HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5115-A Staff AnalysisSeptember 3, 1998
ITEM NO.: 18
NAME:
LOCATION•
OWNER/APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS:
1. Site Location:
FILE NO.: Z -5115-A
Telecorp, I-30
Permit
11209 I-30
- Tower Use
Ed Cullin/Telecorp
To allow the installation of a
150 foot monopole Wireless
Communication Facility on the
Reaves Fasteners property at
11209 I-30. The property is
zoned I-2. A variance is
requested from the setback
requirement from residential
property.
This site is on the south side of I-30 near the
intersection with I-430 on Reeve Fastners property.
2. Compatibility with Neighborhood:
The site is located on property zoned I-2. To the east
and west are properties zoned R-2, occupied by
nonconforming commercial uses. To the south the
property is zoned R-2 and is being used for Single
Family. Most of the surrounding area is
commercial/industrial use. The area to the south has
trees partially shielding it from the proposed tower
site. Staff believes this wireless communication
facility should be compatible with the neighborhood.
The Mavis Circle and Pinedale Neighborhood Associations,
as well as Norman Floyd, were notified of the public
hearing.
3. On -Site Drives and Parking:
There is one access point to the site from the frontage
road along I-30. Adequate space is provided for
parking for one or two maintenance vehicles.
September 3, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.)
4. Screenin and Buffers:
No Comment.
5. Public Works Comments:
FILE NO.: Z -5115-A
Meadow Lane is a commercial street, dedication of
right-of-way to 30 feet from centerline will be
required.
6. Utility and Fire De artment Comments:
Water: No objection.
Wastewater: Sewer service not required for this issue.
No comment.
Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted.
ARKLA: Approved as submitted.
AP&L: No Comments received.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
CATA: This site is not on a CATA bus route.
7. Staff Ana1�sis
The applicant is requesting a 150 foot monopole
wireless communication facility on this I-2 zoned,
Light Industrial, property. The proposed tower will
be located near the west end of the existing metal
building which is occupied by Reaves Fastners.
Chapter 36, Article XII of the Code of Ordinances
established development standards for wireless
communications facilities. If the proposed facility
conformed to all standards, it could be approved
through a staff level review process. This proposed
facility does not conform to the setback standards for
WCF with support structures abutting residential
property. Section 36-593(b)(3) states:
WCF with Support Structures which abuts
residential property on any side shall be
set back a distance at least the height of
the tower measured from the base of the
tower to the property line of the
residential lot.
2
September 3, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.)
FILE NO.: Z -5115-A
The proposed tower has a setback of less than 150 feet
from residentially zoned property to the west and south
necessitating the tower use permit. The equipment
location exceeds all setbacks (50 feet front, 25 feet
rear, 15 feet side). The facility is 180 feet from the
R-2 zoned property to the east.
A variance is requested to the 150 feet setback from
residential property to allow the tower facility to be
only 111 feet from the south R-2 property and 58 feet
from the west R-2 property. There is a nonconforming
commercial business on the property to the west and
single family residences to the south. Staff believes
the request to be reasonable.
Telecorp has stated in writing that they searched
unsuccessfully for alternatives to a new tower such as
co -locating on an existing tower or attaching to an
existing structure. They also have agreed to construct
this tower for co -location of at least one other user,
as required in the ordinance.
Staff believes this is a reasonable additional use of
the property.
8. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested tower use
permit to allow a wireless communication facility with
a 150 foot tall monopole support structure at this site
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
-1. Compliance with Public Works Comment
2. Compliance with the development standards for WCF's
in Section 36-593
3. Constructing the structure to be capable of
supporting at least one additional user.
Staff also recommends approval of the variance to allow
a reduced setback of 111 feet from the R-2 property to
the south and 58 feet from the R-2 property to the
west.
SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(AUGUST 13, 1998)
Chris Villines was present representing the applicant.
Staff briefly presented the item.
Public Works discussed the required right-of-way of 30 feet
form centerline on Meadow Lane.
3
September 3, 1998
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: 18 (Cont.)
FILE NO.: Z -5115-A
The Planning staff explained the setback requirements and
what the differences were which necessitated the need for a
tower use permit with a setback variance.
There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the
proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for
final resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(SEPTEMBER 3, 1998)
Randy Fraiser, Telecorp Attorney, as well as Don Brown and
Chris Villines from Entel working for Telecorp, were present
representing the application. One objector was present.
Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approval.
Mr. Fraiser explained their proposal and why they chose this
location. He stated they did explore co -location
possibilities and found none that met their needs. He also
stated this new tower would be available for future co -
location.
Mr. Norman Floyd, although having submitted a letter of
support, addressed his questions and concerns regarding
their attempt for co -location and the height of the tower.
He was satisfied about co -location, but still felt the tower
was higher than needed.
Mr. Woodrow Butler spoke in opposition. He lives on Meadow
Lane and does not want the tower in front of his house. In
response to his concern over TV interference the applicant
stated that this antenna would not interfere with radio or
television reception. Mr. Butler asked about moving the
tower to a different location. A lengthy discussion ensued
regarding the location and impact on Mr. Butler.
Commissioner Berry made the point he felt this location had
the least impact of all the tower requests he had seen.
A motion was made to approve the application as submitted
to include staff comments and setback variance. The motion
passed by a vote of
7 ayes, 3 nays and 1 absent.
4