HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5522-B Staff AnalysisMay 11, 2006
ITEM NO.: E FILE NO.: Z -5522-B
NAME: St. Mark's Revised Long -form POD
LOCATION: Located at 1024 North Mississippi Avenue
DEVELOPER:
Wooden, Fulton & Scarborough, PC
c/o Verizon Wireless Communication
737 Market Street, Suite 620
Chattanooga, TN 37402
FNr,LNFFR-
Excel Communications, Inc.
6247 Amber Hills Road
Birmingham, AL 35176
AREA: 14.9 acres
CURRENT ZONING:
ALLOWED USES:
PROPOSED ZONING
PROPOSED USE
PLANNING DISTRICT:
CENSUS TRACT
NUMBER OF LOTS: 1
FT. NEW STREET: 0
Church Facility and Commercial Catering Service
b
Church facility, a Commercial Catering Service
and Cellular Tower
3 —West Little Rock
21.01
VARIANCESMAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested.
BACKGROUND:
On November 1, 2004, the Little Rock Board of Directors approved a rezoning request
for this site to PD -0 to allow the use of the existing church kitchen facilities as a
commercial catering 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
May 11, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5522--B
commercial catering company to operate from the existing church kitchen facilities. The
applicant 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.
On November 10, 2005, the Little Rock Planning Commission recommended denial of a
request to amend the previously approved PD -O to allow the placement of a cellular
tower on the site. Verizon Wireless Communications proposed 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 monopole was indicated as a state of the art
telecommunication tower that would create minimum intrusiveness into its surrounding
neighborhood while providing critical telecommunication services to the residents of
Little Rock. The applicant indicated the successful construction and operation of tower
facilities was critical to the completion of the Verizon Wireless's network.
This item was appealed to the Board of Directors but the appeal request was withdrawn
prior to any Board of Directors action.
A. PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The applicant is now 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 steeple design rather than a 120 -foot
monopole tower as proposed in the previous application. The structure will be
comprised of materials resistant to weathering. The structure's panels around
the antennas will be comprised of sheets of ABS plastic with a foam core. The
technology utilizes a combination of steel and fiberglass to produce a structure
that will create a long lasting structure. The body of the structure will be encased
in modern stucco. The stucco will be designed to appear as a traditional steeple
finish while providing a weather resistant finish.
No illumination of the structure is planned since the FAA does not require lighting
on towers of the proposed height. Additionally no artificial lighting source or flood
lighting is proposed for the tower structure at ground level. No lettering
identifying the church is proposed.
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
2
May 11, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5522-B
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 site plan indicates compliance with the typical standards of Section 36-593 —
Development Standards with regard to height standard, setback standards,
landscaping and screening, aesthetic, placement, material and colors, lighting
and security fencing.
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
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, the Leawood Garden
Club and the Merriwether Neighborhood Association were notified of the public
hearing.
3
May 11, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5522-B
D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS:
Public Works Conditions:
1. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be
required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site
grading, and drainage plans will need to be submitted and approved prior to
the start of construction.
2. A grading and drainage plan will be required prior to issuance of grading
permit.
E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING:
Wastewater: Sewer service is not required for this project. No comment.
Entergy: No comment received.
Center -Point Enerav: No comment received.
SBC: No comment received.
Central Arkansas Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Plannin_ q: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #8 — the Rodney Parham
Bus Route.
F. ISSUES/TECHNICAUDESIGN:
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 the POD for the addition of a cell phone
tower.
The proposal does not have a significant impact on the Land Use Plan, which
would necessitate a Plan Amendment.
Master Street Plan: Mississippi Street is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master
Street Plan and Evergreen is shown as collector. These streets may require
dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements. The purpose of
a Minor Arterial is to provide connections to and through an urban area while a
4
May 11, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5522-B
Collector street's primary purpose is to link Local Streets and activity centers to
Arterials.
