Loading...
Z-5522-B Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z -5522-B NAME: St. Mark's Church Revised POD LOCATION: Located at 1024 N. Mississippi Street DEVELOPER: Wooden, Fulton & Scarborough, PC c/o Verizon Wireless Communication 737 Market Street, Suite 620 Chattanooga, TN 37402 ENGINEER: Excel Communications, Inc. 6247 Amber Hills Road Birmingham, AL 35176 AREA: 14.9 acres CURRENT ZONING ALLOWED USES: PROPOSED ZONING: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT_ NEW STREET: 0 Church Facility and Commercial Catering Service '•1 PROPOSED USE: Church facility, a Commercial Catering Service and Cellular Tower PLANNING DISTRICT: CENSUS TRACT 3 —West Little Rock 21.01 VARIANCESIWAiVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On November 1, 2004, the Little Rock Board of Directors approved a rezoning request for this site to PD -O to allow the use of the existing church kitchen facilities as a catering commercial business. The Little Rock Planning Commission reviewed this request on October 7, 2004, and made a recommendation of approval of the request. The applicant proposed to rezone the existing church site to PD -O to allow a commercial catering company to operate from the existing church kitchen facilities. The applicant FILE NO.: Z -5522-B (Cont. indicated there would not be any exterior modifications to the structure and there would not be any activities on the site other than the preparation and cooking of the food. The applicant stated there would not be any consumption of food or pick-up service available on the premises. The applicant also indicated the days and hours of operation would be limited to normal business hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm daily with the exception of special events. The applicant indicated there would be no more than four employees of the business and no more than four vehicles parked on the site during operation. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant is proposing a revision to the current PD -O zoning to POD to allow the placement of a cellular tower on the site. Verizon Wireless Communications is proposing to lease a 75 -foot by 75 -foot site from St. Mark's Episcopal Church to place a 120 -foot monopole and communications facility. The applicant has indicated the monopole is a state of the art telecommunication tower that will create minimum intrusiveness into its surrounding neighborhood while providing critical telecommunication services to the residents of Little Rock. The applicant has indicated the successful construction and operation of the tower is critical to the completion of Verizon Wireless's network. The applicant has indicated Verizon Wireless has made every effort to find a suitable structure to locate or collocate its antennas upon. The applicant has indicated suitable structures have not been located that would allow for the completion of the Verizon Wireless's network. The applicant has provided staff with a letter of intent to allow collocation for proposed wireless telecommunication facilities when collocation at the tower site is commercially feasible and collocation is feasible within engineering parameters. The applicant's statement indicates the proposed tower has the capability of providing collocation for additional tenants. The application includes a statement from the Radio Frequency Engineer indicating the site's Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) for this installation is 890 watts or less. According to the applicant the current FCC rule (reference: Code of Federal regulations, Title 47 -Telecommunications, Chapter 1 Federal Communications Commission, Part 24 — Personal Communications Services, Subpart E- Broadband PCS, Section 24.232 — Power and antenna height limits) permits up to 1640 watts EIRP for this type of installation. The applicant has indicated the property is not subject to any Bill of Assurance filed with the Circuit Clerk's Office of Pulaski County. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site contains an existing church with several buildings and activities on the site. There are single-family uses located to the south and west of the site and 1 FILE NO.: Z -5522-B Cont' across Mississippi Avenue to the east. To the north of the site is also a church facility. Evergreen Street is located along the northern boundary, which has been constructed to Master Street Plan standard. Mississippi Avenue is located on the eastern boundary of the property and has also been constructed to Master Street Plan standard. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing staff has received several informational phone calls from area residents. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site and all residents located within 300 -feet of the site, who could be identified, were notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: Public Works Conditions: 1. Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer service not required for this project. Entergy: No comment received. Center-Point_E_ner : No comment received. SBC: No comment received. Central Arkansas Water: A license agreement will be required for installation of utilities and roadway across the existing raw water right-of-way. Detailed plans must be submitted to and approved by Central Arkansas Water. This right-of- way, which is owned in fee by Central Arkansas Water, should be shown on the plans. Care must be taken to protect existing raw water facilities in the vicinity of the proposed access road to this site. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Route #8 — Rodney Parham Bus Route. 3 FILE NO.: Z -5522-B Cont. F. 1SSU ES/TECHN I CAL/DES IGN: Planning Division: This request is located in the West Little Rock Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Public Institutional for this property. The applicant has applied for a revision to a POD to add a monopole cellular tower on the site. The request does not require a change to the Land Use Plan because the proposal does not have a significant impact on the Land Use Plan. Master Street Plan: Evergreen Street is shown as a Collector while Mississippi Street is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. Bicycle_Plan: There is a Class Three bike route path along Evergreen Street. That class only has special signage denoting the route. These routes use the existing vehicular area with no physical separation. Ci!y Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the area covered by the Midtown Neighborhood Action Plan. There are no objectives pertinent to this application. Landscape: Landscape and screening comply with Article XII. Wireless Communications Facilities of the Zoning Ordinance. G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (October 20, 2005) The applicant was present representing the request. Staff presented an overview of the proposed development indicating the request was for the placement of a 120 -foot cellular tower. Staff questioned if the developer was considering any measures to blend the tower into the landscape such as stealth technology and/or painting the tower. Staff noted the proposed landscaping plan was in full compliance with Article XII Wireless Communications Facilities of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff requested the applicant provide an overall site plan showing the location of the existing buildings and the proposed tower site. Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a grading permit would be required prior to development of the site. Staff noted comments from the various other reporting departments and agencies; suggesting the applicant contact them individually for further clarification. There was no further discussion of the item and the Committee then forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. 