HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4656-C Staff AnalysisJune 30, 1997
em No.. A
File No.
owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
variance Recruested.
Z -4656-C
Jimmy A. and Louise Rhodes
#1 Trigon Place
Lot 1, Trigon Addition
I-2
A variance is requested from the
height restriction of Section
36-201 to permit a monopole
cellular tower which exceeds
75 feet in height; 150 feet
proposed.
Justification: Applicant's Statement: Pursuant to
our discussion from Tuesday, March
11th, Sprint PCS is making
application for a variance for the
existing 150' monopole located at
#1 Trigon Place. The unique
circumstances requiring this
variance are outlined below.
In the summer of 1996, Sprint PCS
began discussions with Cool 95
about the possibility of placing
Sprint's PCS antennas on Cool 95's
existing tower at #1 Trigon Place.
Upon performing a structural
feasibility analysis, it was
determined that the existing tower
would not be structurally capable
of handling Sprint's equipment and
that structural modifications were
not practical. In August of 1996,
You probably remember Sprint and
TeleSite representatives meeting
with you to discuss an alternative.
The outcome of that meeting was an
understanding that Sprint would
replace the existing 150' tower
with a new Sprint owned 150'
monopole which would in essence
simply be a replacement of a
previously approved tower. In
order to facilitate this
replacement, there would be a
June 30, 1997
Item No.• A Cont.
Period where both towers would be
standing simultaneously. After
that meeting, Sprint signed an
agreement with Dusty Rhodes
(landowner of #1 Trigon Place) to
lease a small area (12' X 121) for
a fenced monopole and equipment
cabinet.
Also in August of 1996, Sprint
began negotiating an agreement with
Cool 95 to relocate their equipment
to the Sprint owned monopole and to
subsequently dismantle and remove
Cool 95's existing tower. In
November of 1996, Sprint's attorney
(Todd Lewellen) concluded lengthy
negotiations with Cool 95's local
attorney (Mark Riable) regarding
the legal issues in this agreement.
In December of 1996, after much
additional negotiation, TeleSite
concluded and finalized the
business terms in this agreement
with Steve McNamara of Cool 95. In
order to fulfill their commitment
to the City, Sprint was forced to
agree to some significant and
financially costly changes. In
January, Sprint and TeleSite were
told by Mr. McNamara that the
agreement could be executed in
approximately two weeks. In
addition, during the time period
between August and December, Chris
deBin (Sprint PCS) continued to
give Bob Brown (City of Little
Rock) several updates regarding
Sprint's process. Sprint has since
learned through Dusty Rhodes that
the pending merger of Cool 95's
parent company has forced the
execution of this agreement to be
placed'on hold. This was of great
surprise and disappointment to
TeleSite, Sprint and Dusty Rhodes.
We do believe, however, that this
issue can be resolved. We have
tried repeatedly (two to three
times every week) since January to
contact Mr. McNamara. We can not,
as yet, get him to respond.
Recently, Mr. Rhodes was served
with a notice from Ken Jones (City
June 30, 1997
Item No.• A Cont.
Present C7se o£ Property:
Proposed IIse of Prower ,:
Staff Report:
A.
e ort -
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues
B. Staff Analysis:
Code Enforcement) to remove the
Cool 95 tower -•or pursue a variance
through the Board of Adjustment. I
have attached a copy of that
notice.
On Tuesday, March 10, Chris deBin
(Sprint PCS) and myself (Drew
Basham of TeleSite) met with you to
discuss alternatives. At that
meeting we expressed Sprint's
intention of continuing to pursue
and resolve the agreement with Cool
95. We cannot, however, guarantee
the time frame within which this
agreement will be resolved.
Therefore, Sprint suggests that
they apply for a variance. That
variance will allow for resolution
of this situation.
It is my understanding that our use
is acceptable in this zoning
classification (I-2). In addition,
the ordinance has a height
limitation of 75' (Section 36-
201(e) (1) (a) ] . Therefore, Sprint
is requesting a height variance
that will allow a 150' monopole.
