HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6297 Staff AnalysisJune 3, 1997
Item No.: A
File No.:
Owner•
Address•
Description:
Zoned•
Variance Rec;uested:
Justification:
Present Use of Pro ert :
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-6297
H and H Properties I Limited
#1 Shackleford Drive
Lot 2, Hooper -Bond Addition
C-3
A variance is requested from the
height restrictions of Section 36-
201 to permit a tower which exceeds
75 feet in height.
The surrounding terrain requires a
tower of the proposed height.
Radio and television studio and
station
Radio and television studio and
station
The C-3 zoned property located at #1 Shackleford Drive is
currently occupied by several uses including a television
station and a radio station. To accommodate these uses, a
184 foot tall tower and 7 satellite dishes were recently
erected on the site. The tower was erected without Board of
Adjustment approval, a building permit or proper
inspections. In response to a complaint from nearby
residential neighbors, enforcement action was instituted,
directing that the tower be removed or the proper approval
and permits be obtained. The applicant has filed for a
height variance to allow the 184 foot tall tower. The
Ordinance limits metal, ground -mounted towers to 75 feet in
height. Plans were also submitted for building permit
review. There are outstanding questions related to the
construction of the tower, including seismic standards.
Complete inspections, such as footings, cannot be
accomplished since to tower is already in place and
June 3, 1997
Item No.: A Cont.
operational. The tower is of metal, lattice -work design
with a small diameter. Guy -wires extend to the north, west
and southeast.
In addition to building code requirements for towers, the
zoning Ordinance establishes criteria which must be met to
assure that the tower is constructed in a safe manner.
Sections 36-201(d) and 36-201(8) are as follow:
d) specifications and plans. All towers
shall be erected in strict accordance with the
manufacturer's specifications for erection, or in
the event there are no manufacturer's
specifications for erection of the towers, they
shall be erected in accordance with plans and
specifications prepared by a registered
professional engineer. The manufacturer's
specifications or plans and specifications
prepared by said registered professional engineer
shall be filed with that department designated by
the city manager prior to the issuance of the
permit for the erection of the towers.
(g) Inspections. No person shall pour or
otherwise construct any foundation, footing or pad
for any tower for which a permit is required
without first notifying the city building
inspector and obtaining approval of the excavation
or ditch in which the foundation, footing or pad
will be poured or otherwise constructed. The
building inspector shall inspect or cause to be
inspected all towers for which a permit is
required. Two (2) inspections shall be made. A
foundation excavation inspection shall be made by
the building inspector within twenty-four (24)
hours after being notified by the permittee that
the excavation or ditch in which the foundation,
footing or pad for the support of a tower is about
to be poured. Final inspection shall be made by
the building inspector upon completion of
construction. The permittee shall notify the
building inspector within twenty-four (24) hours
after completion.
The property is located at the commercially developed West
Markham/Shackleford Road/I-430 node. Most properties in the
vicinity are zoned commercial and occupied by a variety of
commercial uses. However, a single family residential
subdivision is directly adjacent to the north. Staff is
always concerned about the placement of towers in close
proximity to residential neighborhoods. In this case, that
2
June 3, 1997
Item No.: A Cont.
concern is heightened by the fact that the tower was erected
without proper permits and inspections"for safety.
Staff recognizes that the tower may be necessary for the
TV/radio stations and that the 184 foot height may also be
neccessary due to the height of the terrain to the north.
We believe it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide
information to the Board to justify the height of the tower.
This could include Engineering studies showing how the
signal is impacted by the terrain. Should the Board believe
the proposed height is justified, staff believes it is
important that all proper permits and inspections be
performed to assure that the tower is safe.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff cannot recommend approval of the requested height
variance at this time.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 19, 1997)
Ann Palmer abstained on this issue. Joe White, Jr. and James
Hearnsberger were present representing the application. There
were several objectors present. Staff presented the item.
Mr. Hearnsberger addressed the Board. He stated that the tower
was essential to the operation of the station. He also stated
that the applicant was not aware that proper permits and
inspections were not obtained. Mr. Hearnsberger asked for
additional time to provide all the required documentation to
satisfy staff's concerns.
The Board stated that they wished to hear from other interested
parties before voting on Mr. Hearnsberger's request for a
deferral.
Jim Chandler, of #6 Arcadia Court, addressed the Board. Mr.
Chandler stated that he was concerned about the lack of proper
permits and inspections. He stated that there were safety
concerns.