Bicycle Plan: A Class III bike route is shown along Evergreen. A Class III
bikeway is a signed route on a street shared with traffic. No additional paving or
right-of-way is required. Class III bicycle route signage may be required.
City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: The applicant's property lies in the
area covered by the Midtown Neighborhood Action Plan. The plan does not
specifically address this type of action.
Landscape: The landscaping must comply with the minimum requirements of
Article XII —Wireless Communication Facilities - Section 36-593(c)(1).
G. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT:
(March 8, 2006)
The owner's representative was present representing the request. Staff
presented an overview of the proposed development indicating there were few
outstanding issues associated with the request. Staff questioned if the structure
would contains any lettering or lighting. Staff also questioned details of the
proposed structure including the treatment of the outside surface.
Public Works comments were addressed. Staff stated a grading plan would be
required prior to any land clearing on the site. Staff also stated a grading and
drainage plan would be required prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Staff noted comments from the other reporting departments and agencies
suggesting the applicant contact them individually for additional clarification.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Committee then forwarded the
item to the full Commission for final action.
H. ANALYSIS:
The applicant responded to comments raised at the March 8, 2006, Subdivision
Committee meeting. The structure will be comprised of materials resistant to
weathering. The structure's panels around the antennas will be comprised of
sheets of ABS plastic with a foam core. The technology utilizes a combination of
steel and fiberglass to produce a structure that will create a long lasting structure.
The body of the structure will be encased in modern stucco. The stucco will be
designed to appear as a traditional steeple finish while providing a weather
resistance finish. No illumination of the structure is planned since the FAA does
not require lighting on towers of the proposed height. Additionally no artificial
lighting source or flood lighting is proposed for the tower structure at ground
level. No lettering identifying the church is proposed.
G�
May 11, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E
FILE NO.: Z -5522-B
According to the applicant every effort has been made to find a suitable structure
to locate or collocate its antennas upon. A suitable structures has not been
located that would allow for the completion of the network. As required by the
application process 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 has been
submitted. The applicant's statement indicates the proposed tower has the
capability of providing collocation for additional tenants.
The application also 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 site plan indicates compliance with the typical standards of Section 36-593 —
Development Standards with regard to height standard, setback standards,
landscaping and screening, aesthetic, placement, material and colors, lighting
and security fencing per Article XII - Wireless Communication Facilities. To
staffs knowledge there are no outstanding issues associated with the request.
Staff feels the applicant has adequately addressed concerns with regard to
placement of the proposed facility and limiting the visual impact on the adjoining
properties.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:.
Staff recommends approval of the request subject to compliance with the
comments and conditions as outlined in paragraphs D, E and F of the above
agenda staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2006)
The applicant was present representing the request. There were no registered
objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a
request dated March 28, 2006, requesting a deferral of the item to the May 11, 2006,
public hearing. Staff stated the deferral request would require a By-law waiver with
regard to the late deferral request. Staff stated they were supportive of the By-law
waiver request and the deferral request.
There was no further discussion of the item. The Chair entertained a motion for
approval of the requested By-law waiver. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes,
0 noes and 1 absent. The chair entertained a motion for placement of the item on the
Consent Agenda for Deferral. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and
1 absent.
A
May 11, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.
STAFF UPDATE:
FILE NO.: Z -5522-B
There has been no change in this application request since the previous public hearing.
Staff continues to recommend approval of the request.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006)
The applicant was present. There were registered objectors present. Staff stated the
Commission had reviewed a request identical to the proposal and the Commission had
recommended denial of the request less than one year ago. Staff stated to hear the
request it would require a waiver of the Commission's By-laws since the item was
previously denied and it was less than one year of the denial request.
Mr. Tracy Wooden addressed the Commission indicating he did not feel a waiver was
required. He stated the previous proposal was for the placement of a tower with the
antenna array located on the outside of the pole. Staff stated this was incorrect. Staff
stated the previous proposal was a stealth tower which was also the current proposal.
