Loading...
12-07-2010 - Appeal HearingConditional Use Permit No. 10-10Appl - Item No 14 Attach 3 (2).docP L A N N I N G C O M M I S S I O N R E S O L U T I O N N O. 10-5391 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10-10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 10-10 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Mike Blackwell for Clearwire LOCATION: 1030 E. Merced Avenue, Bethel Christian Fellowship Church WHEREAS, there was filed with this Commission, a verified application on the forms prescribed in Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow the installation of a 60-foot wireless telecommunications facility designed to resemble a cross on that certain property described as: Assessor's Parcel No. 8490-003-083, as listed in the records of the office of the Los Angeles County Assessor; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 24th day of August, 2010, conduct a duly advertised public hearing as prescribed by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did adopt Resolution No.10-5384 approving the application; and WHEREAS, on September 2nd, 2010 an appeal of the Planning Commission action was filed by Sayeed H. Arastu; and WHEREAS, the City Council did, on the 21st day of September, 2010, refer Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10 to the Planning Commission for further review of the location of the equipment enclosure and design of the wireless facility due to written statements from neighboring residents; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 12th day of October, 2010, review the proposed facility and determined to schedule a public hearing to consider rescinding the approval of Conditional Use Permit 10-10; and WHEREAS, on the 26th day of October, 2010 the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider rescinding the approval of the wireless telecommunications facility. Findings necessary for approval of a conditional use permit: a. That the proposed use at the particular location is necessary or desirable to provide a service or facility which will contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community. That such use will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and is so shaped as to accommodate said use, as well as all yards, spaces, walls, fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and any other features necessary to adjust said use to the land and uses in the neighborhood and make it compatible therewith. d. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and improvements to carry traffic generations typical of the proposed use and that street patterns of such a nature exist as to guarantee that such generations will not be channeled through residential areas on local residential streets. That the granting of such conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City, or any other adopted plan of the City. NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows: 1. Pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project is considered to be Categorically Exempt (Class 3, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) in that it consists of the installation of a wireless telecommunications facility. 2. On the basis of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, at the Planning Commission hearings held October 12, 2010 and October 26, 2010, the Planning Commission makes the following findings: a. The proposed monocross is out of proportion in height and scale to the Christian church buildings and is not designed to blend with the existing built surroundings. The proposed monocross is 60 feet in height with a cross member that is 27 feet in width. The existing church building is 25 feet in height and 28 feet in width. The proposed monocross is therefore not compatible with the existing building and the character of the community. b. The diameter of the tower is three feet, nine inches at the base and the diameter of the crossbar is three feet. The mass and height of the tower couple to result in a structure, which is obtrusive in relation to its surroundings. Testimony of several surrounding neighbors described the height and size of the proposed tower as an eyesore. c. Although the tower is intended to appear as a church cross, its size, height and mass overwhelm the adjacent church building, and it does not appear as a normal adjunct to the church building. The effort to disguise the cell tower as a part of the church setting is not successful. As currently designed the cell tower is obtrusive, aesthetically displeasing, and inconsistent with surrounding buildings and uses. d. Due to the inadequate effort to disguise or "stealth" the cell tower, it is reasonable to expect a devaluation of residential property values in the immediate vicinity of from two to twenty percent. e. The height, size and mass of the monocross create an adverse visual impact for persons and properties in the immediate neighborhood. f. The height, size and mass of the monocross create a risk of injury to surrounding properties and persons during seismic activity. Although the risk may not be great, the risk without the monocross or a smaller structure would be lessened. 3. The Planning Commission further determines that based on the above findings, the proposed monocross does not contribute to the general well being of the neighborhood or community. 4. The Planning Commission further determines that based on the above findings, the proposed monocross will be detrimental to the health, safety, peace or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity. 5. The Planning Commission further determines that based on the above findings, the proposed monocross will adversely affect the City General Plan policy to preserve the essential residential character of West Covina as a City of Beautiful Homes. 6. The Planning Commission further determines that based on the above findings, the proposed monocross will adversely affect the City General Plan policy to arrange land uses with regard to the health, safety, convenience, and welfare of the residents of the City. 7. The Planning Commission further determines that based on the above findings, the proposed monocross will adversely affect the City General Plan policy to provide and maintain, in conjunction with the open space element, an aesthetically pleasant environment for those who live, work, play and visit in West Covina. 8. That pursuant to all of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further based on the findings above, Conditional Use Permit No. 10-10 is denied subject to the provisions of the West Covina Municipal Code. I, HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina, at a regular meeting held on the 26th day of October, 2010 by the following votes: AYES: Redholtz, Carrico, Stewart, Holtz, Sotelo NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None DATE: October 26, 2010 Robert A. Sotelo, Chairman Planning Commission Jeff Anderson, AICP, Secretary Planning Commission