Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6275-C Staff AnalysisMay 11, 2000 ITEM NO.: 29 FILE NO.: Z -6275-C NAME: Nextel Partners - Tower Use Permit LOCATION: 2720 Booker Street OWNER/APPLICANT: William & Sonja McCauley / Nextel Partners PROPOSAL: To obtain a tower use permit to allow raising the height of an existing wireless communication tower from 120 to 150 feet, adding antennas to the tower, and adding an equipment building, on property zoned R-3, Single Family Residential, and C-3, General'Commercial, located at 2720 Booker Street. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. SITE LOCATION• This is an existing tower site located on the west side of Booker Street north of the intersection with Roosevelt Road, in the rear yard of the "Bugman" Termite Business. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: This site is in two zones, C-3 General Commercial for the equipment building, and R-3 Single Family Residential for the tower. The zoning to the east is R-3, to the north is 0-3, to the northwest is R-3, to the west is C-3, and to the south across Roosevelt Road is a PCD for the County jail. The closest residential structure is 125 feet from the face of the tower to the northeast. This tower was originally approved in June of 1997 as a C.U.P. As far as Staff is aware the site has not had an adverse impact on the area. Staff believes adding 30 feet to the monopole, an antenna on the taller pole, and a small equipment building, would not make the site incompatible with the neighborhood. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: Access to the site would continue to be through the Bugman Property by an access easement. May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6275-C 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: The WCF ordinance requires a six foot wide landscape strip around the perimeter of the entire lease area. One evergreen shrub 30 inches in height at planting placed every 30 inches is required within this strip. In addition to this requirement, two trees are required along each side of the lease areas. Also, an eight foot high opaque wood fence is required around the inside of the entire landscape strip. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: No comments. 6. UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT. COMMENTS: Water: No objection. Wastewater: Sewer not required for this project. Southwestern Bell: No comments received. ARKLA: No comments received. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. CATA: No affect. Site is near Route #14. 7. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant has requested a tower use permit to raise the tower height from 120 feet to 150 feet, add an antenna at the 150 foot level, and add a 9 foot by 16 foot equipment building at the base. This would be the third user on this site, a good example of collocation. However, some of the development standards and the new landscaping requirements can not be met, which resulted in this request. 2 May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6275-C The setbacks for the tower from residential properties must be the same as the height of the tower. The new tower height would be 150 feet, but the setback for the tower to the east is only 72 feet, and to the west is only 133 feet. The equipment setback to the east is only 5 feet versus 15 feet required. The other equipment setbacks are met. The closest residential structure is about 125 feet from the face of the tower to the northeast. The applicant is requesting a complete waiver for the new landscaping and screening requirements. The waiver request will have to be forwarded to the Board of Directors for a final decision. The Board wants the Commission to make a recommendation regarding the waiver request in conjunction with the Tower Use Permit review. The site lies in the gravel parking area where the property owner parks trucks for the "Bugman" commercial property and is only five feet from the east property line. To conserve space, the W.C.F. leased area does not have its own chain link security fence, since the entire compound is fenced in. To make room for a six foot landscape strip, the owner would have to give up more of his parking area which is already cramped, and cut down some large trees. On the east side there is physically not six feet of space between the existing WCF and the property line, and what space there is, is in a utility easement with underground lines. The property owner does not want to have an opaque fence or screen around the leased area because that would reduce space, and reduce visibility into the compound so that police patrols could no longer see if thieves or vandals were in the compound. The use to the east is a day care, not a residence. The equipment buildings are both faced with aggregate rock and will provide a screen for the base of the tower and the power rack that is now visible from the road. Staff believes this is a good opportunity to further the goal of collocation, and a justified request to waive the new landscape and screening requirements. 3 May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6275-C 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the tower use permit to include the variance for a reduced tower setback of 72 feet to the east and 133 feet to the west, plus a reduced equipment setback of 5 feet on the east side, subject to compliance with the following conditions: a. No signs, logos, decals, symbols or messages may be displayed on the site except for a small message containing provider identification and emergency telephone numbers. b. Only lighting allowed is that required by State or Federal law, and that required for safety and security of equipment. Even that must be down shielded and kept within the boundaries of the site. Staff also recommends approval of the waiver of landscaping and screening of this site as required by the new ordinance. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (APRIL 20, 2000) Alissa Coffield was present representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. The required setbacks and new landscaping/screening requirements were reviewed. The applicant stated their intent to ask for setback variances and landscaping/screening waivers. There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 11, 2000) The review of this item began with a general discussion between the Commissioners and Staff regarding items of this nature, and whether they should come to the Commission first or go directly to the Board of Directors when the 4 May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) only issue is a waiver of the requirements. It was decided Permit review and discuss the FILE NO.: Z -6275-C current landscaping o proceed with this Tower Use other general issue later. Alissa Coffield and Randy Frazier were present representing the application. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation," paragraph 8 above, to include the variance for a reduced tower setback of 72 feet to the east and 133 feet to the west, plus a reduced equipment setback to 5 feet from the east property line. Staff also recommended approval of the waiver of landscaping and screening for this particular site. Commissioner Berry asked if an additional equipment building would be installed, and if there wouldn't be room for landscaping? The answer given by Mr. Frazier was that there would be an additional equipment building, a little smaller than the existing one, and that the property owner doesn't want a fenced in compound around this site taking up the any additional space caused by landscaping or any other reason. In addition, he stated that there wasn't enough space on the east side to comply due to the closeness of the property line. Mr. Lawson added that there is a utility easement in the area between the WCF and the east property line that would preclude installing any landscaping in that area. Commissioner Rector asked why Staff had recommended approval of the setback variances and the landscape/screening waiver. Staff explained that the main reason for the approval recommendation of the setback variances was because that would allow the third provider to locate on this existing site in accordance with one of the goals of the ordinance, and not cause any additional risk to, or be incompatible with, the surrounding uses or residents. Staff had recommended approval of the waiver to landscaping and screening for several reasons. First, there is not enough space to meet the requirement on the east side of the property, plus what space there is contains a utility easement with underground utility lines. Second, the areas to the south, west, and north are used by the property owner for parking and access, and Staff did not believe the owner should be forced to give up parking space and restrict access in order to provide screening and 5 May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6275-C landscaping between his own buildings and the WCF if he did not wish to. Third, the equipment buildings themselves screen the rest of the WCF from view of the residential property and the street to the east. Fourth, any additional screening would make it more difficult for police patrols to see into the owner's property to look for theft and/or vandalism, which Staff felt was a reasonable concern of the owner. Commissioner Berry expressed concern that possibly the ordinance may have the wrong provisions in it since in most cases they can't be applied, or maybe the landowners need to be made more aware of the restrictions caused by the new landscaping provisions that could prevent collocation. He stated that he felt the Board would not like all these waiver requests coming to them. Mr. Frazier made the point that these new landscaping requirements are causing undue hardship in his opinion to the newer providers in order to fulfill the City's requirement for collocation, and at the same time to bring these existing sites into compliance with the new requirements. He added that the incentive to collocate is lost when a provider is faced with all the difficulties and time involved in collocating versus building new sites, most of which can be approved administratively in 5 days. Mr. Giles, City Attorney, made the point that the Board's main concern was for protection or screening of residential areas, and that where that isn't an issue, he felt that they weren't concerned. However, right now the ordinance doesn't make that distinction. Commissioner Faust asked how many total WCF sites Nextel anticipates having. Alissa Coffield responded that right now they are planning for twelve. Commissioner Faust then asked for confirmation that the Board asked that landscape waiver requests come directly to the Board. Mr. Lawson responded yes. She then commented that she felt that the waiver request for this site was justified. A question was asked of the City Attorney if the T.U.P. request could be voted on separately from the waiver request. Mr. Giles said they could. Ci May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6275-C A motion was made to approve the application as submitted excluding the landscaping/screening waiver, but including all other variances and Staff comments and recommendations. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 1 open position. A second motion was made to approve to send to the Board of Directors a recommendation to approve the request to waive the new landscaping and screening requirements for this site. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay, 2 absent, and 1 open position. 