Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6061 Staff AnalysisFILE O.: Z-6061 LOCATION: OWNER APPLICANT: PROPOSAL: ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: Cellular One Tower, Norwood Lane Site - Conditional Use Permit Just east of Norwood Lane, north of Pinnacle Valley Road Gene Ludwig/Cellular One by Hunter Stuart A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of a 120' tall cellular phone tower and a 12` X 20' equipment building on a 50' X 501 lease area located within this R-2 zoned, one acre site. A height variance is also requested for the tower. The proposed tower site is located approximately 600 foot east of Norwood Lane, north of Pinnacle Valley Road. The site is outside of the city limits, but within the City's Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction. 2, Compatibility with Neighborhood: The adjacent property on all sides is zoned R-2 and is vacant and wooded. The proposal should have little effect on the surrounding property. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site will be gained by utilizing a 12 foot wide access easement which runs from the end of Norwood Lane to the site. There are no parking issues. 4. Screening and Buffers: The proposed lease area will be totally enclosed by a 6 foot wooden screening fence. FILE Z-6061(Cont,) The face side of the proposed fence must be directed outward. 5. Cit Engineer's Comments: No apparent Public Works issues 6. utility Comments: No Comments 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for the placement of a 120' tall cellular phone tower and a 12' X 20' equipment building on a 2,500 square foot lease area at the southwest corner of the larger one acre tract. Also, a height variance is requested. A maximum height of 120' is requested for the tower, which exceeds the maximum height (751) allowed by ordinance. The proposed site is located approximately 2 miles outside the Little Rock city limits, within the City's extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction. The site is vacant and wooded as is all of the surrounding property. 8. Staff Recomamendatian: Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 12, 1995) Joe White was present, representing the application. There were no comments and the committee forwarded this issue to full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 31, 1995) The applicant, Hunter Stuart, was present. There was one objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval as submitted. Charles Granderson, representing the Charles Norwood Estate, spoke in opposition to this application. Mr. Granderson stated that he was opposed to the placement of the tower, as this one acre site is in the middle of, surrounded by, the Charles Norwood Estate. Mr. Granderson stated that the tower placement could possibly hurt future development of the Charles Norwood Estate property. 2 FILE NO,_.:_ Z-6061 (dont. Hunter Stuart addressed the Commission in support of his application. Mr. Stuart discussed the proposed location of the tower and gave reasons for the proposed location. Mr. Stuart stated that this site is needed in order to provide adequate service to Cellular One customers. Mr. Stuart also stated that the proposed location was chosen because of the remoteness of the area and the fact that the tower should have no adverse impact on the surrounding property. Gene Ludwig, property owner, addressed the Commission in support of this application. Mr. Ludwig also discussed the location of the site and stated that the tower should have no visual impact on the surrounding property. Charles Granderson then restated several points made earlier. There was some discussion between the applicant, Mr. Granderson, and several commission members as to the location of Mor. Granderson's property in relation to the proposed tower site. Hunter Stuart then asked for deferral of this item until November 14, 1995, at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, in order to work out details with Mr. Granderson. The question was called and a vote was taken to defer the item until the November 14, 1995 agenda. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 14, 1995) The applicant, Hunter Stuart, was present. There were several objectors present, representing the Charles Norwood Estate. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff gave a brief update on the item and presented the Commission with two letters of objection from Ada Norwood and John and Gwendolyn Greene. Hunter Stuart addressed the Commission in support of his application. Mr. Stuart informed the Commission that he had a meeting with Mr. Grandison, but they reached no conclusions. Mr. Stuart reviewed the proposed tower location and the surrounding properties and ownership. Commissioner Brandon asked if the tower could be moved to another location within the one acre tract. Mr. Stuart stated that Mr. Grandison will not support any other location within the one acre tract. Commissioner Chachere asked what Mr. Ludwig planned to do with the remainder of the one acre tract. 