Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout26-06 RESOLUTION4 RESOLUTION NO. 26-06 A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PASSAGE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06- 1875, A REQUEST FOR A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 520 N. COLLEGE AVE. TO REPLACE TWO EXISTING NON -CONFORMING TOWERS. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby grants the appeal of the Planning Commission's passage of Conditional Use Permit 06-1875, (a request for a wireless communications tower at 520 N College Ave. to replace two existing non -conforming towers), and denies the requested Conditional Use based upon the following factual findings a. The evidence conclusively shows that the existing cell tower locations provide complete cell phone coverage for the area which would be served by this tower; b. The request to increase capacity would be better served by a location which would permit a tower that could serve several, rather than a single, cell phone company; c. The applicant admitted that a location within a nearby commercial area could serve a cell phone company about as well as his proposed location, d. The residential Washington -Willow Historic District abuts the proposed location of the cell tower and would be very adversely affected aesthetically; e. The adjoining residential Washington -Willow Historic District would suffer economic losses through property devaluation if this tower was permitted; f. Refusing to grant this Conditional Use is also justified because the applicant failed to completely comply with the City's ordinances (especially concerning co -locations and use of city water tanks in the area); RECEIVED 'JAN 17 2006 ow OF FAYETTEVILLE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE COUNCIL MEETING OF: ALDERMAN APPEAL REQUEST FORM February 7, 2006 C r:11 2.S j 4r' StNr ro44 � r (�i�cGy RECEIVED I' JAN 17 2006 CITY OF FAYETr'EVILLE CRY CLERK'S OFFICE FROM: Alderman Don Marr SOldiU SJIUd 311IA31L3Ard 40 A1I0 i L 1 NV1, APPEAL TITLE AND SUBJECT: Appeal the passage of the CUP 06-1875 (Cell Tower/Smith 2 Way. Conditional Use Permit submitted by Michael Smith and Gary Cochran for Smith 2 -Way Radio for property located at 520 N College Avenue. The request is for a cell tower at the rear of the subject property to replace two existing non -conforming cell towers. lderman Date t?..4 A erman s4a9 Alderman ! 7 Date Date heyer Bman Date • City Council Meeting of February 7, 2006 Agenda Item Number CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO To: Mayor and City Council Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations From. Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning Date: January 18, 2006 Subject: Conditional Use Permit for Smith Two -Way Radio - 520 North College (CUP 06-1875) RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow a wireless communications tower, submitted by Smith Two -Way Radio at 520 North College Avenue. This action would remove two existing shorter wireless communications towers and replace them with a single tower. BACKGROUND The subject property contains approximately 0.51 acres of developed property that contains two existing wireless communications towers: (1) a 65' guyed tower with a 20' antenna extending above the tower; and (2) a wooden utility type monopole and extension bracket that supports antennas up to 62 feet above the ground. A photo of these existing towers is attached in the staff report provided to the Planning Commission. The applicant requests conditional use approval to replace these towers with a 100' monopole tower that meets current ordinance requirements. The site is currently zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, which allows new wireless communications towers as a conditional use. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission voted 5-2-0 in favor of this request on January 9, 2006, with Commissioners Allen and Ostner voting no. Recommended conditions were approved by the Planning Commission, with the exception of a condition to limit the tower to a maximum of 90' in height, and are reflected in the attached staff report. There was a large amount of public comment at the meeting stating objection to the project with concerns mainly centered on community character and visual impacts. BUDGET IMPACT None. WttvILIe ARKANSAS THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Andrew Garner, Senior Planner THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning DATE: January 1 006 January 18, 2006 PC Meeting of January 9, 2006 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone! (479)575-8267 CUP 06-1875: (Cell Tower/Smith 2 Way, 446): Submitted by Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith 2 -Way Radio for property located at 520 College Avenue. The property is zoned C-2 THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The request is to approve a wireless communications tower at the rear of the subject property. Property Owner. Michael Smith Planner: ANDREW GARNER RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends approval of the requested wireless communications tower with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall comply with all applicable federal regulations. 2. Equipment used in conjunction with the tower shall not generate noise which can be heard beyond the site per Unified Development Code (UDC) Chapter 163.14 (A)(1). 3. Lighting on the tower shall only be installed if mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration (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 no light is directed towards adjacent properties or right-of-way. 4. The tower shall be no taller than 100' 90' (including all antennas, arrays, or other appurtenances). MODIFIED BY PLANNING COMMISSION 01/09/06 5. The pole shall be painted utilizing the transitional paint scheme as shown in the application, or a color as determined by the Planning Commission which blends in with the background. 