He stated if the property were not zoned PD -O the review and approval would be
administrative. He stated since the previous public hearing he had worked with the
church and the neighborhood to come -up with a design which was acceptable to the
residents and still meet the needs of the wireless carrier.
A motion was made to waive the By-laws and hear the application request as
presented. The motion carried by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
Staff introduced the item presenting a recommendation of approval. Mr. Tracy Wooden
addressed the Commission on the merits of the request. He stated the
telecommunications act mandated a level of service to be provided. He stated to have
adequate coverage in the area the Radio Frequency Engineer had indicated two
possible locations for the tower. He stated the St. Marks site was the preferred location.
He presented the Commission with scatter maps indicating the level of service with the
location and several alternative locations. He stated to move the tower to the east
would overlap with an existing tower site. He stated to locate the tower to the north
would also overlap with an existing tower located to the north. Mr. Wooden stated when
a network was being designed the engineers did field visits to determine the best
locations for tower placement. He stated he felt the current proposal best met the
needs of the wireless communication provider and the neighborhood.
The Commission questioned if the antenna array would be internal to the tower. He
stated this was correct. The Commission questioned if collocation was allowed. He
stated collocation was allowed and if the Commission desired all co -locators would be
required to internalize their antenna array as well.
VA
May 11, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5522-B
Ms. Donna Morey addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
her home was located across the street from St. Marks more specifically the tower site.
She stated leaving her carport her first view would be the tower. She stated the tree
line was 40-50 feet and the tower height was 120 -feet. She stated the homes in the
area had appreciated over the past 30 — 40 years. She stated recently a home located
next to the church sold for $265,000. She stated the community meeting held last week
was not a representation of the neighborhood. She stated not all the area was invited to
the meeting and many were not aware the meeting was being held. She stated the
tower would be better suited to the school property located two blocks east of the site.
Ms. Dorothy Morey addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated
she had lived in the area since 1968 and was an original owner of the neighborhood.
She stated there were very few original owners left in the neighborhood and most of the
homes had sold to young families. She stated these families had a substantial
investment in the neighborhood and felt they should be protected. She stated the
garden club kept up the entrances to the subdivision and all the funding was from the
neighborhood and volunteers. She stated St. Marks was a good neighbor but had not
given the residents enough information. She stated the neighborhood did not want
commercial property at the entrance to their subdivision.
Mr. Walt Jeffus addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. He stated the
proposal was the same as was previously denied by the Commission. He stated the
church was a non-profit but would be receiving revenues from the tower placement. He
stated there were alternative locations and requesting the Commission review these
locations. He stated he did not want to see the tower every time he entered his
neighborhood.
Joann Erwin addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She stated she
felt the tower would destroy the neighborhood. She stated the City of North Little Rock
recently disapproved the placement of a tower on JFK Boulevard. She stated JFK
Boulevard was a major roadway with regard to the volume of traffic. She state the
placement of a tower within the neighborhood should not be allowed.
Ms. Jill Harbart-Pratt addressed the Commission in opposition of the request. She
requested the Commission never underestimate the power of a myth. She stated the
cell company had indicated the need for the placement of a tower in this location to
receive reliable coverage. She stated there were a number of ways to receive reliable
coverage without the placement of a tower at this location. She stated the RF Engineer
designed site for a maximum return on the investment. She stated a monopole was
easy and cheaper than other alternatives. She stated she did not feel the placement of
a tower was a requirement to complete the network but just the desire alternative. She
stated St. Marks had indicated at the neighborhood meeting that if they did not follow
through with the application request they would be sued by the wireless communication
provider.
0
May 11, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5522-B
Mr. Wooden stated he was respectful of the comments including the opposition. He
stated there were voids in the coverage without the placement of a tower at this
location. He stated collocation was available which would lessen the number of tower
request in the future. He stated the site was wooded which would soften the impact of
the tower placement and the design of the tower met with ordinance requirements.
