HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-08 - Agendas - FinalPlanning Commission Planning Commissioners
Officers
Sean Trumbo, Chair
Audy Lack, Vice -Chair
Matthew Cabe, Secretary
aye
evtlle
ARKANSAS
Tentative Agenda
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
Planning Commission Meeting
March 8, 2010
Craig Honchell
Jeremy Kennedy
Christine Myres
Porter Winston
Jim Zant
A meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission will be held on March 8, 2010 at 5:30
PM in Room 219 of the City Administration Building located at 113 West Mountain Street,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Call to Order
Roll Call
Agenda Session Presentations, Reports and Discussion Items:
No items.
Consent:
1. Approval of the minutes from the Monday, February 22, 2010 meeting.
Old Business:
2. CUP 10-3512: Conditional Use Permit (CELL TOWER/HILL & MLK, JR.BLVD,
522): Submitted by SMITH TWO-WAY RADIO for property located SOUTHEAST OF
THE INTERSECTION OF HILL AVENUE AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS. The
property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately
0.12 acres. The request is for a 150 ft. 'flag pole type' cellular tower on the subject
property. Planner: Dara Sanders
New Business:
3. ADM 10-3533: Administrative Item (AARON WATSON, 323): Submitted by
AARON WATSON for property located at the NORTHEAST CORNER OF MOUNT
COMFORT AND SALEM ROADS. The request is for a variance of Fayetteville Unified
Development Code Section 166.08 to permit a curb cut on Mount Comfort Road, a Minor
Arterial, when there is an existing curb cut onto Salem Road, a Collector.
Planner: Andrew Garner
4. LSD 09-3372: Large Scale Development (LIFE STYLES, INC., 363): Submitted by
BATES & ASSOCIATES for property located at THE CORNER OF W. SYCAMORE
STREET AND SADDLEHORN AVENUE. The property is zoned P-1,
INSTITUTIONAL and contains approximately 1.27 acres. The request is for a 14,165
s.f. educational facility with associated parking and infrastructure.
Planner: Dara Sanders
5. CUP 10-3520: Conditional Use Permit (DICKSON ST. DEVELOPMENT CO.,
LLC/OUTDOOR MUSIC, 484): Submitted by DICKSON STREET DEVELOPMENT
CO., LLC for property located at 301/303/307 W. DICKSON. The property is zoned
MSC, MAIN STREET CENTER and contains approximately 0.13 acres. The request is
for a conditional use permit for outdoor music. Planner: Dara Sanders
6. CUP 10-3525: Conditional Use Permit (JOANNE OLSZEWSKI/345
ST.CHARLES, 518): Submitted by JOANNE OLSZEWSKI for property located at 345
ST. CHARLES. The property is zoned NC, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION and
contains approximately 0.07 acres. The request is for a conditional use permit for a
change in an existing nonconforming use for professional office, chiropractic/massage
therapy office, and a beauty salon. Planner: Andrew Garner
The following item has been approved administratively by City staff:
1. FPL 10-3521: Final Plat (CREEKSIDE S/D Ph. II/ MT. COMFORT ROAD, 360):
Submitted by H2 ENGINEERING, INC. for property located at 4225-4427 MT.
COMFORT ROAD. The property is zoned RSF-4, SINGLE FAMILY - 4 UNITS/ACRE
and contains approximately 10.94 acres. The request is for Final Plat approval of Phase
II of the Creekside residential subdivision with 13 single family lots.
Planner: Andrew Garner
NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE
All interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearings. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on an agenda
item please queue behind the podium when the Chair asks for public comment. Once the Chair recognizes you, go to the podium and
give your name and address. Address your comments to the Chair, who is the presiding officer. The Chair will direct your comments
to the appropriate appointed official, staff, or others for response. Please keep your comments brief, to the point, and relevant to the
agenda item being considered so that everyone has a chance to speak.
As a courtesy please tum off all cell phones and pagers.
A copy of the Planning Commission agenda and other pertinent data are open and available for inspection in the office of City
Planning (575-8267), 125 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. All interested parties are invited to review the petitions.
Interpreters or TDD, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf, are available for all public hearings; 72 hour notice is required. For
further information or to request an interpreter, please call 575-8330.
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on February 22, 2010 at 5:30
p.m. in Room 219, City Administration Building in Fayetteville, Arkansas.
ITEMS DISCUSSED
Consent:
MINUTES: FEBRUARY 08, 2010
Page 3
Old Business:
ACTION TAKEN
Approved
CUP 10-3501: Conditional Use Permit (SHOPPES AT WEDINGTON, 401)
Page 4
New Business:
Tabled
CUP 10-3508: Conditional Use Permit (GREEN LEAF RENTAL OFFICE, 440)
Page 5 Approved
CUP 10-3512: Conditional Use Permit (CELL TOWER/HILL & MLK, JR.BLVD, 522)
Page 6 Tabled
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
PC Minutes 02-22-10
Agenda Item 1
Page 1 of 6
MEMBERS PRESENT
Craig Honchell
Jeremy Kennedy
Matthew Cabe
Audy Lack
Christine Myres
Sean Trumbo
Porter Winston
Jim Zant
STAFF PRESENT
Andrew Garner
CITY ATTORNEY
Kit Williams
MEMBERS ABSENT
STAFF ABSENT
Jeremy Pate
Jesse Fulcher
Dara Sanders
Glenn Newman
5:30 PM - Planning Commission Chair Sean Trumbo called the meeting to order.
Commissioner Trumbo requested all cell phones to be turned off, and informed the audience that
listening devices were available. Upon roll call, all members were present.
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
PC Minutes 02-22-10
Agenda Item 1
Page 2 of 6
Consent:
Approval of the minutes from the February 8, 2010 Planning Commission meeting.
Motion:
Commissioner Cabe made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Winston
seconded the motion.
Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0.
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
PC Minutes 02-22-10
Agenda Item 1
Page 3 of 6
Old Business:
CUP 10-3501: Conditional Use Permit (3484 W. WEDINGTON/SHOPPES AT WEDINGTON,
401): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC. for property located at 3484
W. WEDINGTON DRIVE. The property is zoned C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and
contains approximately 2.24 acres. The request is for a conditional use permit to allow a 10,000
square foot church (Use Unit 4) in the C-1 zoning district.
MOTION:
Commissioner Winston made a motion to table the item indefinitely. Commissioner Kennedy
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion to table passed with a vote of 7-1-0 with
Commissioner Lack recusing.
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
PC Minutes 02-22-10
Agenda Item 1
Page 4 of 6
New Business:
CUP 10-3508: Conditional Use Permit (GREEN LEAF RENTAL OFFICE, 440): Submitted by
THOMAS J. EMBACH for property located at 1028 N. BETTY JO DRIVE. The property is zoned
RMF -24, MULTI FAMILY - 24 UNITS/ACRE and contains approximately 0.97 acres. The request
is for a 544 s.f. structure to be located on the subject property and used as a rental office for the
Greenleaf Apartments.
Andrew Garner, Senior Planner, gave the staff report, discussing the proposed rental office for the
Greenleaf Apartments; finding the use compatible staff recommends approval.