6. The utility equipment at the base of the tower shall be surrounded by a wooden security fence of sufficient height to prevent the view of the premises from vehicular and pedestrian traffic on adjacent streets. The existing barbed wire and chain link fencing shall be removed in conjunction with this request. K: IRepnrts120061PC Reports101-09-061CUP 06-1875 (Sinidr 2 War Cell Toner).doc 7. Landscaping shall be added to the site (and shown on plans) which provides a "buffer of dense tree growth and under story vegetation in all directions to create an effective year round visual buffer" as required by UDC Chapter 163.14 (B)(11). Species and location of the required plantings shall be subject to the approval of the Landscape Administrator. 8. The minimum distance from the base of the tower to any residential dwelling unit shall be the lower 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). 9. The applicant shall provide a sight line representation for review and approval of Planning Staff pursuant to UDC Section 163.14(B)(8). These representations shall be provided from four points 90 degrees apart and 100 feet from the proposed tower. These profiles shall show all intervening trees and buildings 10. Any connection to existing utilities to provide power to this site shall be located underground. 11. The booklet shall be revised to delete all reference to the Dean Soloman tower. 12. Only ownership and cautionary signage located on the screening fence shall be permitted as provided by Chapter 163.14 (A)(3). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES X Approved ❑ Denied Motion: Graves Second: Clark Vote: 5-2-0 (Allen, Ostner voting `no') Date: January 9, 2006 Comments: BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to remove two existing shorter wireless communications towers and replace them with a single tower. The existing towers are: (1) a 65' guyed tower with a 20' antenna extending above the tower to 82'; and (2) a wooden utility type monopole and extension bracket that supports antennas up to 62 feet above the ground. A photo of these existing towers KJReports120061PC Reports101-09-061CUP 06-1875 (Smith 2 Way Cell Towerjdoe is attached to this report. The applicant proposes to replace these towers with a 100' monopole tower, that meets current ordinance requirements. The proposed site is located at 520 College Street in north -central Fayetteville. Following ordinance requirements, notification (certified mail) 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). Smith Two -Way Radio states in their application that the carriers are suffering service -affecting capacity issues due to RF frequency use, and coverage and tower to tower hand-off issues due to the distance and barriers between existing towers. Due to the growth of the tree line in the area the applicant stated that they cannot maintain a line of sight signal path to the closest tower which is located on Mount Sequoyah. The second closest tower is on the VA Water Tower/Old Washington Regional Medical Center. The applicant stated that the existing towers on the site are not able to cover the area. The applicant states that the proposed taller tower is needed to improve call handling capacity, cellular coverage and tower -to -tower hand off. Additionally, the proposed tower will allow for the co -location of several wireless carriers. The applicant considered the existing vegetation, buildings and surrounding land use to minimize the visual impact of the tower. Additionally, the applicants will use Slim Line T -Mount antennas and the transitional paint scheme that was approved at the Zion Road/Crossover Road site. It is staff's opinion that wireless coverage can be provided at this location that will not detract from the scenic quality and character of the area. Staff finds that the proposal would improve the aesthetic appearance of the area by removing two existing outdated towers, upgrading the existing chain link and barb wire fence with a 10' wood privacy type fence and landscaping that would block view of the new cellular equipment and storage buildings at the base of the pole. The proposed location is outside of the boundaries of the Design Overlay District. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: Direction Land Use Zoning North Commercial C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial South Commercial C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial East Single-family dwellings RSF-4, Residential Single -Family Four Units/Acre West Commercial C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial Public Comment: One written letter has been received from a property owner in the vicinity discussing the adverse effects of living next to the existing wireless communication towers on the site, and potential adverse effects of installing a new tower that should be considered by the Planning Commission such as: community character, light pollution, and poor television and radio reception caused by the tower. Additional public comment received by the applicant is provided in the supplemental booklet provided, and generally indicated support for the project. K:IReports12006(PC Reporis101-09-061CUP 06-1875 (Smith 2 Way Cell Towei).doc GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Community Commercial Section 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, 3. Grant a conditional use with such conditions and safeguards as are 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. 