <br />Ritchie stated that telecommunications are dealt with in Louisville Municipal Code 17.42. <br />Telecommunications are called Commercial Mobile Radio Service, or CMRS, in the code. Some <br />are mounted on the wall and some are mounted on the roof. 363 Centennial is a new roof - <br />mounted facility with 12 new panels and associated equipment, all mounted on the roof of the <br />existing building. Many of these types of applications are dealt with administratively, but this <br />application requires commission review because it requires two waivers. First, it exceeds the <br />maximum height allowed in the PCZD—C Zone District, which is 42 feet to top of roof -top <br />mechanical screening. The proposal is for 52'8". Second, it exceeds the 6-foot limit for panel <br />antennas above the parapet. The proposal is for 8'0". However, there will be no overall height <br />increases to the structure. <br />Ritchie stated that Commissioner Williams requested further information on the percentage of <br />roof coverage. The total roof area is 22,090 square feet, the existing enclosed area is 3,800 <br />square feet or 17.2% of the total roof area, and the proposed enclosed area is for 5,700 square <br />feet or 25.8% of the total area. The existing height is 52'8" and the proposed height is also <br />52'8". The antennae will not be visible from outside the addition, as they will be hidden behind <br />the screen. <br />Staff finds that the application complies with LMC 17.42, except for the overall height and the <br />height of panel antenna above the parapet. Staff finds that the application complies with section <br />17.28.110 of the PUD Height Waiver. It will not result in additional height on the building, the <br />new screening will match, is an appropriate scale, and is setback from the building edge, and <br />the proposal satisfies the intent of Chapter 17.42 by offering a higher level of communications <br />service to the city. <br />Staff recommends approval of Resolution 1, Series 2018 with the following condition: <br />1. Prior to the City Council public hearing, the applicant shall provide material samples <br />demonstrating the new enclosure material matches the color and texture of the existing <br />enclosure. <br />Moline asked why there was a need for a waiver if there was no additional height added to the <br />building. <br />Ritchie stated that LMC 17.42 required that either the underlying zoning or the zone itself be <br />used to determine height, whichever was stricter. Therefore the Commission had to review the <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.