Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8427 Staff AnalysisFebruary 19, 2009 ITEM NO.: 6 FILE NO.: Z-8427 NAME: American Tower — Tower Use Permit LOCATION: 6208 Red Bud Lane OWNER/APPLICANT: Andrew and Amber Cates/American Tower PROPOSAL: A tower use permit is requested to allow for construction of a 300 foot tall, self-supporting wireless communication facility support structure on this R-2 zoned, 8.2+ acre tract. 1. SITE LOCATION: The site is located on the east side of the dead-end of Red Bud Lane, south of Chicopee Trail. The property is outside the city limits, but within the City's zoning jurisdiction. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The property is located in an area characterized by single family homes on large tracts, agricultural uses and tracts of undeveloped, wooded land. The tower is proposed to be located within an 8+ acre tract. Tracts of similar size or larger are located to the north, south and west. The nearest residences on the single family lots to the east and further north are located over 700 feet from the proposed tower site. Much of the area immediately around the tower site is heavily wooded. All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the 8+ acre parent tract, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the South West Little Rock United for Progress Neighborhood Association were notified of this request. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: Access to the tower site will be from an access easement off of the end of Red Bud Lane. A gravel base will be installed within the enclosed tower compound to provide an area for any technicians or service persons to park. No additional parking is required. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: Landscaping and screening of WCF site must comply with standards outlined in Section 36-593(c ). February 19, 2009 ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8427 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: No Comments 6. UTILITY. FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater: Outside service boundary, no comment. Entergy: No comment received. CenterPoint Energy: No comment received. AT&T (SBC): No comment received. Water: Central Arkansas Water does not have water service available to this tract. Fire Department: Outside of service boundary. Contact local Volunteer Fire department and provide statement indicating ability to provide service and any comments prior to any site work. County Planning: Approved as submitted. CATA: Outside of service boundary. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2009). The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted little additional information was needed. The applicant was advised to provide an ERP statement as well as a statement clearly indicating collocation would be permitted. Staff had asked the applicant to provide justification for the increased tower height and the applicant provided copies of propogation maps showing coverage differences based on varying tower heights. Utility and Fire department comments were noted. The applicant was advised to provide a statement from the local volunteer fire department. The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by February 4, 2009. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission. 2 February 19, 2009 ITEM NO.: 6 Cont. FILE NO.: Z-8427 STAFF ANALYSIS: American Tower Corporation is requesting approval of a tower use permit to allow construction of a 300 foot tall, self-supporting wireless communication facility support structure (tower) on this R-2 zoned, 8+ acre tract. The tower is to be erected on a slight knoll located near the middle of the tract. The tower will be designed to accommodate up to 4 carriers. The initial carrier on the tower will be AT&T. The tower will be located in a 100' x 100' lease area within the 8+ acre tract. Access will be via an access and utility easement off of Red Bud Lane. The proposed tower site complies with all aspects of the City's regulations covering WCF's with the exception of the tower height. Since the tower exceeds the height of 150 feet, a tower use permit is required. The tower site will contain a 6 foot wide perimeter landscape strip as specified by the code. An 8 foot tall wood privacy fence will be constructed within the landscape strip. A gate in the fence will allow access to the tower. American Tower will construct the facility and lease space to various providers. The applicant has stated colocation of other providers will be vigorously marketed. At staff's request, the applicant provided justification for the requested tower height. Propogation maps were provided showing a substantial gap in area coverage. The coverage is barely enhanced by a 150 foot tower due to the rolling terrain in the area. The coverage area is greatly enhanced under the increased tower height. No other options are available such as an existing tower or tall building. A separate WCF application will be submitted for staff review as each individual carrier proposes to locate on the tower. At that time, the carrier will have to provide information on the measurement of effective radiated power of the facility to assure compliance with FCC standards. The tower will have setbacks from the parent tract's property lines of 460' on the east, 720' on the west, 90' on the north and 130' on the south. The nearest residence, other than the home on the subject tract, is located over 700 feet from the proposed tower site. The tower is to be 300' from the home on the subject tract. There is no bill of assurance for this acreage tract. Written approval from the local volunteer fire department will be provided prior to construction of the tower. To staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues. K, February 19, 2009 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8427 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested Tower Use Permit subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the agenda staff report. 