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 § 163.17 (see attached) to grant the requested conditional use permit. (b.) That the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect K4Repmis120061PC Reports101-09-061CUP 06-1875 (Smith 2 I;'av Cell Tower).doc the public interest. Finding: Granting the requested conditional use for a 100' monopole tower with camouflaging will not adversely affect the public interest. By using camouflaging, existing vegetation and new landscaping, a balance can be achieved that will maintain the scenic quality of the city as well as allow cellular companies to provide an important service to the community and emergency services. Removing the outdated towers and replacing them with a newer, more effective tower will help provide more effective and comprehensive wireless service for the public in the area. In addition the proposal would visually improve the site by removing two outdated cluttered towers, replacing the existing chain link and barb wire fence with a 10' privacy fence, and installing a landscape buffer around the site. (c.) The Planning Commission shall certify: (1.) Compliance with the specific rules governing individual conditional uses; and Finding: The applicant has complied with specific rules governing this individual conditional use request. • (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 existing curb cut will be used to access this site. (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. (c.) Refuse and service areas, with particular reference to ingress and egress, and off-street parking and loading, Finding: No refuse areas are required for this use. K:I Reports120061 PC Reports101-09-06ICUP 06-1875 (Smith 2 Way Cell Tower).doc (d.) Utilities, with reference to locations, availability, and compatibility; Finding: Utilities shall be located underground or screened from the public view with the exception of the proposed monopole and the equipment mounted on that apparatus. (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. (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: Only ownership and cautionary signage located on the screening fence shall be permitted. (g•) Required setbacks and other open space; and Finding: The location of the proposed monopole is in compliance with required setbacks for the C-2 zoning district, and as depicted in the booklet provided is residential dwellings are not within the fall zone of the tower. (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, by utilizing existing vegetation, adding additional vegetation, camouflaging the tower, and locating the structure away from rights-of-way will lessen the visual impact of the proposed tower. With implementation of this project, views of the site would change from two cluttered towers and antenna structures with a maximum height of 82', chain link and barbed wire fence, to views of a new 100' monopole tower with a slim T-type mount antenna, 10' privacy fence and landscaping. Staff finds that the proposed project would be more compatible with the surrounding land uses than the existing use of the site with two un - screened towers. CHAPTER 163: USE CONDITIONS 163.14 Wireless Communications Facilities. K: IReports120061PC Repor:s101-09-061CUP 06-1875 (Smith 2 Way Cell Toner).doc (A)The following general requirements shall apply to all new wireless communications facilities. (1) Noise Requirements. Equipment used in connection with a tower or 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: 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: Applicant shall comply with all applicable federal regulations. Proof of compliance shall be provided upon request of the Zoning and Development Administrator. (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. (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: Lighting on the tower shall only be installed if mandated by the FAA. Security lighting or motions -activated lighting may be used around the base of the tower, provided that the lighting is shielded in such a way that no light is directed towards adjacent properties or rights-of-way. All outdoor lighting shall meet lighting ordinance requirements. (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 altemative tower structures. Finding: The applicant is proposing a monopole structure. K:IReporls120061PC Reports101-09-06ICUP 06-1875 (Smith 2 Way Cell Tower).doe (2) Tower or antenna height limitations. Towers or altemative tower structures are permitted to a maximum height of 150 feet. Finding: The proposed monopole is 100' tall. (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: The 100' fall zone is depicted in the materials provided by the applicant, showing that there are no residential dwellings within 100' feet of the proposed tower in compliance with this requirement. (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: The proposed location of the tower is located in such a way as to utilize existing buildings and foliage as screening. Additionally, the applicants will use Slim line T -type -mount antennas, plant additional trees and shrubs and will paint the tower to match existing foliage and the skyline. (5) Color of Towers. To the extent that any antenna extend above the height of the vegetation immediately surrounding it, they shall be a neutral color, painted or unpainted, unless the FAA requires otherwise. Finding: The applicants will use a transitional paint scheme to match existing vegetation and the skyline. (6) Information Required to Process New Tower Requests. (a) Provide a map of the geographic area 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. K:IReporrs12006IPC Repons101-09-06ICUP 06-1875 (Smith 2 Way Cell Tower).doc (c) Provide a map that shows other potential stand-alone locations for your facility that have been explored. Finding: Item (c) is reflected within the report, as provided by the applicant and distributed with this agenda to the Commissioners. (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. (d) 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 Finding: Based on information