7 May 11, 2000 ITEM NO.: 29 FILE NO.: Z -6275-C NAME: Nextel Partners - Tower Use Permit LOCATION: 2720 Booker Street OWNER/APPLICANT: William & Sonja McCauley / Nextel Partners PROPOSAL: To obtain a tower use permit to allow raising the height of an existing wireless communication tower from 120 to 150 feet, adding antennas to the tower, and adding an equipment building, on property zoned R-3, Single Family Residential, and C-3, General Commercial, located at 2720 Booker Street. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. SITE LOCATION: This is an existing tower site located on the west side of Booker Street north of the intersection with Roosevelt Road, in the rear yard of the "Bugman" Termite Business. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: This site is in two zones, C-3 General Commercial for the equipment building, and R-3 Single Family Residential for the tower. The zoning to the east is R-3, to the north is 0-3, to the northwest is R-3, to the west is C-3, and to the south across Roosevelt Road is a PCD for the County jail. The closest residential structure is 125 feet from the face of the tower to the northeast. This tower was originally approved in June of 1997 as a C.U.P. As far as Staff is aware the site has not had an adverse impact on the area. Staff believes adding 30 feet to the monopole, an antenna on the taller pole, and a small equipment building, would not make the site incompatible with the neighborhood. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: Access to the site would continue to be through the Bugman Property by an access easement. May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6275-C 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: The WCF ordinance requires a six foot wide landscape strip around the perimeter of the entire lease area. One evergreen shrub 30 inches in height at planting placed every 30 inches is required within this strip. In addition to this requirement, two trees are required along each side of the lease areas. Also, an eight foot high opaque wood fence is required around the inside of the entire landscape strip. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: No comments. 6. UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT. COMMENTS: Water: No objection. Wastewater: Sewer not required for this project. Southwestern Bell: No comments received. ARKLA: No comments received. Entergy: Approved as submitted. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. CATA: No affect. Site is near Route #14. 7. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant has requested a tower use permit to raise the tower height from 120 feet to 150 feet, add an antenna at the 150 foot level, and add a 9 foot by 16 foot equipment building at the base. This would be the third user on this site, a good example of collocation. However, some of the development standards and the new landscaping requirements can not be met, which resulted in this request. 2 May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6275-C The setbacks for the tower from residential properties must be the same as the height of the tower. The new tower height would be 150 feet, but the setback for the tower to the east is only 72 feet, and to the west is only 133 feet. The equipment setback to the east is only 5 feet versus 15 feet required. The other equipment setbacks are met. The closest residential structure is about 125 feet from the face of the tower to the northeast. The applicant is requesting a complete waiver for the new landscaping and screening requirements. The waiver request will have to be forwarded to the Board of Directors for a final decision. The Board wants the Commission to make a recommendation regarding the waiver request in conjunction with the Tower Use Permit review. The site lies in the gravel parking area where the property owner parks trucks for the "Bugman" commercial property and is only five feet from the east property line. To conserve space, the W.C.F. leased area does not have its own chain link security fence, since the entire compound is fenced in. To make room for a six foot landscape strip, the owner would have to give up more of his parking area which is already cramped, and cut down some large trees. On the east side there is physically not six feet of space between the existing WCF and the property line, and what space there is, is in a utility easement with underground lines. The property owner does not want to have an opaque fence or screen around the leased area because that would reduce space, and reduce visibility into the compound so that police patrols could no longer see if thieves or vandals were in the compound. The use to the east is a day care, not a residence. The equipment buildings are both faced with aggregate rock and will provide a screen for the base of the tower and the power rack that is now visible from the road. Staff believes this is a good opportunity to further the goal of collocation, and a justified request to waive the new landscape and screening requirements. M May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: FILE NO.: Z -6275-C Staff recommends approval of the tower use permit to include the variance for a reduced tower setback of 72 feet to the east and 133 feet to the west, plus a reduced equipment setback of 5 feet on the east side, subject to compliance with the following conditions: a. No signs, logos, decals, symbols or messages may be displayed on the site except for a small message containing provider identification and emergency telephone numbers. b. Only lighting allowed is that required by State or Federal law, and that required for safety and security of equipment. Even that must be down shielded and kept within the boundaries of the site. Staff also recommends approval of the waiver of landscaping and screening of this site as required by the new ordinance. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (APRIL 20, 2000) Alissa Coffield was present representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. The required setbacks and new landscaping/screening requirements were reviewed. The applicant stated their intent to ask for setback variances and landscaping/screening waivers. There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (May 11, 2000) The review of this item began with a general discussion between the Commissioners and Staff regarding items of this nature, and whether they should come to the Commission first or go directly to the Board of Directors when the 4 May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6275-C only issue is a waiver of the current landscaping requirements. It was decided to proceed with this Tower Use Permit review and discuss the other general issue later. Alissa Coffield and Randy Frazier were present representing the application. There were no registered objectors present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation," paragraph 8 above, to include the variance for a reduced tower setback of 72 feet to the east and 133 feet to the west, plus a reduced equipment setback to 5 feet from the east property line. Staff also recommended approval of the waiver of landscaping and screening for this particular site. Commissioner Berry asked if an additional equipment building would be installed, and if there wouldn't be room for landscaping? The answer given by Mr. Frazier was that there would be an additional equipment building, a little smaller than the existing one, and that the property owner doesn't want a fenced in compound around this site taking up the any additional space caused by landscaping or any other reason. In addition, he stated that there wasn't enough space on the east side to comply due to the closeness of the property line. Mr. Lawson added that there is a utility easement in the area between the WCF and the east property line that would preclude installing any landscaping in that area. Commissioner Rector asked why Staff had recommended approval of the setback variances and the landscape/screening waiver. Staff explained that the main reason for the approval recommendation of the setback variances was because that would allow the third provider to locate on this existing site in accordance with one of the goals of the ordinance, and not cause any additional risk to, or be incompatible with, the surrounding uses or residents. Staff had recommended approval of the waiver to landscaping and screening for several reasons. First, there is not enough space to meet the requirement on the east side of the property, plus what space there is contains a utility easement with underground utility lines. Second, the areas to the south, west, and north are used by the property owner for parking and access, and Staff did not believe the owner should be forced to give up parking space and restrict access in order to provide screening and 5 May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6275-C and restrict access in order to provide screening and landscaping between his own buildings and the WCF if he did not wish to. Third, the equipment buildings themselves screen the rest of the WCF from view of the residential property and the street to the east. Fourth, any additional screening would make it more difficult for police patrols to see into the owner's property to look for theft and/or vandalism, which Staff felt was a reasonable concern of the owner. Commissioner Berry expressed concern that possibly the ordinance may have the wrong provisions in it since in most cases they can't be applied, or maybe the landowners need to be made more aware of the restrictions caused by the new landscaping provisions that could prevent collocation. He stated that he felt the Board would not like all these waiver requests coming to them. Mr. Frazier made the point that these new landscaping requirements are causing undue hardship in his opinion to the newer providers in order to fulfill the City's requirement for collocation, and at the same time to bring these existing sites into compliance with the new requirements. He added that the incentive to collocate is lost when a provider is faced with all the difficulties and time involved in collocating versus building new sites, most of which can be approved administratively in 5 days. Mr. Giles, City Attorney, made the point that the Board's main concern was for protection or screening of residential areas, and that where that isn't an issue, he felt that they weren't concerned. However, right now the ordinance doesn't make that distinction. Commissioner Faust asked how many total WCF sites Nextel anticipates having. Alissa Coffield responded that right now they are planning for twelve. Commissioner Faust then asked for confirmation that the Board asked that landscape waiver requests come directly to the Board. Mr. Lawson responded yes. She then commented that she felt that the waiver request for this site was justified. A question was asked of the City Attorney if the T.U.P. request could be voted on separately from the waiver request. Mr. Giles said it could. 6 May 11, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 29 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6275-C A motion was made to approve the application as submitted excluding the landscaping/screening waiver, but including all other variances and Staff comments and recommendations. The motion passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 nays, 2 absent, and 1 open position. A second motion was made to approve to send to the Board of Directors a recommendation to approve the request to waive the new landscaping and screening requirements for this site. The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay, 2 absent, and 1 open position. FA