2. A separate WCF application must be submitted to staff and approved for each carrier to locate on the tower. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 2009) Laura McAnear and Lanny Shepherd were present representing the application. There were several objectors present. Several letters and e-mails of opposition had been received by staff and forwarded to the Commissioners. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "staff recommendation" above. Vice -chair Yates noted there were only 8 Commissioners present and asked Ms. McAnear if she wished to defer the item. Ms. McAnear responded that she wished to proceed. Ms. McAnear addressed the Commission and explained the 300 foot tall tower was needed due to the surrounding terrain. She passed out copies of area propogation maps showing the coverage provided by existing towers in the area. She stated AT & T had received complaints from customers regarding a lack of complete coverage in the area. Ms. McAnear stated a proposed tower site had to meet three (3) criteria; it had to be a leaseable site, it had to meet the City's ordinance requirements and it had to meet the cellular carriers' RF requirements. She reserved the remainder of her time to respond to objectors' issues. Susan Boyle, of 57 Plantation Acres Dr., spoke in opposition. She voiced concern about the proposed height of the tower and stated it was the wrong location for such a facility. She stated she had AT & T service and it was "ok." Elaine Burks, of 76 Plantation Acres Dr., spoke next in opposition. She stated the site was in a residential zone surrounded by single -family residences. She stated other locations should be considered. Ms. Burks stated American Tower had been fined in the past for violations. Sam Cooper, of 67 Plantation Acres Dr., stated the proposed tower would be an eyesore. ll February 19, 2009 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8427 Wally Johnson, of 15004 Chicopee Trail, spoke in opposition and stated the tower would have an impact on the view he has from his property. He also stated other sites should be considered. Andrew Lachowsky, of 15012 Chicopee Trail, spoke in opposition. He noted the number of homes in the area that he felt would be impacted by the tower. Janet Lanza, of 64 Plantation Acres Dr., stated the tower would extend above the tree line and would be visible from her home. She stated there was industrial property in the area, along Lawson Road, that would be better suited for the tower. Bob Petrick, of 44 Belle Meadow Lane, presented a petition signed by area residents in opposition to the propose tower. Nancy Pruitt, of 15523 Chicopee Trail, stated her home would look over the tower. She voiced concerns about radiation from the tower and decreased property values. She stated there were better sites in the area. Joel Schmidt, of 71 Plantation Acres Dr., stated he wanted to echo his neighbors' concerns. Jim Winter, of 64 Plantation Acres Dr., stated he was opposed to cellular towers being located in any residential area. He commented that the tower could be located elsewhere, such as on one of the ridges in the area, outside of the neighborhood. He asked the Commission to make the applicant prove that this was the only site and tower height that would work. He stated the tower would interfere with television signals both over the air and on satellite. Robert Watts, of 4524 S. Lookout, stated he owned property adjacent to the south of the proposed tower site. He stated the only buildable site on his property was within 250 feet of the tower site. Laura McAnear responded that the tower site would comply with all City codes other than the height. She reiterated the three site requirements and stated this site met all qualifications. She acknowledged that there were many homes in the area and stated that was the reason increased service was needed. She referred to the propogation maps and stated there were gaps in coverage in the area. Ms. McAnear stated the tower would be designed to collapse in on itself, not fall over. Lanny Shepherd, RF engineer for AT & T, stated there had been several complaints about lack of coverage in the area. He stated a lower tower height of 150 feet would require putting in more than one tower. He stated other carriers would also need coverage and they would have to erect even more towers. Mr. Shepherd stated they had looked at other alternatives and none would work. `i February 19, 2009 ITEM NO.: 6 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z-8427 Ms. McAnear commented that the tower site would be kept clean and there would be very little traffic to the site once the tower was built. In response to questions from Commissioner Laha, Mr. Shepherd stated the company was hoping for 98% coverage and it was less expensive to build a single 300 foot tower than two 150 foot towers. Commissioner Smith asked if the only two options were to build a single 300 foot tower or two 150 foot towers. Mr. Shepherd said those were the two options. Commissioner Rector commented that the propogation maps did not seen to indicate that much coverage improvement between a 150 foot tower and a 300 foot tower. Mr. Shepherd responded that there was a difference in coverage and the expanded coverage would help to "hand off" calls from one tower to the next. It said the tower would also help to increase signal strength so that calls would reach into homes better. In response to a question from Commissioner Changose, Ms. McAnear stated the tower would be designed to accommodate up to four (4) carriers where a 150 foot tower might only accommodate two (2) carriers. Commissioner Smith asked what was the boundary of the search area for the new tower site. Mr. Shepherd responded that the search area was within a one- half mile radius. He stated moving the tower outside of the half -mile radius would do very little to no good. Commissioner Smith asked the residents present if they would prefer one 300 foot tower or two 150 foot towers. Several responded that they did not want any towers. A motion was made to approve the application, including all staff recommendations and conditions. The vote was 0 ayes, 8 noes and 3 absent. The motion failed. 