provided by the applicant, the proposed location is evidently superior to other locations because of the inadequate wireless communication coverage in this area. As depicted in the attached maps, the closest tower is located on Mount Sequoyah, and effective signal to and from the existing lower towers is now being blocked by the tree line. The carriers have call handling capacity issues due to the amount of users and coverage issues due to the distance between the existing facilities. The proposed location is set in the rear of the property, approximately 170' from College Avenue, and behind two existing commercial structures. The closest residential structures are adjacent to the eastern property line of the site, outside of the 100' fall zone. Staff finds that the proposed new low profile tower with a 10' privacy fence and landscaping would be more compatible with surrounding residential uses than the existing two towers and chain link and barb wire fences surrounding the site. . (f) 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 K:IReports120061PC Reports10l-09-061CUP 06-1875 (Smith 2 Way Cell Tower).doc 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: The applicant did not provide much information regarding alternative locations for the tower as the project would replace two existing towers with one tower. The applicant did describe the current poor wireless coverage in the area, providing rationale that the newer, taller tower would provide better coverage for the vicinity than the existing towers. See attached materials. (g) Describe how you will accommodate other antenna arrays 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 several 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 days, but not more than 21 days prior to the test. The four locations shall be approved by the City Planner. Finding: The applicant has provided visual simulations of the proposed tower from appropriate locations. (8) Sight Line Representation. A sight line representation shall be drawn from four points 90 degrees apart and 100 feet 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 a one mile east -west terrain profile showing the 100' tower. However a sight line representation shall be drawn from four points 90 degrees apart and 100 feet from the proposed tower. Each sight line shall be depicted in profile, drawn at one inch equals 40 feet. The K:IRepons12006IPC Repoits101-09-06ICUP 06-1875 (Smith 2 Wav Cell Thu •el) .doc profiles shall show all intervening trees and buildings. Staff finds that with the terrain profile and visual simulations provided, the conclusion can be made that the project would not cause an adverse visual impact compared with the existing condition, but would rather improve the appearance of the site. However, the sight line representations are required to be submitted and approved by staff pursuant to ordinance, prior to building permit. (9) Structural lntegrity 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 the 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, the 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 the 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 a letter from Sabre Communications Corporation that states the tower meets design criteria. (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: The applicant would construct a wood privacy fence around the base of the tower and would provide an anti -climbing device on the tower. All barbed wire on the site shall be removed, and chain link fencing in this area shall be removed K:IReports120061PC Reports101-09-061CUP 06-1875 (Smidr 2 WVov Cell Tower).doc (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: Vegetative screening, consisting of evergreen trees and shrubs, shall be provided by the applicant, with species and location to be approved by the Landscape Administrator. If possible, some trees may be planted along the street, as well. (12) Setback from Property Lines. Wireless communications facilities shall meet current setbacks as required by zoning. Finding: The proposed facility and accessory structure shall comply with C-2 setback requirements. • K:IRepartsI20061PC Reports101-09-06ICUP 06-1875 (Smith, 2 Way Cell Towe ).doc City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code Section 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 antenna array shall not generate noise that can be heard beyond the site. This prohibition does not apply to air conditioning 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. (2) Compliance with federal regulations. Applicant shall comply with all applicable federal regulations. Proof of compliance shall be provided upon request of the Zoning and Development Administrator. (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 communication facility, provided that the lighting is shielded in such a way that no light is directed towards adjacent properties or rights-of-way. (b) Signs shall be limited to those needed to identify the property and the owner and wam of any danger. No signs, symbols, identifying emblems, flags, or banners shall be allowed on towers. (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 altemative tower structures. (2) Tower or antenna height limitations. Towers or altemative tower structures are permitted to a maximum height of 150 feet. Fall zone. The minimum distance from the base of any tower to any residential dwelling unit shall be the lower height or required setback, whichever is greater, unless all persons owning said residence 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. (3) (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 designed to be camouflaged to the greatest extent possible including, but not limited to, use of compatible building materials and colors, screening, landscaping, and placement within trees. Color of towers. To the extent