3 FILE NO.: Z-6061 (Cont. Mr. Stuart stated that it would not be developed. Commissioner Woods asked about the visibility of the tower. Mr. Stuart stated that there are 60 to 80 foot trees covering the property and Mr. Grandison should not be able to see the tower from his house because of the topography of the land. Commissioner Ball asked about the type of tower and its width. Mr. Stuart stated that it would be a monopole with no guy wires and would be approximately 2 1/2 feet wide at the base. Commissioner Lichty asked about the geographical area that this tower would serve and the possibility of sharing towers with other companies. Mr. Stuart stated that this tower would serve western Pulaski County: the Roland area, Yacht Club area, and western Highway 10 area. He stated that future towers would depend on growth and demand. He stated that his company could possibly share a tower if there was an existing tower. Commissioner Lichty stated that the towers are noticeable and addressed the co -location of towers. Darrell Walker, of AT&T, addressed the Commission regarding the co -location of towers and the benefits and detriments of co -location. Mr. Walker also stated that the tower design would change if more than one company located an antenna on it. Commissioner Hawn asked if this tower would be on the highest point on the Ludwig property. Mr. Walker stated that it woul(f not. Commissioner Chachere asked about plans for development of the remainder of the one acre tract and about locating the tower in the center of the one acre tract and leaving the remainder of the one acre tract as a buffer. Gene Ludwig, property owner, stated that this would be acceptable to him. He also stated that he would be able to see the tower from his home. Commissioner Brandon asked if the tower would effect reception of radio, telephone, etc. Mr. Stuart stated that it would not. Jack Kearney, attorney for the Norwood Estate, spoke in opposition of the tower. He stated that the tower would hurt future development of the Norwood property. 4 FILE N ZZ -6061 (Cont.) Commissioner Chachere asked if the Norwood Estate would be opposed to locating the tower in the center of the one acre tract with the remaining trees as a buffer. Mr. Kearney stated that the Estate would be opposed. Commissioner Woods asked if Mr. Grandison has had a change in opinion of the placement of the tower. Charles Grandison, representing the Norwood Estate, stated that his opinion has not changed. Commissioner Brandon commented on the location of roads and access to the property. Commissioner Lichty asked about the sale of the one acre tract to Mr. Ludwig. Mr. Ludwig stated that he bought the property in 1993 with no restrictions on the use of the property. Commissioner McCarthy asked when Cellular One approached Mr. Ludwig with this proposal. Mr. Stuart stated April 1995. Commissioners Putnam and McCarthy spoke with Mr. Grandison about locating the tower in the center of the one acre tract and leaving the remaining trees as a buffer. Mr. Grandison stated that he could not comment on a revised plan without first speaking to the rest of the Norwood family. Commissioner Woods stated that he questions if the tower is appropriate or not. Commissioner McCarthy commented on the tower location. Commissioner Chachere stated that any future changes in the property would come back before the Planning Commission. Commissioner McCarthy asked if this tower would be considered a utility easement. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, stated that it would not. All communications towers go through the conditional use process unless they are located on Industrial zoned property. Commissioner Ball asked how a conditional use permit is appealed. Mr. Carney stated that it could be appealed to the Board of Directors within 30 days. 5 FILE NO.: Z-6061(Cont.) Commissioner Ball commented on the location of the tower in the center of the property. Commissioner Woods asked about a deferral in order for Mr. Grandison to consult the rest of his family. Mr. Stuart stated that he would ask for a vote today. Commissioner Brandon asked about the size of the structure at the base and any other structures. Mr. Walker stated that the tower is approximately 2 1/2 feet wide at the base and there would also be a small equipment building on the property. There would be a fence around the building and tower base. Commissioner Brandon asked if the equipment building and tower could be painted. Mr. Walker stated that they could. Ada Norwood, representing the Norwood Estate, arrived late and stated that she is opposed to relocation of the tower to the center of the one acre tract and leaving the trees. Commissioner Rahman asked how Cellular One decided on this site. Mr. Stuart stated that this was the only site in this area where the owner was agreeable to the tower placement. Several commissioners asked if the notices were sent to surrounding property owners in a timely manner. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, confirmed that they were sent in a timely manner. Mr. Carney stated that the County Tax Records are not always up-to-date. Mr. Stuart asked for a vote on his application. He stat -ed that he would move the tower to the center of the property and leave the remaining trees as a buffer. The Chairman called on a vote to approve the conditional use permit subject to the tower being located in the center of the one acre tract and the remainder of the one acre tract being undisturbed and acting as a buffer to the surrounding properties. The conditional use permit was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 3 nays and 1 absent. R October 31, 1995 ITXM No,: 25 FILE N Z-6061 LOCATIQ : QWNER/APPLI ANT• PR PO AIL: GRDIN CE DESIGN T)UTDAR S : 1, Sitp Loca ion• Cellular One Tower, Norwood Lane Site - Conditional Use Permit Just east of Norwood Lane, north of Pinnacle Valley Road Gene Ludwig/Cellular One by Hunter Stuart A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of a 120' tall cellular phone tower and a 12' X 20' equipment building on a 50' X 50' lease area located within this R-2 zoned, one acre site. A height variance is also requested for the tower. The proposed tower site is located approximately 600 foot east of Norwood Lane, north of Pinnacle Valley Road. The site is outside of the city limits, but within the City's Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction. 2. Qomoa.tibility with Neighborhogci: The adjacent property on all sides is zoned R-2 and is vacant and wooded. The proposal should have little effect on the surrounding property. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site will be gained by utilizing a 12 foot wide access easement which Wins from the end of Norwood Lane to the site. There are no parking issues. 4. screening and ButfQrs : The proposed lease area will be totally enclosed by a 6 foot wooden screening fence. October 31, 1995 ITEM NO.: 25 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6061 The face side of the proposed fence must be directed outward. S. City Engineer's C mmen s: No apparent Public Works issues 6. utility Comment No Comments 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for the placement of a 120' tall cellular phone tower and a 12' X 20' equipment building on a 2,500 square foot lease area at the southwest corner of the larger one acre tract. Also, a height variance is requested. A maximum height of 120' is requested for the tower, which exceeds the maximum height (751) allowed by ordinance. The proposed site is located approximately 2 miles outside the Little Rock city limits, within the City's extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction. The site is vacant and wooded as is all of the surrounding property. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 12, 1995) Joe White was present, representing the application. There were no comments and the Committee forwarded this issue to full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 31, 1995) The applicant, Hunter Stuart, was present. There was one objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval as submitted. Charles Granderson, representing the Charles Norwood Estate, spoke in opposition to this application. Mr. Granderson stated that he was opposed to the placement of the tower, as this one 2 October 31, 1995 roe ITEM NO.: 25 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-5451 acre site is in the middle of, surrounded by, the Charles Norwood Estate. Mr. Granderson stated that the tower placement could possibly hurt future development of the Charles Norwood Estate property. Hunter Stuart addressed the Commission in support of his application. Mr. Stuart discussed the proposed location of the tower and gave reasons for the proposed location. Mr. Stuart stated that this site is needed in order to provide adequate service to Cellular One customers. Mr. Stuart also stated that the proposed location was chosen because of the remoteness of the area and the fact that the tower should have no adverse impact on the surrounding property. Gene Ludwig, property owner, addressed the Commission in support of this application. Mr. Ludwig also discussed the location of the site and stated that the tower should have no visual impact on the surrounding property. Charles Granderson then restated several points made earlier. There was some discussion between the applicant, Mr. Granderson, and several commission members as to the location of Mr. Granderson's property in relation to the proposed tower site. Hunter Stuart then asked for deferral of this item until November 14, 1995, at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, in order to work out details with Mr. Granderson. The question was called and a vote was taken to defer the item until the November 14, 1995 agenda. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. 3 November 14, 1995 ITEM! NO.: C FILE NO.: Z-6061 NAME: LOCATIO OWNER/APPLI9ANT: PROPOSAL• ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: Cellular One Tower, Norwood Lane Site - Conditional Use Permit Just east of Norwood Lane, north of Pinnacle Valley Road Gene Ludwig/Cellular One by Hunter Stuart A conditional use permit is requested to allow for the placement of a 120' tall cellular phone tower and a 12' X 20' equipment building on a 50' X 50' lease area located within this R-2 zoned, one acre site. A height variance is also requested for the tower. The proposed tower site is located approximately 600 foot east of Norwood Lane, north of Pinnacle Valley Road. The site is outside of the city limits, but within the City's Extraterritorial zoning Jurisdiction. 