0 IMU:010W : EM7 NAME: American Tower — Tower Use Permit LOCATION: 6208 Red Bud Lane OWNER/APPLICANT: Andrew and Amber Cates/American Tower PROPOSAL: A tower use permit is requested to allow for construction of a 300 foot tall, self-supporting wireless communication facility support structure on this R-2 zoned, 8.2+ acre tract. SITE LOCATION: The site is located on the east side of the dead-end of Red Bud Lane, south of Chicopee Trail. The property is outside the city limits, but within the City's zoning jurisdiction. 2. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: The property is located in an area characterized by single family homes on large tracts, agricultural uses and tracts of undeveloped, wooded land. The tower is proposed to be located within an 8+ acre tract. Tracts of similar size or larger are located to the north, south and west. The nearest residences on the single family lots to the east and further north are located over 700 feet from the proposed tower site. Much of the area immediately around the tower site is heavily wooded. All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the 8+ acre parent tract, all residents within 300 feet who could be identified and the South West Little Rock United for Progress Neighborhood Association were notified of this request. 3. ON SITE DRIVES AND PARKING: Access to the tower site will be from an access easement off of the end of Red Bud Lane. A gravel base will be installed within the enclosed tower compound to provide an area for any technicians or service persons to park. No additional parking is required. 4. SCREENING AND BUFFERS: Landscaping and screening of WCF site must comply with standards outlined in Section 36-593(c ). FILE NO.: Z-8427 (Cont. 5. PUBLIC WORKS COMMENTS: No Comments 6. UTILITY FIRE DEPT. AND CATA COMMENTS: Wastewater: Outside service boundary, no comment. Entergy: No comment received. CenterPoint Energy: No comment received. AT&T (SBC): No comment received. Water: Central Arkansas Water does not have water service available to this tract. Fire Department: Outside of service boundary. Contact local Volunteer Fire department and provide statement indicating ability to provide service and any comments prior to any site work. County Planning: Approved as submitted. CATA: Outside of service boundary. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 29, 2009). The applicant was present. Staff presented the item and noted little additional information was needed. The applicant was advised to provide an ERP statement as well as a statement clearly indicating collocation would be permitted. Staff had asked the applicant to provide justification for the increased tower height and the applicant provided copies of propogation maps showing coverage differences based on varying tower heights. Utility and Fire department comments were noted. The applicant was advised to provide a statement from the local volunteer fire department. The applicant was advised to respond to staff issues by February 4, 2009. The Committee forwarded the item to the full Commission. 2 FILE NO.: Z-8427 (Cont. STAFF ANALYSIS: American Tower Corporation is requesting approval of a tower use permit to allow construction of a 300 foot tall, self-supporting wireless communication facility support structure (tower) on this R-2 zoned, 8+ acre tract. The tower is to be erected on a slight knoll located near the middle of the tract. The tower will be designed to accommodate up to 4 carriers. The initial carrier on the tower will be AT&T. The tower will be located in a 100' x 100' lease area within the 8+ acre tract. Access will be via an access and utility easement off of Red Bud Lane. The proposed tower site complies with all aspects of the City's regulations covering WCF's with the exception of the tower height. Since the tower exceeds the height of 150 feet, a tower use permit is required. The tower site will contain a 6 foot wide perimeter landscape strip as specified by the code. An 8 foot tall wood privacy fence will be constructed within the landscape strip. A gate in the fence will allow access to the tower. American Tower will construct the facility and lease space to various providers. The applicant has stated colocation of other providers will be vigorously marketed. At staffs request, the applicant provided justification for the requested tower height. Propogation maps were provided showing a substantial gap in area coverage. The coverage is barely enhanced by a 150 foot tower due to the rolling terrain in the area. The coverage area is greatly enhanced under the increased tower height. No other options are available such as an existing tower or tall building. A separate WCF application will be submitted for staff review as each individual carrier proposes to locate on the tower. At that time, the carrier will have to provide information on the measurement of effective radiated power of the facility to assure compliance with FCC standards. The tower will have setbacks from the parent tract's property lines of 460' on the east, 720' on the west, 90' on the north and 130' on the south. The nearest residence, other than the home on the subject tract, is located over 700 feet from the proposed tower site. The tower is to be 300' from the home on the subject tract. There is no bill of assurance for this acreage tract. Written approval from the local volunteer fire department will be provided prior to construction of the tower. To staff's knowledge there are no outstanding issues. 3 FILE NO.: Z-8427 Cont. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested Tower Use Permit subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the agenda staff report. 2. A separate WCF application must be submitted to staff and approved for each carrier to locate on the tower. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 19, 2009) Laura McAnear and Lanny Shepherd were present representing the application. There were several objectors present. Several letters and a -mails of opposition had been received by staff and forwarded to the Commissioners. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval subject to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "staff recommendation" above. Vice -chair Yates noted there were only 8 Commissioners present and asked Ms. McAnear if she wished to defer the item. Ms. McAnear responded that she wished to proceed. Ms. McAnear addressed the Commission and explained the 300 foot tall tower was needed due to the surrounding terrain. She passed out copies of area propogation maps showing the coverage provided by existing towers in the area. She stated AT & T had received complaints from customers regarding a lack of complete coverage in the area. Ms. McAnear stated a proposed tower site had to meet three (3) criteria; it had to be a leaseable site, it had to meet the City's ordinance requirements and it had to meet the cellular carriers' RF requirements. She reserved the remainder of her time to respond to objectors' issues. Susan Boyle, of 57 Plantation Acres Dr., spoke in opposition. She voiced concern about the proposed height of the tower and stated it was the wrong location for such a facility. She stated she had AT & T service and it was "ok." Elaine Burks, of 76 Plantation Acres Dr., spoke next in opposition. She stated the site was in a residential zone surrounded by single -family residences. She stated other locations should be considered. Ms. Burks stated American Tower had been fined in the past for violations. Sam Cooper, of 67 Plantation Acres Dr., stated the proposed tower would be an eyesore. Wally Johnson, of 15004 Chicopee Trail, spoke in opposition and stated the tower would have an impact on the view he has from his property. He also stated other sites should be considered. 9 FILE NO.: Z-8427 (Cont. Andrew Lachowsky, of 15012 Chicopee Trail, spoke in opposition. He noted the number of homes in the area that he felt would be impacted by the tower. Janet Lanza, of 64 Plantation Acres Dr., stated the tower would extend above the tree line and would be visible from her home. She stated there was industrial property in the area, along Lawson Road, that would be better suited for the tower. Bob Petrick, of 44 Belle Meadow Lane, presented a petition signed by area residents in opposition to the propose tower. Nancy Pruitt, of 15523 Chicopee Trail, stated her home would look over the tower. She voiced concerns about radiation from the tower and decreased property values. She stated there were better sites in the area. Joel Schmidt, of 71 Plantation Acres Dr., stated he wanted to echo his neighbors' concerns. Jim Winter, of 64 Plantation Acres Dr., stated he was opposed to cellular towers being located in any residential area. He commented that the tower could be located elsewhere, such as on one of the ridges in the area, outside of the neighborhood. He asked the Commission to make the applicant prove that this was the only site and tower height that would work. He stated the tower would interfere with television signals both over the air and on satellite. Robert Watts, of 4524 S. Lookout, stated he owned property adjacent to the south of the proposed tower site. He stated the only buildable site on his property was within 250 feet of the tower site. Laura McAnear responded that the tower site would comply with all City codes other than the height. She reiterated the three site requirements and stated this site met all qualifications. She acknowledged that there were many homes in the area and stated that was the reason increased service was needed. She referred to the propogation maps and stated there were gaps in coverage in the area. Ms. McAnear stated the tower would be designed to collapse in on itself, not fall over. Lanny Shepherd, RF engineer for AT & T, stated there had been several complaints about lack of coverage in the area. He stated a lower tower height of 150 feet would require putting in more than one tower. He stated other carriers would also need coverage and they would have to erect even more towers. Mr. Shepherd stated they had looked at other alternatives and none would work. Ms. McAnear commented that the tower site would be kept clean and there would be very little traffic to the site once the tower was built. 5 FILE NO.: Z-8427 (Cont In response to questions from Commissioner Laha, Mr. Shepherd stated the company was hoping for 98% coverage and it was less expensive to build a single 300 foot tower than two 150 foot towers. Commissioner Smith asked if the only two options were to build a single 300 foot tower or two 150 foot towers. Mr. Shepherd said those were the two options. Commissioner Rector commented that the propogation maps did not seen to indicate that much coverage improvement between a 150 foot tower and a 300 foot tower. Mr. Shepherd responded that there was a difference in coverage and the expanded coverage would help to "hand off' calls from one tower to the next. It said the tower would also help to increase signal strength so that calls would reach into homes better. In response to a question from Commissioner Changose, Ms. McAnear stated the tower would be designed to accommodate up to four (4) carriers where a 150 foot tower might only accommodate two (2) carriers. Commissioner Smith asked what was the boundary of the search area for the new tower site. Mr. Shepherd responded that the search area was within a one-half mile radius. He stated moving the tower outside of the half -mile radius would do very little to no good. Commissioner Smith asked the residents present if they would prefer one 300 foot tower or two 150 foot towers. Several responded that they did not want any towers. A motion was made to approve the application, including all staff recommendations and conditions. The vote was 0 ayes, 8 noes and 3 absent. The motion failed. [1