that any antenna extending above the height of the vegetation immediately surrounding it, they shall be a neutral color, painted or unpainted, unless the FAA requires otherwise. (5) (6) Information required to process new tower requests. (a) Provide a map of the geographic area that your project will serve; (b) Provide a map that shows other existing or planned facilities that will be used by the wireless communication service provider who is making the application; (c) Provide a map that shows other potential stand alone locations for your facility that have been explored; (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 specifications on proposed lighting of the facility; (e) Describe why the proposed location is superior, from a community perspective, to other potential K:IReporis120061PC Reports101-09-06ICUP 06-1875 (Smith 2 Way Cell Tawe).doc locations. Factors to consider in the community perspective should include: visual aspects, setbacks, and proximity of single-family residences; (f) 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: (9) (i) A survey of all existing structures that may be feasible sites for co -locating wireless communications facilities; (ii) Contact with all other wireless communications facilities; (iii) Sharing information necessary to determine if co -location is feasible under the design configuration most accommodating to co -location; and (iv) Letter from tower owner stating why co -location is not feasible. Describe how you will accommodate other antenna arrays 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. (7) Required (after condition) balloon test and crane test photographs. The proposed tower shall be photographed from four locations taken 900 apart and 300 feet 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 days, but not more than 21 days prior to the test. The four locations shall be approved by the Zoning and Development Administrator. (8) Sight line representation. A sight line representation shall be drawn from four points 90° apart and 100 feet 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. (9) Structural integrity and inspections 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 the 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 persons or property, then upon written notice being provided to the owner of the tower, the owner shall have 30 days to bring such tower into compliance with such requirements and criteria. If the owner fails to bring such tower into compliance within 30 days, the city may terminate the owner's conditional use permit and/or cause the removal of such tower (at the owner's expense). (c) By making 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 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 and experience so that they are reasonably capable of identifying functional problems with the facilities. (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 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 provisions in a particular instance. Barbed wire fencing or razor wire shall be prohibited. (11)Vegetative screening requirements. Wireless communications facilities shall be surrounded by buffers of K:IReports120061PC Reports101-09-061CUP 06-1875 (Smith 2 Way Cell Tower).doc 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 a combination of both. (12) Setbacks froth property lines. Wireless communication facilities shall meet current setbacks as required by zoning. (C) Co -location. Applicants for co -location shall meet the following requirements: (1) Administrative approval for antenna co -locations and locations on other structures. The Zoning and Development Administrator, following an administrative review without requiring the issuance of a conditional use permit, may approve the following antenna installation: (a) Locating on existing structures Installation of an antenna on an existing structure other than a tower (such as a building, sign, light pole, electric transmission tower and similarly scaled public utilities/facilities, water tower, or other free-standing nonresidential structure), provided that the addition of the antenna does not add more than 20 feet of height to the original structure; (b) Locating on exiting towers. Installation of an antenna on an existing tower of any height, and the placement of additional buildings or other supporting equipment used in connection with such additional antenna, so long as the proposed additions would add no more than 20 feet of height to the original height of the tower. The addition or modification, to the extent possible, should be designated to minimize visibility; and (c) For the purpose of co -location, the applicant must submit information from a licensed professional engineer certifying the capacity of the tower for additional providers and a letter of intent from the applicant indicating their intent to share space. (D) Other requirements. (1) Wireless communications facilities placed on top of buildings. When a wireless communications facility extends above the roof height of a building on which it is mounted, every effort shall be made to conceal the facility within or behind existing architectural features to limit its visibility from public ways. Facilities mounted on a roof shall be stepped back from the front facade in order to limit their impact on the building's silhouette. (2) Wireless communications facilities placed on sides of buildings. Antennas which are side -mounted on buildings shall be painted or constructed of materials to match the color of the building material directly behind them. (E) Exemptions. (1) Personal use. Towers for personal use which, including the height of all antenna arrays, do not extend more than 80 feet from the ground and shall meet the current setbacks as required by zoning. (2) Temporary structures. Temporary structures designed to be used for not