Tom Embach, applicant, further described the request to utilize the office for maintenance and
leasing services for the apartments.
Commissioner Honchell asked about the days of the week the office would be open.
Tom Embach, applicant, responded that at times the office may be open seven days a week.
MOTION:
Commissioner Winston made a motion to change Condition of Approval #4 to allow daily hours of
operation from 8 AM — 6 PM. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the
motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0.
Commissioner Trumbo asked about ADA parking.
Garner discussed that one ADA compliant parking stall was required for the new office building.
He referred to the site plan that indicated the location of the new ADA parking space within the
existing parking lot.
Commissioner Winston asked about the build -to zone.
Garner responded that the building appears to be within the build -to zone as indicated on the site
plan but that an accurate scaled site plan would be required to show that detail prior to building
permit.
MOTION:
Commissioner Lack made a motion for approval. Commissioner Cabe seconded the motion.
Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0.
CUP 10-3512: Conditional Use Permit (CELL TOWER/HILL & MLK, JR.BLVD, 522):
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
PC Minutes 02-22-10
Agenda Item 1
Page 5 of 6
Planning Commission
February 22, 2010
Page 6 of 6
Submitted by SMITH TWO-WAY RADIO for property located SOUTHEAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF HILL AVENUE AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS. The property is zoned C-
2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.12 acres. The request is for a
150 ft. 'flag pole type' cellular tower on the subject property.
MOTION:
Commissioner Cabe made a motion to table the item to the March 8, 2010 Planning
Commission meeting. Commissioner Myres seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion
passed with a vote of 8-0-0
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 PM.
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
PC Minutes 02-22-10
Agenda Item 1
Page 6 of 6
a e�evue
I+HAN AS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Dara Sanders, Current Planner
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director
DATE: March 2, 2010
PC Meeting of March 8, 2010
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
CUP 10-3512: Conditional Use Permit (CELL TOWER/HILL & MLK, JR.BLVD, 522):
Submitted by SMITH TWO-WAY RADIO for property located SOUTHEAST OF THE
INTERSECTION OF HILL AVENUE AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS. The property is zoned
C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.12 acres. The request is
for a 150 ft. 'flag pole type' cellular tower on the subject property.
Planner: Dara Sanders
Findings:
February 22, 2010 Planning Commission Meeting: The applicant requested that this item be
tabled to the March 8, 2010 Planning Commission meeting in order to supply the additional
materials requested by staff The additional information has not been submitted to the City
Planning Division, and staff's recommendation has not changed.
The Planning Commission directed staff to research the height of the two existing sites to the
south of the target area, which are as follows:
Beechwood — 150' monopole tower
15th Street (Allied Storage) — 130' flagpole tower
Background: The subject property is undeveloped and located east of Fayetteville High School
and north of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard between Hill Avenue and Government Avenue.
Proposal: The applicant is proposing to erect a I50' tall flagpole tower with an area at the base
for equipment shelter and wireless equipment. The proposed lease site area is approximately
7,050 sq. ft. and is currently proposed for use by AT&T.
Following ordinance requirements, notification was provided to all property owners within a
500' radius of the center of the proposed tower. The type and height of the proposed tower is in
accordance with Chapter 163.14(B) (1 & 2). The proposed location of the tower is not located
within 150' of a residential structure. The applicant provided all documentation required by
Chapter 163.I4.
The applicant has stated in the application that AT&T has reached the capacity of their existing
G:16TCIDerelopmenr Ser -rices Rericn12O/0 Derelopnrenr /teI'ieni10-35/2 CUP 649 MIX /3hr11/13-Planning Connnission603-08-/01Comnmms
owl Redlincsi/0-3512 PLNCG Conmienls.doc
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
CUP10-3512 Cell Tower/Hill&MLK
Agenda Item 2
Page 1 of 48
towers and is suffering a substantial level of dropped calls and network busy signals, causing an
unacceptable service condition in the identified target area of Fayetteville High School and
Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The result of the limited capacity now requires new facilities
to relieve the pressure on the network.
The applicant has stated in the application that there are no existing towers or structures within
the immediate area to allow for co -location by the applicant. However, a review of the RF
coverage maps provided reveals that the coverage and capacity problems that AT&T is
experiencing could potentially be resolved by co -locating on two (2) existing sites located south
of the target arca. Further, staff finds that other co -location sites on existing buildings have not
been fully evaluated within the subject service arca. The lack of existing cell towers in the direct
vicinity of the high school preempted the applicants to look at erecting a new tower.
Surrounding Land Use:
Direction
Land Use
Zoning
North
Railroad
C-2 and RMF -40
South
Residential
I-1
East
Industrial
1-1
West
Commercial
C-2
Public Comment: Staff has not received any puhlic comment.
Discussion: Chapter 163.13(A)(6)(f) states that the Planning Commission may deny a permit to
an applicant that has not demonstrated a good faith effort to provide for co -location. Such effort
includes a survey of all existing structures that may be feasible sites for co -locating; contact with
all other wireless communications facilities; sharing information necessary to determine if co -
location is feasible under the design configuration most accommodating to co -location; and a
letter from tower owners stating why co -location is not feasible.
Staff finds that the intent of the regulation of wireless communications facilities is to co -locate
antennae on existing structures and/or towers. Only after an applicant has exhausted all co -
location possibilities should consideration for a new tower be submitted with supporting
documentation demonstrating the need.
In this particular application, the documents do not argue for a new tower based on a "coverage
concern; rather, additional facilities arc needed to meet the current and projected volume of calls,
or a "capacity" concern. The applicant has provided several maps that identify the target area
around Fayetteville High School and six (6) existing wireless communication sites in the vicinity
— four (4) to the north of the target area and two (2) to the south of the target area. The four (4)
existing sites to the north of the target area have AT&T antennae. These sites work in
conjunction currently to handle the volume of calls in the area and to provide the appropriate
level of coverage. The applicant has not provided sufficient information in the application
indicating that AT&T could not co -locate additional antennae at one or more of these existing
sites to the north to improve the stated capacity issue.
G-iETCIDerelopnren, Services Rerie0520/01Derelopmmni Rerieid10 _3512 CUP 649 SILK l3/1d103- Planning Commis.sioniO3-08-101Conunen,s
and Redlines 10-35 /2 PLNG Cwmne,us.doc March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
CUP10-3512 Cell Tower/Hill&MLK
Agenda Item 2
Page 2 of 48
The two (2) existing sites to the south of the target area — Beechwood Avenue and 15th Street
(Allied Storage) -- currently do not carry AT&T antenna. The applicant has provided information
indicating that co -locating AT&T antenna at these two locations will extend service and provide
additional capacity to the target area but issued a statement that these sites would be over
capacity due to call volume produced by the target area; however, the applicant has not
submitted any supporting documentation demonstrating that, while coverage would be provided,
additional call capacity to meet the demonstrated need would not he provided by co -locating on
these existing sites.
Staff does not find in favor of the application as submitted, finding that other co -location
possibilities do exist presently without the construction of a new tower, and recommends denial.