Chris Anderson, of #7 Arcadia Court, spoke in opposition to the
tower. Mr. Anderson stated that it was unreasonable for any one
to believe that they could build a structure such as this without
permits and inspections. He stated that he was concerned about
the applicant's lack of respect for the neighbors and for the
City. He questioned why the station had to be at this location,
when terrain is such an obvious problem.
Amanda Robinson, of 11015 Beverly Hills Drive, spoke in
opposition to the tower. Ms. Robinson stated that she was
concerned about the tower's safety.
June 3, 1997
Item No.: A Cont.
Randy Bowling, President of the Beverly Hills Neighborhood
Association, spoke at length in opposition to the tower. He read
from a list of 13 items of concern. Mr. Bowling also showed
photographs of the tower site and a petition signed by several
persons requesting that the tower be removed.
Mark Alderfer asked Mark Whitaker, of the City's Building Codes
Staff, to give a summary of what information he had related to
the issue of this tower's construction. Mr. Whitaker stated that
staff had no direct knowledge of the tower's construction since
no permits were obtained and no inspections performed. He stated
that he had letters from the contractor in which the contractor
described the tower's footings and foundation. Mr. Whitaker
stated that he had also received a copy of the tower plans and
specs but that those plans did not have a state certified
engineer's stamp. He stated that he had a letter from Engstrom
Engineers in which Mr. Engstrom attested that the construction of
the tower met Zone I seismic requirements.
Kirby Rowland asked if the tower was built by a state licensed
contractor. Mr. Whitaker responded that the contractor did not
have a city privilege license but that he was unsure if the
contractor had a state license. Mr. Whitaker also noted that he
was very concerned about guy wires which are anchored in the
parking lot.
Mark Alderfer stated that there was additional information which
the applicant must provide to the Board.
Randy Bowling asked if the City would not be liable if the Board
granted a variance and the tower fell on someone.
Steve Giles, Deputy City Attorney, responded that the City had
tort immunity and the Board members had qualified immunity.
Randy Bowling questioned whether the FAA and FCC approvals were
valid since they had been granted without confirmation of
compliance with local code.
There was further discussion between Mr. Bowling and Mr. Giles
concerning FCC and FAA license requirements. Mr. Giles suggested
that Mr. Bowling contact those federal agencies if he felt the
licenses were issued in error.
Mr. Hearnsberger stated that he had no doubt the tower was safe.
He again asked for a deferral to allow him time to provide all of
the requested documentation to staff.
Gary Langlais asked Mr. Hearnsberger if he was aware that permits
were required for the tower. Mr. Hearnsberger stated that he was
unaware how the error occurred but that he depended on the
contractor to obtain the permits.
4
June 3, 1997
Item No.: A Cont.
Kirby Rowland asked Randy Bowling to conjecture how the neighbors
would have felt about the tower if the variance had been
requested on the front end, as it should have been. Mr. Bowling
stated that there would probably not have been the number of
objections if the neighborhood was assured that the tower was to
have been built safely.
Steve Giles asked Mark Whitaker if it was possible to get
certification, after the fact, that the tower was constructed
safely. Mr. Whitaker responded that it was.
In response to a question from Mark Alderfer, Mr. Hearnsberger
stated that a tower 184 feet tall was necessary to send a signal
to the transmitting tower located several miles to the northwest.
Mr. Anderson stated that it appeared to him that the tower was
bending. He also stated that the applicants had had 3 months to
gather and provide the required documentation.
A motion was made to defer the item to the next Board meeting to
allow the applicant time to provide additional documentation.
The motion failed by a vote of 4 ayes, 2 noes, 2 absent and 1
abstaining (Palmer).
Gary Langlais questioned the appropriateness of allowing the
tower to remain since it was erected without proper permits and
inspections.
The Board determined that it was appropriate to hear information
related to the height variance itself.
Mr. Hearnsberger stated that denying the variance would have a
negative impact on the station's ability to function which could
lead to the loss of jobs. He stated that he had applied for a
building permit, after being issued a notice by the City. He
stated that the City was requiring additional information to
prove that the tower is safe. He asked again that the item be
deferred so that safety issues can be addressed.