The Commission questioned maintenance. Mr. Wooden stated if the Commission
desired they could place a condition on the approval as to the required maintenance of
the tower.
There was a general discussion concerning the proposed tower and the possibility of
collocation. Commission Adcock stated in the past collocation had been pushed
possibly resulting in the lack of suitable alternative locations. She questioned locating
the tower at the school site. She questioned with the additional height if the tower could
not receive the same coverage area. Mr. Wooden stated the site was possibly located
to close to an existing tower located to the east. He stated towers were the last thing a
cellular company want to build. He stated the first option was to collocate with the
second being locating on tall buildings.
Commissioner Yates stated he was not satisfied with the answers he had -received
concerning alternative locations. He stated there were two or three churches located in
the immediate vicinity which he felt were suitable locations.
Mr. Wooden stated he felt the current location gave the City and the neighborhood more
control. He stated on the adjoining properties the tower would not be a stealth tower
nor were the sites tree covered to provide screening. He stated with the additional
height this would intrude into another neighborhood who if they were notified would not
want a tower at their entrance either.
Commissioner Rahman stated he felt the tower was an intrusion into the neighborhood.
He stated he felt there were alternatives to providing service to the network without
placing a 120 -foot pole at the entrance to the subdivision.
Commissioner Williams stated he felt collocation was an acceptable alternative. Mr.
Wooden stated the provider originally looked for site to collocate.
Commissioner Meyer questioned the placement of the tower at the school. He stated
the church was a non-profit and the school had publicly requested the placement of
towers for revenue generation.
Commissioner Yates requested comment from Mr. Jim Tilley. Commissioner Yates
questioned Mr. Tilley as to the feelings of the church on the proposal. He stated he was
a member of the church and council for the church. He stated the church entered into a
contract with the provider in 2004 without fully considering the needs of the
neighborhood. He stated the church had found themselves in a position of being
May 11, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: E (Cont.
FILE NO.: Z -5522-B
required to full -full their contract at the threat of being sued if they did not allow the
provider to move forward with the application request. He stated the church was a good
steward of their land and the revenue from the placement of the tower on the church
property was not enough for the church to go against the neighbors.
Commissioner Rahman stated he did not see a substantial change from the previous
proposal.
A motion was made to approve the request including the applicant's statements
regarding maintenance and all co -locators must also internalize their antenna array.
The motion failed by a vote of 5 ayes, 5 noes and 1 absent.
10
ITEM NO.: 14
NAME: St. Mark's Revised Long -form POD
LOCATION: located at 1024 North Mississippi Avenue
Plannina Staff Comments:
Z -5522-B
1. Provide notification of property owners located within 200 -feet of the site, complete
with the certified abstract list, notice form with affidavit executed and proof of
mailing. The notice must be mailed no later than March 15, 2006. The Office of
Planning and Development must receive the proof of notice no later than March 24,
2006.
2. Provide details of any lighting proposed for the tower structure.
3. Will the church name be placed on the tower structure?
Variance/Waivers: None requested.
Public Works Conditions:
1. A grading permit in accordance with Section 29-186 (c) and (d) will be required prior
to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Site grading, and drainage plans
will need to be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction.
2. A grading and drainage plan will be required prior to issuance of grading permit.
Utilities and Fire Department/County Planning:
Wastewater: Sewer service is not required for this project. No comment.
Entergy:
Center -Point Ener :
SBC:
Central Arkansas Water: No objection.
Fire Department: Approved as submitted.
County Plannino: No comment.
CATA: The site is located on CATA Bus Route #8 — the Rodney Parham Bus Route.
Planning_ Division:
Item # 14
Landscape:
Revised plat/plan: Submit four (4) copies of a revised preliminary plat (to include the
additional information as noted above) to staff on Wednesday, March 15, 2006.
Item # 14