Staff recommends that the applicant co -locate antennae at the existing Beechwood Avenue and
15`h Street sites. Should co -location at these sites not resolve the coverage and capacity issue in
the are, staff would reevaluate data supporting that claim and review an application for Planning
Commission consideration of a new tower.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the application based on the findings
and discussion included in this staff report.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES
❑ Approved
Motion:
Second:
Vote:
Meeting Date: March 8, 2010
Comments:
❑ Tabled 17 Denied
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: City Neighborhood Area: Primarily a
residential designation with low intensity nonresidential uses confined to corner locations.
Consists of a wide range of building types with streets defining medium sized blocks with a high
level of connectivity between neighborhoods.
163.02. AUTHORITY; CONDITIONS; PROCEDURES.
B. Authority; Conditions. The Planning Commission shall:
1. hear and decide only such special exemptions as it is specifically
authorized to pass on by the terms of this chapter.
2. Decide such questions as are involved in determining whether a
conditional use should be granted; and,
G: IE/ClDere/oprnem Services Rerieu120/0lDerelopnmM Rei ieirl 10-35/2 CUP 649 d4LK /3hT O3- Planning Conw,i.ssioit03-08-1O:Conunenis
and Red/inesg0-3512 PLNG Coannenrsdoc
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
CUP10-3512 Cell Tower/Hill&MLK
Agenda Item 2
Page 3 of 48
3. Grant a conditional use with such conditions and safeguards as arc
appropriate under this chapter; or
4. Deny a conditional use when not in harmony with the purpose and intent
of this chapter.
C. A conditional use shall not be granted by the Planning Commission unless and
until:
1. A written application for a conditional use is submitted indicating the
section of this chapter under which the conditional use is sought and
stating the grounds on which it is requested.
Finding: The applicant has submitted a written application requesting a conditional
use permit for a Wireless Communications Facility on property zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial.
2. The applicant shall pay a filing fee as required under Chapter 159 to cover
the cost of expenses incurred in connection with processing such
application.
Finding: The applicant has paid the required filing fee.
3. The Planning Commission shall make the following written findings before
a conditional use shall be issued:
(a.) That it is empowered under the section of this chapter described in
the application to grant the conditional use; and
Finding: The Planning Commission is empowered under § 163.14 to grant the
requested conditional use permit.
(b.) That the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect
the public interest.
Finding: Granting the requested conditional use for a 150' tall flagpole tower should
not adversely affect the public interest. The tower and surrounding base
equipment will be located approximately 150' from the nearest public right-
of-way, which should prevent the general public from viewing the equipment
shelter and associated wireless equipment, while still providing an important
service to the community. Pursuant to Chapter 164.13(B)(4), where an
applicant demonstrates that it is not feasible to co -locate on an existing'
structure, a new tower should be camouflaged to the greatest extent possible,
or stealth technology should be utilized.
(i:1lTCiDerelopmcnt Services Rerleni20/01Derelopmmnt Reiiem170-3572 CUP 649 MLK 1319&03- Planning Contmission103-08-/0 Comments
and RedlinesV10-35/2 PLNO Conmtentr doe March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
CUP10-3512 Cell Tower/Hill&MLK
Agenda Item 2
Page 4 of 48
And by designing the tower as a flagpole with internal antenna, the visual
obstructions of multiple antennas protruding from a standard monopole
would be eliminated. The flagpole design would allow the carrier to provide
required service to their customers, while also maintaining the overall scenic
quality of the City. While a new 150' cellular tower would be visually
obtrusive, the flagpole design would minimize aesthetic impacts.
However, at the direction of the Unified Development Code, co -location is
and should be the primary means of providing cellular coverage where it is
possible, rather than adding additional towers within the City. In this case,
there appears to be numerous opportunities to co -locate antennae so as to not
visually impact the landscape of the area.
(c.) The Planning Commission shall certify:
(I.) Compliance with the specific rules governing individual
conditional uses; and
Finding: The applicant has not complied with specific rules governing this individual
conditional use request. See section 6(e).
(2.) That satisfactory provisions and arrangements have been
made concerning the following, where applicable:
(a.) Ingress and egress to property and proposed
structures thereon with particular reference to
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
traffic flow and control and access in case of fire or
catastrophe;
Finding: An access easement is proposed to provide access and service to the facility
off of Hill Avenue. Traffic and pedestrian access will not be adversely
impacted.
(b.) Off-street parking and loading areas where required,
with particular attention to ingress and egress,
economic, noise, glare, or odor effects of the special
exception on adjoining properties and properties
generally in the district;
Finding: No parking or loading areas are required for this use, however additional
paved or gravel area may be required for maintenance vehicles servicing the
facility. The details of any additional parking and loading areas will be
reviewed in detail at the time of development.
(c.) Refuse and service areas, with particular reference
to ingress and egress, and off-street parking and
G: iETCIDere/opmeni Services RevienH211101Dereloprnenl Rei'ieuil0-3512 CUP 649 MLK MGM- Planning CommissioniO3-08-IOOCommcnls
and Redlines1/0-3512 PING Connnen[adoc March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
CUP10-3512 Cell Tower/Hill&MLK
Agenda Item 2
Page 5 of 48
loading,
Finding: No refuse areas are required for this use.
(d.) Utilities, with reference to locations, availability,
and compatibility;
Finding: Should the request be approved by the Planning Commission, utilities shall
be located underground and screened from the public view with the
exception of the proposed cellular tower and the equipment mounted on that
apparatus. Any electric or other utility lines that must be extended or
provided to the site shall be done so at the cost of the applicant, and all lines
shall be located underground, at the cost of the applicant.
G:16TCiDevelopmem Services Reriew1201O1Derelopmeni Res ie'r110-3512 CUP 649 M/.K 1304103- Plaening Cornmission103-O8-FOICommenis
and Redlines110-3512 PLNG Comment.s.doc
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
CUP10-3512 Cell Tower/Hill&MLK
Agenda Item 2
Page 6 of 48
(e.) Screening and buffering with reference to type,
dimensions, and character;
Finding: If approved, screening shall be provided as required by Chapter 163.14; see
ordinance section included as part of this report. Trees and vegetation may
be utilized as screening if existing on the subject property or shall be
installed as part of the proposed facility or a combination of both. Prior to
building permit, the applicant shall provide a detailed landscape plan and
tree preservation plan, indicating compliance with applicable city codes.
(f.)
Signs, if any, and proposed exterior Lighting with
reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effect,
and compatibility and harmony with properties in
the district;
Finding: Should the request be approved by the Planning Commission, only warning,
site identification and FCC signs would be permitted on the subject facility.
All required signs shall be located on the fence structure.
(g.) Required setbacks and other open space; and
Finding: The location of the proposed ground equipment is outside of the required
setbacks for the C-2 zoning district.
(h.) General compatibility with adjacent properties and
other property in the district.
Finding: Compatibility with adjacent properties is difficult to achieve when erecting
any type of tower structure. However, the applicant is proposing a white
flagpole with internal antenna to reduce the visual impact in this area, which
is surrounded by commercial and residential uses. Staff finds that the color
of the tower and the location of the tower mentioned above, in combination
with vegetative and fence screening around the utility equipment at the base
of the tower, would result in minimal visual impacts resulting in general
compatibility. Ultimately, however, if co -location can he achieved on existing
structures, this would result in much greater general compatibility than a
new tower.