Larry Morton, President of Kaleidoscope Affiliates owner of the
licenses, addressed the Board. He stated that he obtained FAA
approval for the tower and depended upon his contractor to obtain
the proper permits. He stated that he misunderstood the
ordinance limitation of 75 feet above "the adjacent ground." The
ground to the north is much higher than the ground that the tower
itself is located on. He stated that he would work with the
neighbors to satisfy them that the tower is safe. If he cannot
prove to their satisfaction that the tower is safe, he stated, he
will remove it and build a new structure. He stated that KKYK
radio provides many hours of public access time to the community.
Mr. Morton stated that requiring removal of the tower was a harsh
penalty to pay for a mistake that could simply by rectified by an
engineering study. He stated that there was no intent to avoid
A
June 3, 1997
Item No.: A (Cont.
any regulations or permits. Mr. Morton stated that the
foundation was designed for a tower exceeding 300 feet in height.
The Chairman called the question on the variance request to allow
a 184 foot tall tower. The vote was 4 ayes, 2 noes, 2 absent and
1 abstaining (Palmer). The item was automatically deferred to
the June 30, 1997 meeting.
Chairman Alderfer provided the following list of documents which
he directed the applicant to provide to staff and the Board.
1. Copy of City of Little Rock privilege license for the
contractor who erected the tower
2. Copy of the contract to Rohn (tower supplier)
3. Copy of legal survey showing the tower location and guy -wire
anchor point locations
4. Engineering analysis of as -built foundation assuring
structural adequacy
5. Seismic certification of tower for structure as well as
foundation, with P.E. stamp
6. FAA certification regarding lighting
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 3, 1997)
This item was heard at a special called meeting of the Board of
Adjustment in response to neighborhood concerns regarding the
safety of the tower. All persons were notified of the special
hearing date.
The applicant was present. There were several objectors present.
Chairman Alderfer reviewed the issue.
James Hearnsberger addressed the Board. He referred to a package
of documentation which he provided to the Board and to staff on
the morning of June 3, 1997. Information within that packet
addressed the concerns and issues raised by the Board at the May
19, 1997 meeting.
Larry Morton, President of Kaleidoscope Affiliates, addressed the
Board. He stated that his was the only locally owned media group
in the Little Rock market and that his group had 3 television and
2 radio stations. He apologized for not having the information
to the Board sooner but that he thought they had until June 30
not June 3. Mr. Morton discussed the relationship of the tower
height to the adjacent terrain. He stated that the 184 foot tall
tower was necessary for a signal to reach the transmitting
6
June 3, 1997
Item No.: A(Cont.)
towers. Mr. Morton stated that his stations provided needed
local access programs.
Phil Whisenhunt, of Communication Management Specialists,
addressed the Board. He stated that his firm specialized in the
design and construction of wireless communication networks and
that he had been asked to do field investigations of this tower.
Mr. Whisenhunt provided letters and documentation to the Board.
He stated that he had concluded that the tower had been
constructed to meet or exceed all local code requirements and
manufacturer's specifications. He went into detail explaining
how he reached that conclusion and explaining the various aspects
of the study.
In response to a series of questions from Brandon Rogers, Mr.
Whisenhunt provided the following information:
1. The tower is not leaning.
2. There are 50-100 towers of similar height in the Little Rock
area.
3. This tower is as safe as the others.
4. He is not aware of a tower falling in Little Rock.
5. When towers such as this do fall, they fall in a circular
pattern, in on themselves.
6. This tower would fall within a 30 foot radius.
7. Based on manufacturer's specifications, this tower could not
fall on the neighbors.
Vivian Doyne asked if it would be possible to reduce the height
of the tower. Mr. Whisenhunt responded that the proposed height
was necessary to have line of sight to the antenna on Chenal
Mountain.
James Hearnsberger stated that he believed they had proven that
the tower was safe. He noted that the neighborhood had stated
that safety was the issue, not the height of the tower. He asked
the Board to approve the height variance.
Doyle Daniel, of 412 Springwood Drive, spoke in opposition to the
tower. He stated that he felt this tower should be removed and a
new one erected with proper permits and inspections.
Randy Bowling, President of the Beverly Hills Neighborhood
Association, addressed the Board. He stated that they had no
objection to a proper tower. Mr. Bowling stated that the
neighbors would prefer to see a monopole type tower. He made
note of other towers in the city and stated that a stand alone or
monopole type tower was preferable.
7
Tune 3, 1997
em No.: A (Cont.
Mr. Morton made a brief concluding statement in support of the
request.
Mark Alderfer stated that the applicant had done a good job of
providing the information requested by the Board.
The question was called and a vote taken on the height variance.
The variance was approved by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 noe and
1 absent.
8