Columbus Consolidated Government

---

TO: Mayor and Councilors

Date: 12/18/2007 12:00:00 AM

TO: Mayor and Councilors

Date:

Created:

12/7/2007 3:46:00 PM

THRU: Isaiah Hugley, City Manager

FROM: Rick Jones, AICP, Planning Director

Subject: Wireless Communication Tower at 2300 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard

---

---

No attachments for this document.

On October 5, 2007 Southeast Towers, LLC submitted plans to the Inspections and

Code

Department for a building permit to construct what they considered a

?concealed? tower structure. The proposed structure was presented as a light

pole, or candelabra, design. The proposed height of the structure was 195 feet

tall. The building official, upon concurrence by the Planning Department,

denied the permit because the plans depicted what appeared to be a monopole

rather than a concealed structure and also on the basis that a 195 feet tall

pole could not be concealed. Monopole towers require a Special Exception Use

approval.



Southeast Towers, LLC subsequently filed an application for a Special Exception

Use for a monopole on November 5, 2007. A week later, on November 13, 2007,

they filed an appeal request with the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) in response

to the denial of the building permit. Their appeal challenged the

interpretation of the definition of ?concealed support structure.? The UDO

definition reads:



Concealed support structure means any freestanding structure constructed for

the primary purpose of supporting one or more antennae but designed to resemble

an architectural or natural feature of the specific environment, concealing or

camouflaging the presence of the antennae. The term includes but is not limited

to clock towers, campaniles, water towers, silos, light poles, flagpoles, and

artificial trees.



The BZA, against the Planning Department?s recommendations, approved the appeal

and found that Southeast Tower?s design for a concealed structure was

consistent with the UDO?s definition of a concealed support structure. This

decision is disappointing, as staff had made a good faith effort to work with

the applicant to develop a tower site that would be of the best interest to the

community.



The applicant had been encouraged to file for a Special Exception Use that

would have allowed a more conventional monopole structure, while protecting the

interest of the surrounding property owners. On December 5, 2007 at 9:00 AM,

the Planning Advisory Commission heard the applicant?s request, and had

recommended approval of the Special Exception Use request for a monopole at the

aforementioned address. The decision of the BZA renders the Special Exception

Use request moot.