CHAPTER 163: USE CONDITIONS
163.14 Wireless Communications Facilities.
(A)The following general requirements shall apply to all new wireless communications
facilities.
(1) Noise Requirements. Equipment used in connection with a tower or
March 8, 2010
PlanningpCommission
G:iGTCIDerelopmenr Services Review120107Development Review110-3512 CUP 64999 LK 13heC,03- Planning Cannisgi!I(1 9-ARRA/Aged"ill&MLK
and Redlines)/0-3512 PLNG Co,mnenus.doc Agenda Item
Page 7 of 48
antenna array shall not generate noise that can be heard beyond the site. This
prohibition does not apply to air condition units no noisier than ordinary
residential units or generator used in emergency situations where regular power
supply for a facility is temporarily interrupted; provided that any permanently
installed generator shall be equipped with a functional residential muffler.
Finding: Should the request be approved by the Planning Commission, equipment
used in connection with the tower shall not generate noise which can be
heard beyond the site per Chapter 163.14.
(2) Compliance with Federal Regulations. Applicant shall comply with all
applicable federal regulations. Proof of compliance shall be provided
upon request of the City Planner.
Finding: Should the request be approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant
shall comply with all applicable federal regulations. Proof of compliance
shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit.
(3) Lighting and Signage.
(a) Wireless communications facilities shall be lighted only if required by
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Security lighting or motion -
activated lighting may be used around the base of a tower and within the
wireless communications facility, provided that the lighting is shielded in
such a way that no light is directed towards adjacent properties or right-of-
way.
Finding: Should the request be approved by the Planning Commission, lighting on the
tower shall only be installed if mandated by the FAA. Security lighting or
motion -activated lighting may be used around the base of the tower,
provided that the lighting is shielded in such a way that 110 light is directed
towards adjacent properties or rights-of-way. All outdoor lighting shall meet
lighting ordinance requirements and shall be reviewed prior to installation.
(b) Signs shall be limited to those needed to identify the property and
tower and warn of any danger. No signs, symbols, identifying emblems,
flags, or banners shall be allowed on towers.
Finding: Site identification and "No Trespassing" signs are proposed to be located on
the screening fence.
(B) New Towers. New wireless communications towers shall meet the following
requirements:
(1)
Type of Towers Allowed. New towers shall be limited to monopole type
structures or alternative tower structures.
G:I FTCDerelopment Seri ices Renew 20101Derelopment Rerien910-3 i 12 CUP 649 MIX 131rr1103- Plan
and Redlinesi 1(43512 PING Conments.doc
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
Co» mis tRiA.9A§NiPaM/TiRWPrlHill&MLK
Agenda Item 2
Page 8 of 48
Finding: The applicant is proposing a white painted flagpole structure.
(2) Tower or antenna height limitations. Towers or alternative tower
structures are permitted to a maximum height of 150 feet.
Finding: The maximum tower height proposed (including antenna, lighting rod, and
all other appurtenances) and permitted by the Unified Development Code is
1.50'.
(3)
Fall Zone. The minimum distance from the base of any tower to any
residential dwelling unit shall be the tower height or required setback,
whichever is greater, unless all persons owning said residences or the land
on which said residences are located consent in a sign writing to the
construction of said tower. This setback is considered a "fall zone." In
the event that an existing structure is proposed as a mount for a wireless
communication facility, a fall zone shall not be required.
Finding: There are no residential dwelling units located within 150' of the base of the
tower.
(4) Camouflaging or Stealth Technology for New Towers. If the applicant
demonstrates that it is not feasible to locate on an existing structure, towers
shall be designated to be camouflaged to the greatest extent possible,
including but not limited to: use of a compatible building materials and colors,
screening, landscaping and placement within trees.
Finding: Staff finds that the applicant has not demonstrated to any degree that it is
not feasible to locate on an existing structure. Rather the applicant indicates
multiple structures in the area that provide improved coverage and enhanced
capacity for the target area, if AT&T antennae were co -located thereon.
Should the Planning Commission find that these structures are not suitable
for the target area, staff finds the utilization of the flagpole design
camouflages to a far greater extent than other towers utilizing external
antenna constructed by the applicant in previous applications. Without
designing the tower as a flagpole with internal antenna, the proposed tower
would not be camouflaged to the greatest extent possible at this particular
site.
(5)
Color of Towers. To the extent that any antenna extends above the height
of the vegetation immediately surrounding it, they shall be a neutral color,
painted or unpainted, unless the FAA requires otherwise.
Finding: Should the request be approved by the Planning Commission, staff
recommends a white flagpole to minimize visual impact to the area.
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
QILTCDereloprnem Services Rerie‘020/0IDevelopnrenl Rerien910-35/2 CUP 649 MLK 131vdio.3- Planning ConuniscaillPtA6A iinTMWerlHill&MLK
and Redlinesi10-3512 PLNG Co,n nevs.doc Agenda Item 2
Page 9 of 48
(6) Information Required to Process New Tower Requests.
(a) Provide a map of the geographic arca that your project will serve.
(b) Provide a map hat show other existing or planned facilities that will be
used by the wireless communication service provider who is making the
application.
Finding: Item (a) and item (b) are reflected within the report, as provided by the
applicant and distributed with this agenda to the Commissioners.
(c) Provide a map that shows other potential stand-alone locations for
your facility that have been explored.
Finding: The applicant has provided several maps that identify the target area around
Fayetteville High School and six (6) existing wireless communication sites in
the vicinity — four (4) to the north of the target area and two (2) to the south
of the target area. The four (4) existing sites to the north of the target area
have AT&T antennae. The applicant has not provided sufficient information
indicating that AT&T could not co -locate additional antennae at one or more
of these existing sites to the north to improve the stated capacity issue.
The two (2) existing sites to the south of the target area — Beechwood Avenue
and 15th Street (Allied Storage) — currently do not carry AT&T antenna. The
applicant has provided information indicating that co -locating AT&T
antenna at these two locations will extend service and provide additional
capacity to the target area but issued a statement that the distance between
the facilities is not adequate and does not solve the main issue of capacity;
however, that applicant has not submitted supporting documentation
demonstrating that, while coverage would be provided, additional call
capacity would not be provided by these existing sites. Discussion with the
applicant has indicated that co -locating would help, in fact, some of the
dropped calls occurring in the area.
(d) Provide a scaled site plan containing information showing the
property boundaries, proposed tower, existing land use, surrounding land
uses and zoning, access road(s) location and surface material, existing and
proposed structures and topography. The plan shall indicate proposed
landscaping, fencing, parking areas, location of any signage and
specification on proposed lighting of the facility
Finding Item (d) is reflected within the report, as provided by the applicant and
distributed with this agenda to the Commissioners.
(e) Describe why the proposed location is superior, from a community
perspective, to other potential locations. Factors to consider in the community
perspective should include: visual aspects, setbacks and proximity to single
family residences.
