Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6196 Staff AnalysisOctober 10, 1996 ITEM NO.: 13 FILE NO.: Z-6196 ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is located on the north side of (end of) Gooch Drive, south of Taylor Loop Road. 2. compatibility with Neighborhood: This property is in an area which is made up largely of single family residences on larger lots. The single family zoned properties immediately west and south of this site are vacant and wooded. The property immediately north is also vacant and zoned single family. The properties east of this site (along Gooch Drive) contain single family residences. The new Pennwick Subdivision is located further east. Given the fact that much of the property in this general area is vacant and many of the nearby residences are separated from this site by wooded areas, the proposed monopole tower should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parkin : Access to the site will be gained by utilizing a 12 foot drive from Gooch Drive. Alltel (Gooch Drive) - NAME: Conditional Use Permit LOCATION: 4420 Gooch Drive 'ER/APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Joe D. Miller/ Alltel by Carrick B. Inabnett PROPOS AL• A conditional use permit is - requested to allow for the construction of a 150 foot tall cellular communications monopole tower and a 12 foot by 28 foot equipment building on this R-2 zoned property. A height variance is also requested to allow the monopole tower at a height greater than 75 feet. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: The site is located on the north side of (end of) Gooch Drive, south of Taylor Loop Road. 2. compatibility with Neighborhood: This property is in an area which is made up largely of single family residences on larger lots. The single family zoned properties immediately west and south of this site are vacant and wooded. The property immediately north is also vacant and zoned single family. The properties east of this site (along Gooch Drive) contain single family residences. The new Pennwick Subdivision is located further east. Given the fact that much of the property in this general area is vacant and many of the nearby residences are separated from this site by wooded areas, the proposed monopole tower should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 3. On -Site Drives and Parkin : Access to the site will be gained by utilizing a 12 foot drive from Gooch Drive. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6196 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. 4. Screening and Suffers: A six foot high wood fence with its face side directed outward or dense evergreen plantings are required to screen the proposed compound area from adjacent residential property. 5. Public Works Comments: Gooch Drive is not a public road. 6. Utility Comments: No comments received. 7. Staff Analysis: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a 150 foot tall cellular communications monopole tower and a 12 foot by 28 foot equipment building on this R-2 zoned property. The proposed monopole tower will be located on a 50 foot by 50 foot lease area behind (west of) the residence at 4420 Gooch Drive. The lease area will be enclosed by a six foot high wood screening fence. The proposed equipment building will be located at the base (east side) of the monopole tower within the fenced compound. The proposed structures meet and exceed the setbacks as required by ordinance. The applicant is also requesting a height variance for the monopole tower. A height of 150 feet is requested for the tower, which exceeds the maximum height (75 feet) allowed by ordinance. The applicant has also informed staff that co -location on this tower will be possible. The proposed tower will accommodate one and possibly two additional future users. Given the fact that much of the property in this general area is vacant and many of the nearby residences are separated from this site by wooded areas, the proposed 2 .October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13(Cont.)FILE NO.: 2--6196 monopole tower should not have an adverse effect on the surrounding properties. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of and of the requested height applicant complying with the comment. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: the conditional use permit variance subject to the screening and buffers (SEPTEMBER 19, 1996) Alissa Coffield and other Alltel representatives were present, representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. There was a brief discussion as to whether or not Gooch Drive is a public road. David Scherer, of Public Works, stated that he believes Gooch Drive to be a private drive. Bob Brown, Site Plan Review Specialist, stated that a six foot high wood fence would be required around the proposed compound area. The Alltel representatives confirmed that the proposed tower would accommodate one and possibly two additional future users. After further discussion, the Committee accepted the presentation and forwarded the issue to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (OCTOBER 10, 1996) Alissa Coffield, Tim Rounsaville, and Carrick Inabnett were present, representing the application. There were several persons present in opposition to this item. Staff presented the item with a recommendation of approval. Carrick Inabnett, of Alltel, spoke in support of the application. Mr. Inabnett stated that the pole would not be lighted, and gave a brief description of the area. Tim Rounsaville, of Alltel, addressed the Commission. Mr. Rounsaville presented a handout to the Commission which included information regarding the Alltel towers in this general area. Mr. Rounsaville discussed with the Commission the technical reasons which support the need for this particular tower. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6196 Commissioner baniel asked if this tower would cover the Chenal Parkway area. Mr. Rounsaville stated that this proposed tower would be to cover the general area of Cantrell Road, and not the Chenal Parkway area. There was a brief discussion regarding the placement of this tower and whether other towers would be needed in this area in the future. Alissa Coffield, of Alltel, presented photographs to the Commission. Mrs. Coffield discussed the photographs with the Commission. The photographs were computer generated and depicted the area as if the tower were on the site. Commissioner Berry asked if alternative sites were considered. Mr. Inabnett stated that the church at Taylor Loop Road and Carter Lane declined to allow Alltel to put a tower on their property. Mr. Rounsaville again discussed with the Commission the technical issues involved with the proposed tower and why this specific site is needed. Michael Ptak represented the neighbors in opposition to the conditional use permit. Mr. Ptak gave several reasons for the opposition. The main reason for opposition, as stated by Mr. Ptak, is that the area around the proposed tower location is residential in nature. Mr. Ptak stated that the proposed tower would not be compatible and have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. Mr. Ptak also stated that the neighbors are concerned with the health and safety issues regarding cellular towers. Randy Riva spoke in opposition to the conditional use permit. Mr. Riva stated that the proposed tower would ruin the recreational enjoyment of his property. Gary Oldrettle also spoke in opposition to the application. Mr. Oldrettle stated that the proposed tower would take away from the rural nature of the area. Bill Gunn also spoke in opposition to Gunn stated that he would have a clear from his house. Stuart Perry also spoke in opposition permit. Mr. Perry stated that he felt tower would not be compatible with the 4 the application. Mr. view of the tower to the conditional use that the proposed area. October 10, 1996 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 13 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-6196 Commissioner Hawn stated that the Zoning Ordinance prohibited uses or structures with commercial characteristics in single family residential zoning. A motion was made to approve the conditional use permit. The motion failed by a vote of 1 aye, 8 nays and 2 absent. 5