Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6572-A Staff AnalysisMarch 4, 1999 ITEM NO.: 17 FILE NO.: Z -6572-A NAME: Entel/Telecorp (Flint Ridge Road) - Tower Use Permit LOCATION: 8124 Flint Ridge Road (behind Oak Park Baptist Church) OWNER/APPLICANT: Oak Park Baptist Church/Don Brown (Telecorp) PROPOSAL: To obtain a Tower Use Permit for a 175 foot tall Wireless Communication Facility at 8124 Flint Ridge Road behind the Oak Park Baptist Church on property zoned R-2, Single Family Residential. This would raise the height of an existing 150 foot tower by 25 foot. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. Site Location: This is an existing wireless communication tower located behind the Oak Park Baptist Church on Flint Ridge Road to the northwest of the I-430 exit for Stagecoach Road. 2. CompatibilitX with Neighborhood: This site and most of the surrounding property is zoned R- 2, Single Family Residential except for a small area to the east, northeast which is zoned C-4 Open Display Commercial. The existing tower is located on church property, behind and to the northwest of the church. The immediate surrounding area on three sides is tree covered with light underbrush. To the west is a salvage yard, south is vacant land, southeast is the church, about 400 feet to the east and northeast are some residential homes, and to the north is vacant and tree covered. Staff feels this is a reasonable area for this tower site, and while visible from residential property, it is not adjacent to any residences, and with proper screening of the ground equipment it should be compatible with the neighborhood. March 4, 1999 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6572-A The Crystal Valley Neighborhood Association was notified of the public hearing. 3. On -Site Drives and Parking: There is one access easement and drive from Flint Ridge Road along the east side of and behind the church to the tower site. Adequate parking is provided for a maintenance vehicle at the tower lease site. 4. Buffers and Screening: Opaque screening of the ground equipment from residential areas is required. Prior to a building permit being issued a detailed landscape plan must be approved by the Plans_ - Review Specialist. S. Public Works Comments: No Comments. 6. Utility and Fire Department Comments: Water: No objection. Wastewater: Sewer service not required for this issue. No comment. Southwestern Bell: Approved as submitted. ARKLA: Approved as submitted. Entergy: No Comments received. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. CATA: This site is not currently served by a CATA bus route. Approved as submitted. 7. Staff Analysis: This existing wireless communication tower site was granted administratively a use permit for a 150 foot tower on September 14, 1998. Since that time, system testing showed this height to be insufficient to meet operational needs. Therefore, Telecorp has applied for a tower use permit to 2 March 4, 1999 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6572-A permit a 175 foot tower. This proposal requires a tower use permit because of the height, and the fact that the setback from the tower to residentially zoned property is less than the new height of the tower. The site is behind the Oak Park Baptist Church, surrounded by trees on most of three sides, but it lies on, and is surrounded by, mostly residentially zoned property. There are no residences adjacent to the lease lot, but it is visible to homes especially to the east, and the church to the southeast. Proper screening of the equipment will reduce that visibility at ground level. The setback to residential property to the south and west is only 172 feet, 3 feet short of the height of the tower. A variance will be required for this reduced setback as; well as the height. However, the distance to the closest building is about 200 feet to the west and that is a salvage yard building. All other requirements have been met. Staff feels this is a reasonable use of this site and will have a minimal detrimental impact on the neighborhood. 8. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the tower use permit, with a variance allowing for a 175 foot tower and setbacks to the west and south of 172 feet, subject to compliance with comments under "Screening and Buffers." SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (FEBRUARY 11, 1999) Chris Villines was present representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. The issue of collocation with other towers about 2,400 feet to the southeast was brought up and discussed with commissioners, as well as why the additional height was required at this location. Mr. Villines was asked to submit a letter stating that those other towers specifically had been examined and why they could not be used. 3 March 4, 1999 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6572-A There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded it on to the full Commission for final resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 4, 1999) Chris Villines was present representing the application. There was one registered objector present. Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approval of the proposal subject to compliance with the conditions listed under "Screening and Buffers." Staff also recommended approval of the variance allowing for a 175 foot tower with setbacks to the west and south of 172 feet. Mr. Villines commented that the additional 25 feet in height would prevent the need for at least one, and possibly two, additional monopole antennas that might otherwise be required to provide service. Commissioner Adcock asked questions about limiting the additional height to 20 feet, plus the setback from residential property and how that is measured. She also expressed her concern about cell phone providers trying to work the system by getting approval through administrative procedures for a tower, then coming back later to the Commission and asking to extend an existing tower. She also asked about collocation and stealth technology to reduce visibility of the towers. She emphasized though that she is not against cell phone towers, she has a cell phone herself. A lengthy discussion followed about these issues. Mr. Villines stated that 20 feet could work for now, but monopole sections come in 25 foot lengths. Staff responded that the setback is measured from the outside edge of the monopole to the abutting property line. Commissioner Hawn asked about the concept of shorter towers as a trend versus taller towers, and the accuracy of computer modeling to project where and how tall towers need to be. Mr. Villines responded that the shorter towers may occur down the road, but not now, and that the computer generally does a very good job. He added that this was the only site they had to revise in their entire system for a computer modeling error. Mr. Norm Floyd spoke in opposition to the proposal. He commented about some problems with the current ordinance and its interpretation, accuracy of computer projections for tower 4 March 4, 1999 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 17 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -6572-A location and height, legality of the original tower, precedent set by approving variances to stated standards, and the feasibility of this tower as a collocation site at a height less than at the top of the tower when Entel's antenna must be at the top for its service. Commissioner Berry commented that he felt this location was an excellent location to be less impactful to residential neighborhoods. He also made the point that he has no problem with reviewing requests for variances, situations will come up that may substantiate the need to adjust set standards depending on needs. Steve Giles, City Attorney, provided clarification regarding several issues brought up. First, the existing tower is not illegally sited; it met ordinance requirements for administrative approval. Secondly, the setback requirement from residential property is for esthetic reasons, not safety, and the distance is to abutting property, not the property the tower is located on. Thirdly, the question of towers/antenna's extending only 20 feet above existing structures pertains to attached structures not free standing towers. This is a free standing tower or WCF with its own support structure and is not an attached WCF. A motion was made to approve the application as include staff comments and recommendation, and the 175 foot height and 172 foot setback to the The motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention by Commissioner Putnam. 5 submitted to the variance for west and south. 3 absent and