Approved - 4 to 0.

SBA Telecommunication Tower

Case: CUP-2022-266
Consider a request by SBA Network Services, LLC for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a 100' Concealed Cell Tower - Telecommunication Facility, Mono-pine on 12.4 acres in a CSR (Community Services and Recreation) zone district at 542 28 ¼ Road.
Register for the Webinar

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar.

Videos

Staff Presentation

Files

Development Application ( 20.57 MB )
Staff Report ( 0.16 MB )
Maps and Locations ( 1.18 MB )
Columbine Park Tower Photosims ( 1.92 MB )
Decision Making Criteria
Per Section 21.01.140 of the Zoning and Development Code, the Planning Commission and City Council shall base their decisions in consideration of the extent to which the applicant demonstrates the following criteria have been met:
(1)    Subsequent events have invalidated the original premises and findings; and/or
(2)    The character and/or condition of the area has changed such that the amendment is consistent with the Plan; and/or
(3)    Public and community facilities are adequate to serve the type and scope of land use proposed; and/or
(4)    An inadequate supply of suitably designated land is available in the community, as defined by the presiding body, to accommodate the proposed land use; and/or
(5)    The community or area, as defined by the presiding body, will derive benefits from the proposed amendment.

Comments & Feedback

Comments
 
This case is closed, online commenting is no longer available.
Online comments closed at 5:30 PM MDT 5/23/22.
I am very upset on this car being built so close to me I don't think that it should be built in the middle of Grand Junction in the middle of a neighborhood I have a lot of health issues that. I know that building this would add to the radiation levels. and. would give me more headaches and I don't think that would be a good for me as I have had brain surgery and I get a lot of headaches as it is. so please do not build this. thank you
May 23, 2022, 4:16 PM
vallen see Adair
2 / 9 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Phone-in comment
In reference to the public hearing on the CUP-20220266, why are you not going to just build on the tower that's already in the baseball field? Wouldn't that be better just a raise that tower up and either add onto and use that tower? Why are we making more ugly things in the park? That is our preference, thank you.
May 23, 2022, 11:23 AM
Mr. Sherman and Betty Sherman
5 / 9 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Phone-in comment
Columbine Park is not a good location for a new cell phone tower. Please find a different location which is not frequented by so many people and close to so many residential communities. In the staff report, you refer to the 2016 Wireless Master Plan, which states that the purpose of this plan included to “Encourage the location and co-location of equipment on existing structures in order to reduce the need for new towers, thereby minimizing visual clutter, public safety impacts, and effects upon the natural environment and wildlife; Accommodate the growing need and demand for telecommunications services while protecting the character of the City and its neighborhoods.” I feel that this proposed tower is directly in contradiction to the Master plan. It is building a new structure (even if it is encouraging co-location of equipment on it), and it is maximizing rather than minimizing public safety impacts by being placed across the street from an apartment complex where many families live, near an intersection that many pedestrians walk by, and next to a ball field that is frequented by many people. Despite the efforts to make the cell phone tower more sightly by concealing it within a monopine, this cell phone tower will be obviously different from the trees surrounding it. It will be an eyesore and will ruin the character of this neighborhood and decrease property value. I also take issue with the statement on the Development Application stating that “The proposed tower and compound were located in a portion of the park that is separated from higher use areas. The location suggested is next to existing trees that limit the use of the area.” I have often seen people enjoying the shade of the trees in this area, either just resting in the shade or using the shade to watch a ball game in the adjacent ballfield. Please do NOT approve this tower. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to voice my opinion.
May 22, 2022, 4:39 PM
Elizabeth High
5 / 9 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Hello, thank you for taking my comment into consideration. First, I must say that I am disappointed that Grand Junction is using its parks for building cell towers that profit private companies. I have seen cell towers across town, and no matter how they are disguised I find them unsightly. I greatly appreciate the beauty and open space of the Grand Junction City Parks, and am especially pleased every time I drive by orchard and 28 and a quarter Avenue. I love the open feel and the trees in the corner there. And my wife and I drive and walk by that spot often because we live on Columbine Park Court. I hope you don't Mar The View on that corner, no matter how you try to box it up and call it pretty. I know that I cannot legally challenged this cell tower because of an absurd law, but I would hope that, regardless, the City of Grand Junction is concerned about the health of its citizens. There has been very little research done about the effects of 5G cell towers, and there is some research that shows regular salt cell towers do tend to show negative health effects the closer one lives to them. Do we really want cell towers in our parks? I think not. Thank you for considering my viewpoint. Sincerely, Roy High Columbine Park Court, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501
May 22, 2022, 2:57 PM
Roy LaMont High
5 / 9 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Yes, I'm opposed to the cell tower proposed at 540 28th and 1/4 Road, Columbine Park. I think that that part is used by many children many different High School and college softball players. I think that it'll be directly facing the stands so when you sitting in the stands watching the game you will look right at the disgusting cell phone tower.
May 22, 2022, 10:26 AM
Corey Shewlik
5 / 9 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Phone-in comment
Safety of 5G has not been tested. The most recent restrictions and analysis of safety were done many years ago, before even 4G was released. There is a great deal of information out there that close proximity to these towers causes many serious health conditions. Putting it in a public park is heinous. Putting them ANYWHERE is foolish. I own property near there and don't want this tower.
May 21, 2022, 4:28 PM
Susan King
5 / 9 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
I live within a block of this proposed development in the Columbine Park Subdivision. My concerns are as follows: number one it looks as if this will be placed in the ball field. We don't have enough Ball Fields as it is. Number 2: Columbine Park is a heavily used park. How can I get the numbers on usage of this park? Hundreds of people of all ages use this park every day of the week. Number 3: this type of tower is not proven safe for those on the ground near the base of the tower. Number 4: A wide variety of Realtors Studies have shown that property values are reduced by 2 to 20% near a cell phone tower base, particularly those carrying 5G. Number 5: this could be placed at Emily Matchett Park, less than 1 mile to the north, why is this not considered? It could be isolated from surrounding homes in the 205-acre Park. This would not impact existing facilities that are heavily used. These concerns alone warrant additional study. How can I get answers? There is not enough information published on this proposed installation. I hope that this public comment period is more than just filling a requirement. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
May 20, 2022, 12:32 PM
Deborah Cahill
5 / 9 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
Phone-in comment
I live within a block of this proposed development in the Columbine Park subdivision. My concerns are as follows: 1) It looks as if this will be placed in the ballfield. We don't have enough ball fields as it is. 2) Columbine Park is a heavily used park, How can I get the numbers on usage? Hundreds of people of all ages use this park every day of the week. 3) This type of tower is not proven safe for those on the ground near the base of the tower. 4) A wide variety of realtor studies have shown that property values are reduced by 2-20% near a cell phone tower base, particularly those carrying 5G. 5) This could be placed at Emily Matchett Park, less than one mile to the north. Why is this not considered? It could be isolated from surrounding homes in the 205 acre park. This would not impact existing. facilities that are heavily used. These concerns alone warrant additional study. How can I get answers? There is not enough information published on this proposed installation. I hope that this public comment period is more than just filling a requirement. thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Debra Cahill
May 20, 2022, 12:26 PM
Debra Cahill
5 / 9 Planning Commissioners have viewed this comment
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Your Question has been submitted.