2. Compatibility with Neighborhood: The adjacent property on all sides is zoned R-2 and is vacant and wooded. The proposal should have little effect on the surrounding property. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: Access to the site will be gained by utilizing a 12 foot wide access easement which runs from the end of Norwood Lane to the site. There are no parking issues. 4. ,Screening and Buffers: The proposed lease area will be totally enclosed by a 6 foot wooden screening fence. November 14, 1995 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-6061 The face side of the proposed fence must be directed outward. 5. City Engineer's Comments: No apparent Public Works issues 6. uti ity Comments: No Comments 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant requests a conditional use permit to allow for the placement of a 120' tall cellular phone tower and a 12' X 20' equipment building on a 2,500 square foot lease area at the southwest corner of the larger one acre tract. Also, a height variance is requested. A maximum height of 120' is requested for the tower, which exceeds the maximum height (751) allowed by ordinance. The proposed site is located approximately 2 miles outside the Little Rock city limits, within the City's extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction. The site is vacant and wooded as is all of the surrounding property. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the application as submitted. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (OCTOBER 12, 1995) Joe White was present, representing the application. There were no comments and the Committee forwarded this issue to full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 31, 1995) The applicant, Hunter Stuart, was present. There was one objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval as submitted. Charles Granderson, representing the Charles Norwood Estate, spoke in opposition to this application. Mr. Granderson stated that he was opposed to the placement of the tower, as this one 2 November 14, 1995 SUBDIVISIOAi ITEM (Cont.) FILE Z-6061 acre site is in the middle of, surrounded by, the Charles Norwood Estate. Mr. Granderson stated that the tower placement could possibly hurt future development of the Charles Norwood Estate property. Hunter Stuart addressed the Commission in support of his application. Mr. Stuart discussed the proposed location of the tower and gave reasons for the proposed location. Mr. Stuart stated that this site is needed in order to provide adequate service to Cellular One customers. Mr. Stuart also stated that the proposed location was chosen because of the remoteness of the area and the fact that the tower should have no adverse impact on the surrounding property. Gene Ludwig, property owner, addressed the Commission in support of this application. Mr. Ludwig also discussed the location of the site and stated that the tower should have no visual impact on the surrounding property. Charles Granderson then restated several points made earlier. There was some discussion between the applicant, Mr. Granderson, and several commission members as to the location of Mr. Granderson's property in relation to the proposed tower site. Hunter Stuart then asked for deferral of this item until November 14, 1995, at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, in order to work out details with Mr. Granderson. The question was called and a vote was taken to defer the item until the November 14, 1995 agenda. The vote was 8 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent. PLANNING COMMI ION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 14, 1995) The applicant, Hunter Stuart, was present. There were several objectors present, representing the Charles Norwood Estate. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval. Staff gave a brief update on the item and presented the Commission with two letters of objection from Ada Norwood and John and Gwendolyn Greene. Hunter Stuart addressed the Commission in support of his application. Mr. Stuart informed the Commission that he had a meeting with Mr. Grandison, but they reached no conclusions. Mr. Stuart reviewed the proposed tower location and the surrounding properties and ownership. Commissioner Brandon asked if the tower could be moved to another location within the one acre tract. November 14, 1995 OBDIVI,9 ITEM ND.: C (Cont.) FILE No.: Z-6451 Mr. Stuart stated that Mr. Grandison will not support any other location within the one acre tract. Commissioner Chachere asked what Mr. Ludwig planned to do with the remainder of the one acre tract. Mr. Stuart stated that it would not be developed. Commissioner Woods asked about the visibility of the tower. Mr. Stuart stated that there are 60 to 80 foot trees covering the property and Mr. Grandison should not be able to see the tower from his house because of the topography of the land. Commissioner Ball asked about the type of tower and its width. Mr. Stuart stated that it would be a monopole with no guy wires and would be approximately 2 1/2 feet wide at the base. - Commissioner Lichty asked about the geographical area that this tower would serve and the possibility of sharing towers with