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
G:IEICIDerelopmen[ Services Rericn1.201O1Derelopmenl Re"ev:VO-3512 CLIP 649 MLK Oh -a103- Planning Commis UlP��i3�l,2Cellow
Ter/Hill&MLK
and 2ealine01O-3512 PLNm�
G Conent _ _ genda tem
doe
Page 10 of 48
Finding: Staff docs not find the proposed location to be superior. Co -locating new
carriers on existing cellular towers or existing structures is the first and best
option available from a community perspective. Staff finds that all co -
location opportunities have not been exhausted. See discussion in section (c)
on the previous page.
(1) Describe your efforts to co -locate your facility on one of the poles or
towers that currently exists, or is under construction. The applicant should
demonstrate a good faith effort to co -locate with other carriers. The Planning
Commission may deny a permit to an applicant that has not demonstrated a good
faith effort to provide for co -location. Such good faith effort includes:
(1) A survey of all existing structures that may be feasible sites for co -locating
wireless communications facilities;
(2) Contact with all the other wireless communications Licensed carriers
operating in the City and Washington County; and
(3) Sharing information necessary to determine if co -location is feasible under
the design configuration most accommodating to co -location.
(4) Letter from tower owner stating why co -location is not feasible.
Finding: There are currently two (2) existing towers within 1 to 1.5 miles of the target
arca that are not being utilized by AT&T. Staff finds that the applicant has
not demonstrated a good faith effort to provide for co -location at these two
sites. Further, the applicant has not provided an explanation why the existing
four co -location sites to the north could not support additional AT&T
antennae and provide additional call capacity; therefore, all co -locations
efforts have not been exhausted.
(g)
Describe how you will accommodate other antenna anays that could
co -locate on your facility. Describe how this accommodation will
impact both your pole or tower, and your ground mounted facilities.
Provide documentation of your provider's willingness to
accommodate other providers who may be able to co -locate on your
facility.
Finding: This facility will allow co -location for at least four additional wireless
carriers as stated within the applicant's request.
(7) Required (after condition) and Balloon Test or Crane Test Photographs.
The proposed tower shall be photographed from four locations taken 90 degrees ,
apart and 300' from the center of the tower. The proposed tower shall be
superimposed on the photographs. A balloon or crane test shall be performed to
illustrate the height of the tower and photographed from the same four locations.
The time period, not to exceed one week, within which the test will be performed,
shall be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 14
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
G:IETCDerelapnmN Services Rerien920101Derelopment Rerieni 10-3512 CUP 649 MLK 13114P03- Planning cnnunissi iiJ�� 83 71F'CeneT�wer/Hill&MLK
and Redlines /0-3.512 PLNG Commmnsdoc gen a l em
Page 11 of 48
days, but not more than 21 days prior to thc test. The four locations shall be
approved by the City Planner.
Finding: The applicant has provided this information.
(8) Sight Line Representation. A sight line representation shall be drawn from
four points 90 degrees apart and 100 degrees from the proposed tower. Each sight
line shall be depicted in profile, drawn at one inch equals 40 feet. The profiles
shall show all intervening trees and buildings.
Finding: The applicant has provided this information.
(9) Structural Integrity and Inspection of Towers
(a) The applicant shall provide a certification letter that states the tower meets or
exceeds design criteria and all local, state, and federal requirements regarding
thc construction, maintenance, and operation of the tower.
(b) If a tower fails to comply with the requirements and criteria above and
constitutes a danger to person or property, then upon written notice being
provided to the owner of the tower, thc owner shall have thirty (30) days to
bring such tower into compliance within thirty (30) days, the City may
terminate that owner's conditional use permit and/or cause the removal of
such tower (at the owner's expense).
(c) By making an application hereunder, the applicant agrees to regularly
maintain and keep in a reasonably safe and workmanlike manner all towers,
antenna arrays, fences and outbuildings owned by thc applicant which are
located in the City. The applicant further agrees to conduct inspections of all
such facilities not less frequently than every 12 months. The applicant agrees
that said inspections shall be conducted by one or more designated persons
holding a combination of education ad experience so that they are reasonably
capable of identifying functional problems with the facilities.
Finding: The applicant has provided this information.
(10) Security Fencing and Anti -climbing Device. Through the use of security
fencing, towers and equipment shall be enclosed by wood board fencing not less
than six (6) feet in height. The tower shall also be equipped with an appropriate
anti -climbing device. The facility shall place signs indicating "No Trespassing",
"High Voltage" or other pertinent information on the outside of the fence, unless
it is decided that the goals of this ordinance would be better served by waiving
this provision in a particular instance. Barbed wire fencing or razor wire shall be
prohibited.
Finding: Should the request be approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant
shall construct an 8' wood privacy fence around the equipment at the base of
the tower. The applicant has indicated in their application that they will
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
G:iETCIDeve/opmeni Services Rerien420100evelopment Rerien910-3512 CUP 6491141,K Rh -d913- Planning Connnis.£AJ.F.YADfk5ialetaiIIGwer/Hill&MLK
and Redlinesif-3512 PLNG Comments.doc Agenda Item 2
Page 12 of 48
install site identification and "No Trespassing" signs.
(11) Vegetative Screening Requirements. Wireless communications facilities
shall be surrounded by buffers of dense tree growth and understory vegetation in
all directions to create an effective year-round visual buffer. Trees and vegetation
may be existing on the subject property or installed as part of the proposed facility
or combination of both.
Finding: Should the request be approved by the Planning Commission, additional
screening will be required on all sides of the compound. The species and
location shall be approved by the Urban Forester prior to issuance of a
building permit.
(12) Setback from Property Lines. Wireless communications facilities shall
meet current setbacks as required by zoning.
Finding: The proposed facility and accessory structures shall comply with C-2 setback
requirements.
Should the Planning Commission grant approval of the request, the following conditions
are recommended:
1. Planning Commission determination of stealth technology: Staff recommends in
favor of the applicant's proposal to utilize a white .flagpole with internal antenna.
Pursuant to Chapter 164.13(13)(4), new towers are to be camouflaged to the greatest
extent possible when co -location is not feasible. A flagpole design is in keeping with
this ordinance requirement, and prior construction of this type of tower has proven to
he effective in reducing visual clutter (see supplementary comparison photos).
2. The applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed cellular tower to the Fayetteville
Municipal Airport (Drake Field) administration for review and approval with
Fayetteville Airport Zoning law. Written verification from airport administration is
required prior to issuance of a building permit. Should the proposal not comply
with the Airport Zoning, the Conditional Use Permit shall be null and void.
3. Additional cellular carriers shall be permitted on the flagpole tower.
4. The site shall be reviewed after construction to determine if additional
landscaping/screening is necessary on all sides of the compound to fulfill the
requirements of Chapter 163.14. Should additional screening be required, it shall
be installed prior to installation of any antenna for individual cellular service
providers. A continuous planting of shrubs and trees shall be planted on all sides of ,
the compound.
5. Automatic irrigation of all landscaped areas shall be required.
6. The applicant shall comply with all applicable federal regulations.
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
G:IET'C.Developmenl Services Reriem720I01Derelopment Reriewil0-3512 CUP 649 ALK 13h'd O3 -Planning Commis. cif ltiliW11ZCofiUA?Yet1Hill&MLK
and Redlined 10-3512 HAG Cmnnenls.doc Agenda Item 2
Page 13 of 48
7. Equipment used in conjunction with the tower shall not generate noise which can be
heard beyond the site per Chapter 163.14 (A)(l).
