Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6781 Staff AnalysisJanuary 6, 2000 ITEM NO.: 27 FILE NO.: Z-6781 NAME: Telecorp - Tower Use Permit LOCATION: 4500 Alpine Lane OWNER/APPLICANT: Ralph and Melissa Farish PROPOSAL: To obtain a tower use permit for a Wireless Communication- Facility with a 300 foot triangular self-supporting lattice style tower on property zoned R-2, Single Family Residential, located south southwest from the current terminus of Alpine Lane, south of Colonel Glenn Road. ORDINANCE DESIGN STANDARDS: 1. SITE LOCATION: This site is located south southwest from the current terminus of Alpine Lane, south of Colonel Glenn Road. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: This site is zoned R-2, Single Family Residential, and is surrounded by R-2 zoning. The area is rural consisting of mostly large tracts of land which are either still undeveloped, or contain site -built and/or manufactured homes on them. There is currently no road to the proposed site. Staff believes that given the rural nature of the proposed site, that even with the style and height of the proposed tower, the proposal should not have an adverse impact on the surrounding area. The Spring Valley Manor Property Owners Association was notified of the public hearing. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: An unimproved 1647 linear foot access road would be constructed to the site from the current terminus of January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 27 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6781 Alpine Lane. Proposed parking for maintenance vehicles would be adequate. The site would be unmanned. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: No requirements at this time. However, should development occur close to this site in the future, the site would have to be brought up to the then current ordinance standards. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: No comment. 6. UTILITY AND FIRE DEPT. COMMENTS: Water: No objection. Wastewater: No sewer service required for this project. Southwestern Bell: No comments received. AR.KIA: Approved as submitted. Entergy: No comments received. Fire Department: Approved as submitted. LATA: No comments requested. 7. STAFF ANALYSIS: The applicant has requested a Tower Use Permit to construct a Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) with a 300 foot triangular self-supporting lattice style tower with supporting equipment cabinets on a 100x100 foot leased area. This proposed WCF would require three variances to the requirements in the ordinance development standard. That is why it has to go before the Commission. The first is for the style of tower. They are requesting to use a triangular lattice type tower. The ordinance 2 January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 27 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6781 calls for monopole style towers. The applicant states this is needed because of the required height to provide the service required, and to still be able to support multiple users. The proposed tower would be able to hold at least three carriers. That ability would of course help reduce the need for additional towers in the area. The second variance is for the 300 foot height. The ordinance limits towers to 150 feet. The applicant has provided justification from their engineers that this is the height required to provide the service needed from a single tower. The third variance is for reduced setbacks to the west and south. The ordinance requires the tower be setback from any abutting residential property the height of the tower. In this case the reduced setbacks would be 236 feet to the west and 30 feet to the south. The applicant states this variance is required to be able to provide the service needed given the topography of the area and the point at which the tower needs to be placed to provide the widest coverage. The equipment location exceeds the setbacks in all directions. Staff believes this is a good location to set one tower which can provide the widest coverage, support multiple users, and be able to mitigate the impact of this style and height on the surrounding area. 8. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the tower use permit subject to compliance with the following conditions: a. Comply with the City's Landscape and Buffer Ordinances if development occurs adjacent to this site within the next two years. (See note at end of this section.) b. Only sign allowed would be one with a small message containing provider identification and emergency telephone numbers. c. Only lighting allowed would be that required by State or Federal law, and that required for safety and security of equipment. Any lighting must be down shielded and kept within the boundaries of the site. 3 January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 27 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6781 Staff also recommends approval of the three variances for style, height, and reduced setbacks as proposed. The applicant should be aware that a new ordinance passed December 20, 1999 will require them to add fencing and landscaping as described in that ordinance within the next two years unless they obtain a deferral or waiver. The applicant has the option to comply now or within the next two years, or apply now or no later than in two years for a deferral or waiver. Requesting a decision now would prevent having to go back through the Commission at a later date. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (DECEMBER 9, 1999) Randy Frazier, attorney for Telecorp, was present representing the application. Staff gave a brief description of the proposal. The main issue discussed was the need for the variances. Mr. Frazier explained the justification and stated he would have that provided in writing to Staff from Telecorp engineers. There being no further issues, the Committee accepted the proposal and forwarded the item to the full Commission for final action. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 6, 2000) Randy Frazier was present representing the application. There were no registered objectors present. Staff had received one letter of objection from the property owner immediately to the south. The Commissioners were given a copy of the letter and weighed the concerns with the benefits in making their decision. Staff presented the item with a recommendation for approval subject to compliance with the conditions listed under "Staff Recommendation," paragraph 8 above. 4 January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 27 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-6781 A motion was made to approve the application as submitted to include staff comments and recommendations. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 5