other companies. Mr. Stuart stated that this tower would serve western Pulaski County: the Roland area, Yacht Club area, and western Highway 10 area. He stated that future towers would depend on growth and demand. He stated that his company could possibly share a tower if there was an existing tower. Commissioner Lichty stated that the towers are noticeable and -addressed the co -location of towers. Darrell Walker, of AT&T, addressed the Commission regarding the co -location of towers and the benefits and detriments of co -location. Mr. Walker also stated that the tower design would change if more than one company located an antenna on it. Commissioner Hawn asked if this tower would be on the highest point on the Ludwig property. Mr. Walker stated that it would not. Commissioner Chachere asked about plans for development of the remainder of the one acre tract and about locating the tower in the center of the one acre tract and leaving the remainder of the one acre tract as a buffer. Gene- Ludwig, property owner, stated that this would be acceptable to him. He also stated that he would be able to see the tower from his home. 4 November 14, 1995 [IBDIVISI N ITEM NO.: C(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-5061 Commissioner Brandon asked if the tower would effect reception of radio, telephone, etc. Mr. Stuart stated that it would not. Jack Kearney, attorney for the Norwood Estate, spoke in opposition of the tower. He stated that the tower would hurt future development of the Norwood property. Commissioner Chachere asked if the Norwood Estate would be opposed to locating the tower in the center of the one acre tract with the remaining trees as a buffer. Mr. Kearney stated that the Estate would be opposed. Commissioner Woods asked if Mr. Grandison has had a change in opinion of the placement of the tower. Charles Grandison, representing the Norwood Estate, stated that his opinion has not changed. Commissioner Brandon commented on the location of roads and access to the property. Commissioner Lichty asked about the sale of the one acre tract to Mr. Ludwig. Mr. Ludwig stated that he bought the property in 1993 with no restrictions on the use of the property. Commissioner McCarthy asked when Cellular One approached Mr. Ludwig with this proposal. Mr. Stuart stated April 1995. Commissioners Putnam and McCarthy spoke with Mr. Grandison about locating the tower in the center of the one acre tract and leaving the remaining trees as a buffer. Mr. Grandison stated that he could not comment on a revised plan without first speaking to the rest of the Norwood family. Commissioner woods stated that he questions if the tower is appropriate or not. Commissioner McCarthy commented on the tower location. Commissioner Chachere stated that any future changes in the property would come back before the Planning Commission. Commissioner McCarthy asked if this tower would be considered a utility easement. 5 November 14, 1995 BDIVI IO ITEM NO.:_(Cont.)FILE NO.: z-6057. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, stated that it would not. All communications towers go through the conditional use process unless they are located on Industrial zoned property. Commissioner Ball asked how a conditional use permit is appealed. Mr. Carney stated that it could be appealed to the Board of Directors within 30 days. Commissioner Ball commented on the location of the tower in the center of the property. Commissioner Woods asked about a deferral in order for Mr. Grandison to consult the rest of his family. Mr. Stuart stated that he would ask for a vote today. Commissioner Brandon asked about the size of the structure at the base and any other structures. Mr. Walker stated that the tower is approximately 2 1/2 feet wide at the base and there would also be a small equipment building on the property. There would be a fence around the building and tower base. Commissioner Brandon asked if the equipment building and tower could be painted. Mr. Walker stated that they could. Ada Norwood, representing the Norwood Estate, arrived late and stated that she is opposed to relocation of the tower to the center of the one acre tract and leaving the trees. Commissioner Rahman asked how Cellular One decided on this site. Mr. Stuart stated that this was the only site in this area where the owner was agreeable to the tower placement. Several commissioners asked if the notices were sent to surrounding property owners in a timely manner. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, confirmed that they were sent in a timely manner. Mr. Carney stated that the County Tax Records are not always up-to-date. Mr. Stuart asked for a vote on his application. He stated that he would move the tower to the center of the property and leave the remaining trees as a buffer. 6 November 14, 1995 ITEM NO.: C(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-6061 The Chairman called on a vote to approve the conditional use permit subject to the tower being located in the center of the one acre tract and the remainder of the one acre tract being undisturbed and acting as a buffer to the surrounding properties. The conditional use permit was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 3 nays and 1 absent. VA