8. Lighting on the tower shall only be installed if mandated by the FAA. Security
lighting or motion -activated lighting may be used around the base of the tower
provided that that the lighting is compliant with Chapter 176 Outdoor Lighting of
the Unified Development Code. No secnrity or motion -activated lighting shall be
installed at a height greater than 6' above surrounding grade.
9. The tower shall be no taller than 150' (including all antennas, arrays, or other
appurtenances).
10. The utility equipment at the base of the tower shall be surrounded by an 8' tall
wooden security fence.
11. Any connection to existing utilities to provide power to this site shall be located
underground. If additional electric lines are required to be extended to provide
service to this development, they shall be extended and shall be placed underground
at the cost of the applicant.
12. The minimum distance from the base of the tower to any residential dwelling unit
shall be the tower height or required setback, whichever is greater, unless all
persons owning said residence or the land on which said residences are located
consent in writing to the construction of the tower, pursuant to UDC Section
163.14(B)(3).
13. Only warning, site identification and FCC signs shall be permitted as provided by
Chapter 163.14 (A)(3) and in no case shall any sign exceed 4 square feet. Signs shall
be limited to the fence structure.
14. Co -location shall be permitted on the subject tower by multiple carriers in
compliance with Chapter 163.14 (C).
15. When technology becomes available and economically viable to allow the height of
cell tower to be rednced by 50 percent or more or to allow the site to be eliminated
altogether, such facilities shall be upgraded or eliminated within 24 months of a
request by the City.
16. At snch time that the licensed carrier(s) abandons or discontinues operation of a
wireless facility, the carrier(s) shall physically remove the wireless facility and all
associated equipment within 90 days from the date of abandonment or
discontinuation, pursuant to Chapter 163.13(G).
17. Upon assignment or transfer of a conditional use permit, or any of the rights there
under to a new wireless telecommunications operator, the owner or operator shall
provide written notice within 30 days to the Planning Department, pursuant to
Chapter 163.13(H).
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
G: 117ODerelopmem Services Reriew1201011)evelopmem Rerimr110-3512 CUP 649 MLK 11Ird103-Planning CermaisQhJP11 'M55M2 a*,ia3ser/Hill&MLK
and Redlines/0-3512 ['LNG Conm,ems.doc Agenda Item 2
Page 14 of 48
These are the reasons we cannot co -locate on an existing tower.
o -i CO o 0 CO m (n 7 3- e D- ai. 5 a a •W 3- 5 0 m
3 Ro »c00 a a cD CD° 3° ° X a (D O N in
CO -I c3�3D0 m0 m3.0(o�0 3� �Qu, =0-0
2 11 N o o O 7 •
a a o x. N NO rh' N 0 N N 7 0
(n C `< �' D N a 7 O 7' m O C 7 CO (n (D
o v m° o o n X m �� 7 0 0 3
7 o 6j n o o 7FS D pNWea O co OT co
0 Roo - - nci a(o ? 0N O a 7 a) I!:
, ,<'a)v— a) 0 V) a) (n Wo m m a ca z H 0 v o o o a n° o
mo 00 0g 0 • -0 W3 a)m <°O T 3,mvm
N o O N y' 0 W lD = 0 X •'Y lD C (7 0 w 7— O o
m v- 0a m ° ° to n3 ° a0v
o
N �+ o N S a) 7 7 (D 0 n n- -O = O— a) 0 = O
0 c °(n 0 7-v (a3' *Sc*-. 0 0 0 N a al 0 s
3' 7 0 N * -O 7• .7-. O O O 0 -, Oa .0-. < O0
CO fl O 0 0 CO �, O too m x m 0 N (� �' ° a -, C 0 0
m N °o N a a 3" m O v n to o �_ o o a 0
0 m. 010*0 o 7 ^m 7 m 7x.
° �a� 0 0 m m 5- 3 m= o 3-o'm o°
rt
`' 70)-65-0-° m 0 W o vo o< Ro N x< o c 0 o
N Q O a) a) a) O N 0 a) CO 0 N N O O
7 3
a
O O -O N lD p (D a a�j O a °x O �,. co N N a 0 N.
3
m 0O°D'00n° < .0a) o0CD . 02® c�33
n o n' o :-.----
7 c a v -I o' ( 0 0 -' o
yij co �< 3- ,, N N -1 o. CD W o 3 00 `2 3 3- 7 0 a
= cn 0 7 0 cn ? 0 . 0 v
�ocnoa) CT *on0 a)m7m
m v < -.0 n 7 0 0 7 7 N C o m 0 0 a
0 0 g-
m co w c o 3= o *(3 v, 0 °o c c CO 7' m n �. CO )
cn v 3 s o o v c ° N. a° o 0 co c0
a colD (a O N 3- 0-o C om 0 a) .. a) -O 0
. co 5 3 _ . c o -
N 0 v O a) 8 N t; N -1 Co Q N 7 (o a) (D 0 cn
0 o a - (n 5 3-m v o v
o i m a m x, v 0 3 3-0 �- 5. 0 7 a N
3 j co m 'N—" o a a) n o< .O N a N o w
a.
o n (p CO co ° IT = 0 v O O`2 S N O 0 CO
7 CO C O O 0 Fp' 5 (D 0 �' < O C fn D.
fn (D
00ri;o 0 <cu �.nay. a-' mo v
0 CO c 3 3 (D 7 CO O 0 O Q N -5-
0
S 7 0 r.
a r2 a 0 C^ C o co a O- 0 - 7 7< S (o 0 N 0
7' O a) 7 (D v N n co co O N n 7<
°oma nab' m=�o� 3*0 0000
a �• 9 ea N CO 0- () 0_ -6 cn 0(3
O. O o co c O 0 (7 7 0 7 0 0 7 3' 3 o o N o
co (D * a) 7 C C°00 (D i N' 2) a 0 3
o D x. 0 m N m m (2-O o' -- O 0 v co' a v o
m' .m�D0 o� �ao7 Ovo' �0�
7- a 7 m m 7 7 (D O () fn — (D
Q c0 0 5 N
w
_ < 3 0 3 m D
3, O 3 o Q -O `2 n -O CO — C 0
° 0 ,, 0 (D O (D S cD (9.3)
a) r o �'
-0 a co (D -6 N N 0 0 0 7• � C
0 N O n° 5 N 0— m O 7 0 0 5
o a• < m v g S' 3 W m y ° m
7 a)
- 0 o a m y 0 v
C S O S 7 x O N O- a) O = (D '�
0' O 0 7(D 7 a) a J. 0 a) W n n a top 0 <D
7 7 -11 0 -0 N 7- c< c T. a) a CO -6
= T N O —. .� C `2 V
Co O O O 0 3 0 7 (D Cn (D
< < Co to O. 0 0 O 0:0 ' CO ,y: f (n O K
NG
C 0 CO N �. 3 0 N O< v 3 0 /D Fa' 7 -O
D 3 -ea Qo 3= ib- 3° 0 3m ° m O (7)-
3
0 o a) -"- —. -0 0 < co (D 0 (U O 7' 7•
c cn < 0 0 (n -O 03 cn c
9co , 0 0 c m 3 0 co > 0 o m `�•0 S Q
v D 3 v
m
0 v o 0 g n o m go m 3. 0 0 0
-D m 0 c o m - H m N.v m- o Cr=�
7- 0 0 '-. fn (n
07 o (?' O N COnN' -° m D o'• m (<° 7''' ,,.000N -
0 0 co 0 7- CO 'O c m 'rt m' a 3 (7 tilt ch 8. 2019„ a
C D- (D a) 0 3 2 0 a v 0 m P nning Coram ion
r.n0 = N W (� N, �' N a °C P10-3512caePDrower/Hill
(D N `. 7 (O ° o 3Agnda Item'
N Q 7- 7 p age 15 of 4® o
a a
° D -
w= 0
7 N go
7
0
0
'c N Z
(,NO
a' v
7 O O
a)
an)o°
0- m
o
c 7
v 0
7
c
v 0
0 n
o O-
0
0--° 7
_is0
0
m 0
0 0<
D 0
o' a
o 0
a
0co
ao'o
7
o
7 H 7
0
3 CO
< G7
0 C
3 to
(n m
n 0
c
NO
D o
O
0
H
CL D -
o'er
7 0
0
N 7
cn
C N
O
7
(0c
a) -0
cn (0
c n)
0 0
v
7m
=. 0
X
< -a
mith Communications, LLC. & AT&T are proposing to the City of Fayet
Iwwoo 6uiuueld a
e a new 150 Flag Pole type tower.
