Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5737-A Staff AnalysisOctober 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: Z -5737-A NAME: Alltel - Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 7525 West Markham Street OWNER APPLICANT: Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church/Alltel by Carrick B. Inabnett PROPOSAL: A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the construction of a 103 foot tall cellular communications monopole tower and an 11 foot by 24 foot equipment building on this R-2 zoned church property. A height variance has been requested for the monopole tower. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is located at the southeast corner of West Markham Street and Mississippi Avenue. 2. CqMpatibility Compatibilitywith Neighborhood: The surrounding neighborhood is exclusively single family residential, zoned R-2. Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church has existed at this site for 20+ years. Staff feels that the proposed monopole tower will not be compatible with the established single-family residential neighborhood. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site can be gained by utilizing an existing drive from Mississippi or West Markham Street. Parking will be provided at the tower site for a service technician who will occasionally visit the site for maintenance purposes. No additional parking is required. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. B �Cont.3_ _ FILE NO. Z -5737—A 4. Screening and Buffers: No Comments 5. City Engineer Comments: Provide Master Street Plan right-of-way for Markham Street. Master Street Plan calls for 80 feet or 40 feet from centerline. Mississippi requires 80 feet or 40 feet at intersection plus additional right-of-way as required for a right -turn lane. Thus 50 feet from centerline. 1992 traffic counts are 19,110 for Markham and 11,720 ADT for Mississippi in the area of this intersection. 6. Utility Comments: No Comments received. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 103 foot tall cellular communication monopole tower and an 11 foot by 24 foot equipment building on this R-2 zoned existing Faith Lutheran Church property. The proposed monopole tower will be located at the southeast corner of the existing church building, approximately 25 feet north of the residential property which fronts on Briarwood Drive. The base of the tower will be enclosed by a small masonry wall. Additionally, three (3) crosses will be placed on the monopole. These crosses will be approximately 12 feet in height and 5 feet wide and will be mounted at the top of the monopole, one at each corner of the triangular-shaped antenna structure. The crosses and the monopole will be painted white. The proposed equipment building will be located along the east side of the church building. The equipment building will be located within an open below -ground area which the church utilizes as a playground area. The equipment building will not be visible from West Markham Street or the adjacent residential properties. The applicant is also requesting a height variance for the monopole tower. A height of 103 feet is requested for the tower, which exceeds the maximum height (75 feet) allowed by ordinance. 2 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5737-A Alltel is proposing this monopole tower site in order to provide better service to its cellular customers in this area along West Markham Street. Alltel has expressed to Staff that none of the nearby commercial or industrial zoning (in any direction) and none of the nearby existing structures (the AT&T tower at Rushing Circle, the Southwestern Bell tower at Cantrell and Keightly Road) will suit their needs. Alltel has also informed staff that co -location on this proposed tower would be possible, but it would depend on the particular antenna request. The proposed monopole tower site will be located in the heart of an established single-family residential neighborhood. In staff's opinion, this proposed use will not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the conditional use permit application. Staff feels that the proposed monopole tower is not compatible with the surrounding established neighborhood. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JUNE 27, 1996) Carrick Inabnett along with representatives from Alltel were present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. There was a general discussion relating to the proposed location of the monopole tower. The applicant stated that this particular site is needed based on the existing infrastructure of towers within the city. There was also brief discussion relating to possible co - location on this proposed tower and the proposed location of this tower within the church property. The Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JULY 18, 1996) Carrick Inabnett and Alissa Coffield were present, representing the application. There were several objectors present. W October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -5737-A Staff presented the item, and informed the Commission that the applicant had requested a deferral of the item, based on the reduced number of commissioners present. Sandy Williams addressed the Commission. She stated that the neighborhood met with the applicants on July 7, 1996. She stated her concerns (and the neighborhood concerns) with the proposed monopole. Commissioner Putnam asked Mrs. Williams if the neighborhood would be interested in meeting with the applicants again. Mrs. Williams stated that they would not. Carrick Inabnett spoke on the item. He stated that because of the opposition to the proposal, he would like the application to be heard by the full Commission. He therefore requested that the item be deferred. Commissioner Adcock asked if Alltel would be willing to meet with the other cellular companies regarding co -location issues. Alissa Coffield stated that Alltel would agree to the meeting. There was a brief discussion regarding the deferral request. A motion was made to defer the item to the August 29, 1996 Subdivision meeting. The motion was approved by a majority vote of 4 ayes, 3 nays, 3 absent, and 1 open position. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 8, 1996) Carrick Inabnett, Alissa Coffield and Tim Rounsaville were present representing the application. Tim Rounsaville, of Alltel, discussed the necessity of this site and capacity issues with the Committee. Alissa Coffield, also of Alltel, discussed the proposed location of the monopole and equipment building within the church site. There were brief discussions regarding the location of the monopole in relation to the single family residences and the possibility of co -location. The Alltel representatives stated that this monopole would allow a second, future, user at the 70 foot level. 4 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: Z -5737-A After further discussion, the presentation and forwarded the for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Committee accepted the issue to the full Commission (AUGUST 29, 1996) The applicant was present. There were several persons present opposing the item. The applicant requested that the item be deferred to the October 10, 1996 agenda, as offered by Chairman Woods, due to only eight commissioners being present. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral until the October 10, 1996 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion was passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 1 open position. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Alissa Coffield, Tim Rounsaville, Jacob Metzer and Carrick Inabnett were present, representing the application. There was one person present in opposition to the application. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of denial. Jacob Metzer, of Alltel, gave a brief description of the proposal. Carrick Inabnett, of Alltel, addressed the Commission. He gave a brief explanation of the Telecommunications Act regarding the siting of towers. Tim Rounsaville, of Alltel, addressed the Commission. Mr. Rounsaville presented a handout to the Commission. The handout included information regarding the Alltel towers in this general area and technical information supporting the proposed tower. Mr. Rounsaville informed the Commission of the technical reasons that support the need for this tower at this particular site. Alissa Coffield, of Alltel, addressed the Commission. Mrs. Coffield presented computer generated photographs to the Commission. The photographs depicted the proposed tower as it would appear on the site. Sandy Williams spoke in opposition to the conditional use permit. She stated that she represented the neighborhood. She stated that the proposed monopole would be an intrusion on the neighborhood. 5 October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B Cont. FILE NO.: 37-A Jim Jim Lawson, Planning Director, stated that the crosses on the monopole represented a sign and staff had concerns regarding this issue. There was a brief discussion regarding other towers in this general area and the reasons co -location on these existing towers would not be possible. Commissioner Lichty asked if the City Attorney's Office has established any policy on the construction of monopole towers in the City of Little Rock. Mr. Lawson stated that the City Attorney has stated concerns regarding the placement of towers in the City of Little Rock, but no certain policy has been established. There was a brief discussion concerning the height of the tower. Commissioner Berry asked if, with the improving technology, a tower is no longer needed would it be taken down. Mrs. Coffield stated that the tower would be taken down and the property restored if the tower is no longer needed. There was a general discussion regarding the crosses which will be located on the monopole. There was also a brief discussion concerning whether or not there should be time limits placed on the towers. Commissioner Daniel read a written to the Commission. The statement dealt with the wireless communications industry in the City of Little Rock. A motion was made to approve the conditional use permit. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 2 nays and 2 absent. 6