The height is necessary in order to
provide the FCC mandated service
for this antenna's coverage area.
Office building and two towers
Office building and three towers
On April 25, 1994, the Board of Adjustment approved a height
variance to allow Alltel Mobile Communications to erect a
145 foot tall cellular tower on this I-2 zoned site. On
April 24, 1995, the Board approved a height variance to
allow KOLL 95 radio to erect a 150 foot tall transmission
tower on this same property. Section 36-201 limits metal,
ground -mounted towers to 75 feet in height.
3
June 30, 1997
Item No.: A (Cont.
In early August 1995, Sprint PCS and TeleSite Services
approached the City with a proposal to,replace the KOLL 95
tower with a 150 foot tall monopole. The Sprint tower would
be designed so as to accommodate both KOLL 95 and Sprint.
The new monopole would be erected within a few feet of the
KOLL 95 tower and would not exceed the 150 feet approved by
the Board.
Staff felt that the proposal was reasonable in that the new
1.50 foot monopole would in essence simply be a replacement
of a previously approved tower. The new monopole would
accommodate both Sprint and KOLL 95 following staff's
encouragement to co -locate facilities.
There was to be a very short period (days) where both towers
would be standing simultaneously to allow for the transfer
Of KOLL 95's equipment to the new tower.
Subsequently, a building permit was issued and Sprint's
tower was erected. As it turns out, Sprint and KOLL 95 have
failed to reach a final agreement whereby the radio
station's tower would be removed. We are then left with a
situation where we have 3 towers on a site where only 2 have
been approved.
The property owner was recently issued a notice to remove
the third tower (Sprint) or to file for a height variance
from the Board of Adjustment. TeleSite Services and Sprint
have filed for that variance to allow them to keep the 150
foot tall monopole cellular tower. TeleSite states that
negotiations are ongoing and an agreement may yet be reached
whereby the KOLL 95 tower will be removed and both the radio
station and Sprint will co -locate on the newest tower.
Although staff is disappointed in the turn of events which
bring us to the current Board of Adjustment issue, Staff is
not altogether sure that it would be that onerous to allow
the third tower. The property is zoned I-2 and
communications, receiving or transmitting facilities are
allowed byright. The property is relatively isolated and
the existing towers have no impact on adjacent land uses.
Placement of the tower on the same site as one now occupied
by two other towers follows, in theory, the concept of co -
location although staff would still prefer to see both
companies share just one tower.
The City Attorneyrs Office has asked that any tower issues,
either before the planning Commission or Board of
Adjustment, be deferred to a later date. The City Board is
considering, as a policy question, the proliferation of
towers within the City. As such, staff will withhold a
recommendation on the merits of the height variance and
recommends only that this issue be deferred to the
May 19, 1997 Board of Adjustment meeting.
4
June 30, 1997
Item No. A Cont,
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that this item be deferred to the
May 19, 1997 Board of Adjustment meeting.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(APRIL 28, 1997)
Mark Alderfer abstained on this issue. The applicant was not
present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the
item and recommended that the item be deferred to the
May 19, 1997 Board meeting as suggested by the City Attorney.
Vice Chairman Brooks called the question on the issue of
deferring the item to the May 19, 1997 meeting. The vote was
5 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent, 1 abstaining (Alderfer) and 1 open
Position.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 19, 1997)
Mark Alderfer abstained on this issue. The applicant was not
present. There were no objectors present. Staff informed the
Board that the applicant had requested a deferral to allow for
continued negotiations regarding the removal of the KOLL-95
tower.
A motion was made to defer the item to the June 30, 1997 Board
meeting. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes,
2 absent and 2 abstaining (Alderfer, Palmer).
BOARD OF A33JDSTMENT :
(JUNE 30, 1997)
The applicant was not present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that the applicant had requested that
the item be withdrawn as negotiations were completed and an
agreement reached whereby the KOLL-95 tower would be removed by
July 15, 1997.
A vote was taken on the applicants request for withdrawal. The
vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
5