January 12, 2010
Mr. Dave Reynolds
Smith Two -Way Radio
520 N. College Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
RE: Proposed 150 ft Sabre Monopole for Site "Fayetteville High School" located in Washington County,
AR
Dear Mr. Reynolds,
Upon receipt of order, we propose to design and supply a 150' Sabre Slim -Line Monopole (Flag Pole) for
the above referenced site . The Monopole and foundation are to he designed for 90 mph with 1" ice, in
accordance with ANSJITIAIEIA-222-G.
Monopoles are designed in accordance with the latest Electronics Industry Associate Standard EIA/TIA-
222, which is a nationally approved A.N.S.I Standard for communications structure design. Although it is
extremely rare for a monopole to collapse, most failures would occur in a catastrophic wind such as a
tornado or a hurricane.
The most important phenomenon, which would prevent the monopole from a free fall type failure, is the
nature of the force being applied. We would expect this force to be produced by the wind. A wind that
would cause overstressing of the monopole would be greater than the basic wind speed, the gust factor and
the factor of safety combined. A gust would soon dissipate and after this peak wind is gone, the stress in
the monopole would be reduced. Monopoles are flexible, forgiving structures, which are not generally
susceptible to damage by impact loads such as a wind gust. It take some time for the entire structure to
"see" the impact loading. Even if the pole were to experience some localized distortion, it would still have
a significant capacity. It is this capacity along with the transitory nature of the loading that prevents a pole
from "falling over".
In the very unlikely event of a monopole failure, the top portion of the monopole would collapse first. This
falling portion would he "hinged" to the top portion of the remaining structure. Consequently, the probable
fall zone for the collapse of the referenced monopole due to natural causes is a circular area having a radius
within the top 90" of the monopole structure.
We trust that this information is helpful in explaining that the monopoles are designed to survive rather
than collapse. Please let us know if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
aza-i(
Jay Chadwick
Southern Sales Manager
Sabre Communications Corp.
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
CUP10-3512 Cell Tower/Hill&MLK
Agenda Item 2
Page 16 of 48
art � ,: �. AR.,A7[ AlCWy'•.
may" "
&gym,
GO VER N M EN T AVE
• i
cti
SCHOOL
r4-'Rcti Jr=�'.i
4f ...moi
2010
Commission
512 Cell Tower/Hill&MLK
tem 2
Page 17 of 48
6000/609 /0 11404 0111 01 lag/
6191 70.41 5000005 09 541110110 SS 0044609
10 41005 07004/ 40)/ 816( '1593 5900.005
SC 00lnuw ZS 500000 92 4YON 0x3051 'Rai
0098 1003 0050900 of 50!609 99 0001609
00 4/100/ 00061/) '003 111141 10901 los Vow
8/I01 500/ 00066 '100309003w OZ 00/0101u
BI 5010600 6* 1/1100/ 030641 'dos 4500 1090/
500 4000 9/0 0 05 50.1 009) 'Isom 0000000
% 00100/50 gf 5001519 10 41005 030041
Ooa vlO1 /000/ los 400Z/10 W 100) 0116
.5.509 5000005 01 salnuw pp sau6ap 609105
V( 'boo 5//0 10401 /05 1/00 L/( 0
01 I/O)
91'01 '5 00
001 '0000 �0 14 50/0 99 500)000
ft 000 / 9691( l503 5900005
Oe 5011110114 401.4 006 7001
9996 5003 s/0000s0 5 09 solnow0995w sap
10 41101/ 00004/ 100/ 96010 104/1 5900005
OZ salnuw 91 504.009 61 41005 000004
160/ 6091 'I0 10 5000005 05 500015 gC
500.4600
001 0/ /aa) 119) 01501116 000 1l a 515/0
9 BI 5050000
95
11503 5000000 Crsnow OlioN 4190150001/498 0
400/ 003005 ) 1 1 90959 '10614 091005 BI
51
10540) /9 0001/9 99 4100/ '040 1000 0.05
60x005 00041 pow 09456 700/ 000000
90 50/050500 90 0501500 C0 41005 .50/ 0(00 /0
0144 1/04 °4l /00 000
10 4) 490 /sautmeg
e40 /0 10110110 050040005 041 /0 10503
Isav5AN 01/1 01441000 1✓.°/ 0 10 6s,9www03
00 009/05001/10/00400 0row 5004 /500.0503
605/0a09007 l00/ 006 0 05 946/5 054101/ 09/10
Jxvxsna/ W
0
60/05609
/0 00/04 051 01 100) 09'98'1003 090000
CZ 50/05100 0* 500/600 01 /0005
100 /0 I46p 1//005 0l09 600001 000005/ 700/
19IIZ '1003 wows Z0 09/n0W 0/ swoop
59 05/00/ /0 6000/0,•0 000 6041004 ONw 0
64 000001405 0/0 '500/ 959091 /0 0/7440l o
6000,0 'I/O, 0505 01 00000 o 90w40 'e0// los
/01/6/1 111005 pros 600/0 000005/ 9001609
000100051 005 - 010107 15 /0 01/105 /0
1116911/0000 041 w 1090) 6/,45000 asp 4/1
0 0/ 100/ I9'1/ '1003 59100.0 BI Sarn4w
If 504160/ 90 4104/ '010^ low 10 Pk, 1000