4 FILE NO.: Z -5522-B Cont: H. ANALYSIS: The applicant failed to respond to staff comments raised at the October 20, 2005, Subdivision Committee meeting. The applicant has not indicated if the tower will be painted to blend into the landscape or if the tower will be constructed utilizing stealth technology. In addition, the applicant has not provided staff with a requested overall site plan to provide the location of the existing buildings and the proposed tower site to tie down the proposed location of the tower. Staff is basing their recommendation on the original submission and is not supportive of the applicant's request. The original proposal did fully comply with the landscaping requirements as outlined in Article XII of the zoning ordinance. The applicant's original submission included the construction of a 120 -foot cellular tower with an antenna array extending from the tower and no special painting treatment. Staff feels the tower should be constructed to limit the visual impacts on the adjoining properties and to blend the tower construction into the landscape of the area. Staff feels by utilizing stealth technology and painting of the tower, the tower would blend better into the landscape and be an acceptable use for the site. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request, as filed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 10, 2005) The applicant requested the Commission defer his request to the December 1, 2005, public hearing. The applicant stated he needed additional time to meet with the neighbors and to better prepare his court reporter. There was a general discussion concerning the deferral request. A motion was made to waive the By-laws and allow the deferral request. The motion failed by a vote of 0 ayes, 8 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstain. The applicant was present representing the request. There were registered objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had addressed their concerns and staff was now supportive of the proposed request. Staff stated the applicant had agreed to construction of a flagpole type tower utilizing the stealth technology and provided staff with an updated site plan indicating the location of the tower outside an existing Central Arkansas Water Easement. Staff recommended approval of the request subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the agenda staff report. The applicant stated they had met with staff and tried to address staff's concerns. The applicant also stated the proposed tower met with all minimum ordinance requirements and if the site were not zoned PD -0 the review would have been a staff level review. The applicant stated the proposed tower location was critical to allow Verizon to 5 FILE NO.: Z -5522-B Cont. complete their tower network. The applicant stated the tower would be placed in the woods and the neighborhood would not notice the tower. The applicant indicated collocation was not an option since there was not a tower in the area that would serve their needs. Mr. Jay Wisener addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated his home was located at 7805 Evergreen Drive, two houses from the proposed tower site. He stated the neighborhood had been in place for 40 plus years and never had a commercial development encroached into the neighborhood. He stated he did not feel the proposed development was meeting the intent of the planned zoning district criteria. He stated the applicant had not provided staff with any documentation concerning collocation. He stated the only documentation provided was a letter from Verizon indicating there were not available towers in the area for collocation. He stated the neighborhood was a pristine - neighborhood and -did not need commercial development encroaching into the neighborhood. Ms. Paula Johnson addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated she had a petition with 129 signatures from residents who were opposed to the proposed tower location. She stated the tower was located at the entrance to the subdivision. She stated the neighborhood had fought to keep the area residential and they did not want commercial activity at the entrance to their subdivision. Mr. Charles Fogle addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. He stated the neighborhood was bound on Mississippi Street with three churches. He stated residential properties pay taxes and churches do not pay taxes. He stated he felt commercial activities should not encroach into the neighborhood. Ms. Jill Harbart-Pratt addressed the Commission in opposition of the proposed request. She stated no one in the area would benefit from the proposed tower other than the church. She stated the proposed tower was ugly and felt this was not a good addition to the neighborhood. There was a general discussion concerning required documentation for collocation, the location of other towers in the area and the Telecommunications Act. Staff stated the applicant was required to provide a statement indicating the ability for collocation. The applicant stated the location of the tower was critical to the building of the network. He stated by moving the proposed tower this would potentially require additional towers to be relocated. The applicant stated the tower location was based on radius coverage. He stated the new towers and technology did offer the coverage the old towers offered since the new services provided offered additional features. The Commission questioned if the City was covered by the Telecommunications Act. Staff stated they were covered by the Telecommunications Act. The applicant stated the proposed service was a service to the community. He stated his firm had worked with staff to address staffs concerns and felt the tower location appropriate for the site. n FILE NO.: Z -5522-B (Cont. There was a general discussion concerning the tower color. The Commission questioned the proposed color of the tower. The applicant stated the color was gray to blend with the winter sky. The Commission questioned if a flag could be placed on the pole. The applicant indicated this was an option but the flag would have to be raised and lower daily. A motion was made to approve the request. The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 4 noes and 2 absent. rl ITEM NO.: 10. FILE NO.: Z-5522-B NAME: St. Mark's Church Revised POD LOCATION: located at 1024 N. Mississippi Street"^'�'� f�-t�u� �-rte.►//-�n� �,�:....�. 1� Planning Staff Comments: 1. Provide notification of property owners located within eet of the site kwwj complete with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of mailing. 2. Provide an overall site plan showing the church property and the location of the d tower in relation to the property lines and to existing improvements. 3. Is this site appropriate to pull the antenna close to the body of the tower using the stealth technology as used in other parts of the City? 4. Staff would recommend the tower be painted to blend into the area. Variance/Waivers: None requested. Public Works Conditions: Site grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning: Wastewater: Sewer service not required for this project. Entergy: Center -Point Energy_: SBC: Central Arkansas Water: A license agreement will be required for installation of utilities and roadway across the existing raw water right-of-way. Detailed plans must be submitted to and approved by Central Arkansas Water. This right-of-way, which is owned in fee by Central Arkansas Water, should be shown on the plans. Care must be taken to protect existing raw water facilities in the vicinity of the proposed access road to this site. Fire Department: Approved as submitted - County Planning: No comment. CATA: The site is located near CATA Bus Route #8 — Rodney Parham Bus Route. Planning Division_ Landscape: Landscape and screening comply with Article XII. Wireless Communications Facilities of the Zoning Ordinance. Revised _plat/ Ilan; Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plan (to include the additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, October 26, 2005.