epr/ 600/0 Ww4 'a 00000 /10/wing /0
/0 14611 /spa avl w Ew g100/)a 100/)
100 4101 0/1 0 01 100/ 61100 15601 5900005
0I 5010450 a9 5004050 *9 4003 0)0041
40,
45/0 /0 0) fas 40,• Z/
0, 0 00 100/
009 '1sa, 04 50o0/00 00 5061509
900900/0 000 1001 IC( .5100. 00/0000
www
400 pp wow 1005 Wu, /I 0601009 0 W 1001 00 6
*10041 0510005 OZ 9900500 90 5001600 6*
V1105 00000) 604010609 /0 11404 a0/ 900
Boa m,O 090) las w% U1 0 0/ !00/ 0951
'1x911
191.200 in snug., 09 0601609 99
VVON 00001/) 760/ /0690 15o3 sp0000s re,
50/nµ00 go ve1Wp CO won 005041 owl
90999 '/9544 0900305 94 00101450 09 000naa"
99 VIroN 4/ 0/00 9/05 61x100100010
1001 09196 1s°,11 5000)65 La Seingw
90 500/600 00 5 41005'lb./ 0/00 /0 00/11900
041 60010 00041 500 /00641005 040 /0
401/00 100050905 ma /0 100)00 /50.410N
ayl 60000/ ;god 0 /0 605000)003
soot/0/ 50 90400x49
10/09404 0000 65504 6004 /0000503
115/40 Ow 00o ° 0, WYO. 60x5,0 °g1/
9//0009 /° 01 00504003
400 01 100.465 050 00100 910 64, 1003
'64046081° 1904 041 00 000/ 0116 9503
0/50005 08 50000/0) 914 00060/ 6 4194
0300511 .5060 4010 /0004 /60 0)w Z/1
0 01 /0a/ 91 7003 *wows 09 5alnww
99 5009 10 41101/ 030011 .5063 400
10401100 NN 2/5 0 00 1001 0.16 00014
0000000 0Z 09101100 90 0000600 61 501009
nano Yoa 50.0 0500 105 Wq 1/I 0 01
lsan 00n1Sop / '5541I 5005305
500051 09 50100150
sinew 10 5444
151/00 0514 000 003 1/5/0 10401 las wlp 9/1
0 01 100/ 19'91 '10414 0050300 910.1555555
09 00016/9 99 1/500/ 025041 1001 1099/
'1503 5950005 90 50/0/050 90 004.660 0
411°01 6501/00100/ 90999 '1501 5100005
99 00046440 99 vlroN '900/
woe plus 65,0001 030051 500/ 09'096
'5504/ 050500/ 90 50/0000 90 ww6a0
ro 000 •1510) 0.0510 00.01000 041
61.10 0004111 1/010 /000/0163 041 /0
04000 16001/1/05 004 /0 10003 10041010/0
1/l 61110w moo 0 10 bryawwwo
0901 00 9041x09
1/101530100 01000 buap 9050005/0B10000
10144000 7001 01 060005 14100/ 91
41460000) '9/ 000005 '0/100 150041005
041 /0 101)010 /50050005 04110 104
4080/90530 4/834004
JIA11
0051000NI
drum WYE
C105/ • /00
1126031x• air
m9/ 0w
50
119MWN'
'/0
March 8, 2010
Planning Comm
CUP10-3512 Cel i T
110,..,,.., 0/,...a
Page 18 of 48
/311,2
VENUE
I_«.CL/R5
W
VARIES
0
U
2
Pi-
co
\} !\ {)/)
March 8, »o
Planning_ a
cep _ Cell Tow _ll&M >
Agenda _2
a %Is
3 N 1 ?•p o- mew
al 0 O 0 T -DD a0 =
0)3 (Do
•
OD G 3 ° 7
O 7 • '
sa
0
N N S O < N T
o Nw 'OP)• O up Ow Q3 3
"p
A)
° °- w. p Tc Q.7
A(D = 7
'6fa 0 o D N..
D
S a0°
N (
CD i Q-A- pp :: 0 ON
N = N N
0o Ls' ;°n
R ' • N
S�m e • =— NNN*O
v nN W O=N — — 8 o
w w 3 3
w� N �o NO D. ..
n N 3 N m -o N =. 3 m .m(D• Al 0 Nc
,wwmpo aAUN a)
F o w .'< CrFa Oµ
CD
°
—
-« o _- G°
c n• w� _�� m c 5'*cm
W CD
co 0
N • O
N N NQN rw co'N G 7-x:3
ty
'GA)K N a 6 0 °
CD
m .0 a)
A) a 3 r AQ < C N N.
0 j 3 A) N
5
_ OC -p (D°"6N O=).. N
Fir cc gp
o o- N N D a ao a N O
O V .5o7
WN O N (D`GDO 2O (5'15.
1,:pilial-9,5c1.2.geisii
co at
CO
• N•m3'
5 N NNrII° o <
w w m
O3eg NN 1-30)• N
O . • 7 N D CO
co X • O NN
30 ert • CD
OOc n. 9 N 7 y 7• 0 0 2103 a 3a — N
o
Agenda Item 2
Page 20 of 48
eitoka
HILL -AVE
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
CUP10-3512 Cell Towe
Agenda Item 2
Page 21 of 48
o `< CD 0 two c rn o- o .w-,. Y o z ' rn io .o o z ;Dp i '� 5' Y
n c oCD CD 0 n ' o cn n' 'N R P. oa8_, C' w R N o• '� 0 b .•
5,
CC O N 'O `G w O y y .CO. � 8w+ P. O .O.I N o� O d O G
P0 CO rn " Co 0 t~o . — o o' °, °'. 5°, cel' (Z0 a
o m+2o"-1" °s rO0�a° 0Ooo CD Vim°
w'c'o °' if
.P o'' y� �_ tBo c' •�'D. ° a A-`N°5'n 3.N• Eo51c"c-•c ,..000o n,No Da to
o 0 �, z '� co P. ,, m co ,^�,9 P.
° b• 0• rt w - o w o
no ^ o ot° �e wa ogPC1^ oEP g
o va m o rn a On ^ ,a• o' w 5. s 0 o
u, o 0 °' ^ O o z 5- c °- an d 3 to o to n
o 0. E Co. w .n VD
.o 0 °: �' 'G. ° T `_', too 0 o w ':
to S Y w w w• o o '1:i
@ w Q w 0 �o o w
too ° a' • `° w o O. �° w o o < t`�o ate' <' o
N y z oto •
a' n ^. OM a" .=� �'' �' n O 00 Da N ti
x el 8
CL :DI, o d d P E o'a2•w ee o—(1; . c (Si_ a
° 2.gro . N.y Sm c's0^ o ° 3 •ti 'o'o tee
Fp o -o c a ' 0 S. C, to 0 g. �' o- ^ b o FD' o
E as w ,n CM
,� <. o o' o oo o$ 7
'C rn, 0 ?: o w •• = P. io CCC. w ^ N 0 cn 0 E. "
�cr ro o w o o coo w a'� 9 a m f_ D no
o 0 to _
.P at0 < `` 674
P. ."..° ' a� N rn it 'w'm' ti -_ 0
0• w `N° E to o d o c' w 0 0 wr. 0°- c 0 o g 5
a d m �o Y f w 0. P.
° 3 0 •n. P- w '' = P.o
O Or N, N O h-] w w o a N O o
y w
g ,< 0' G y a N N CD 00 O O C 0
N0- -1 cn 0 en
p 0
March 8, 2010
Planning Commission
CUP10-3512 Cell Tower/Hill&MLK
Agenda Item 2
Page 22 of 48