more than 14 days in connection with a special event or for any reasonable period of time in and immediately following an emergency, including without limitation those towers which are identified as "C.O.W.s" or "Cellular on Wheels." (3) Existing towers. All existing towers may be replaced with the same type and height of tower structure as currently exists. All replacement towers shall comply with §163.14(A) and (B) regarding color of towers, structural integrity and inspections of towers, security fencing and anti -climbing device, and vegetative screening requirements. All existing guyed towers shall also be subject to the following conditions: (a) A demolition permit shall be issued prior to a building permit being issued for the replacement tower; (b) The demolition permit shall expire within 90 days and shall require the existing tower to be demolished within 90 days from issuance of the building permit for the replacement tower; (c) The new tower shall be constructed as close as technically feasible to the existing tower; (d) Additional antennas may be installed on an existing tower of any height, and additional buildings or K:IReports120061PC Repons101-09-061CUP 06-1875 (Smith 2 Way Cell Tower).doc other supporting equipment used in connection with such additional antennas may be placed at the tower site so long as the proposed additions would add rio more than 20 feet height to the original height of the existing tower. The addition or modification, to the extent possible, should be designed to minimize visibility; (e) The replacement structure may be increased in width to a maximum of 36 inches. Existing guyed towers over 36 inches shall not be increased in width with a replacement tower. (4) Emergency and utility towers and antennas. Towers and antennas under 35 feet in height used for 9-1-1 services and utility monitoring (gas, water, sewer, traffic lights, etc.). (F) Municipal profits from towers. The City of Fayetteville should actively market its own property and existing structures as suitable co -location sites. As noted above, the review process is shortened and simplified when co -location on city property is submitted by applicant. An annual lease amount should be charged according to the fair market value of the location. In cases where the company no longer needs the tower, the city may require it to be removed. Applicants can provide co -location space for city -owned antenna. (G) Abandoned antennas and towers. At such time that a licensed carrier abandons or discontinues operation of a wireless communication facility, such carrier will notify the city of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations. Such notice shall be given no less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinuation of operations. In the event that licensed carrier fails to give such notice, the wireless communications facility shall be considered abandoned upon such discontinuation of operations. Upon abandonment or discontinuation of use, the carrier shall physically remove the wireless communications facility within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation of use. "Physically remove" shall include, but not be limited to: (1) Removal of antenna, equipment shelters and security barriers from the subject property; (2) Proper disposal of the waste materials from the site in accordance with local and state solid waste disposal regulations; Restoring the location of the wireless communications facility to its natural condition, except that any landscaping and grading shall remain in the after -condition. (H) Notification of change of ownership/operator. Upon assignment or transfer of a conditional use permit, or any of the rights thereunder to a new wireless telecommunications operator, the owner or operator shall provide written notice within 30 days to the Zoning and Development Administrator. (Ord. No. 4178, §4, 8-31-99; Ord. No. 4285, 1-2-01) (3) K:IReports120061PCReports10/-09-061CUP06-1875 (Smith 2 Way Cell Tower).doc Fayetteville Unified Development Code Section 161.17 District C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial (A) Purpose. The Thoroughfare Commercial District is designed especially to encourage the functional grouping. of these commercial enterprises catering primarily to highway travelers. (B) Uses. (1) Permitted uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 4 Unit 21 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 12 Offices, studios and related services Unit 13 Eating places Unit 14 Hotel, motel, and amusement facilities Unit 15 Neighborhood shopping goods Unit 16 Shopping goods Unit 17 Trades and services Unit 18 Gasoline service stations & drive-in restaurants Unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites Unit 20 Commercial recreation, large sites Unit 25 Professional offices Unit 33 Adult live entertainment club or bar Unit 34 Liquor store (2) Conditional uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 21 Warehousing and wholesale Unit 28 Center for collecting recyclable materials 20 ft. Unit 32 Sexually oriented business Unit 35 Outdoor music establishments Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities (C) Density. None. (D) Bulk and area regulations. None. (E) Setback regulations. Front 50 ft. Side None Side, when contiguous to a residential district 15 ft. Rear 20 ft. (F) Height regulations. In District C-2 any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back from any boundary line of any residential district a distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet. No building shall exceed six stories or 75 feet in height. (G) Building area. On any lot, the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 60% of the total arca of such lot. (Code 1965, App. A., Art. 5(VI); Ord. No. 1833, 11-1-71; Ord. No. 2351, 6-2-77; Ord. No. 2603, 2-19-80; Ord. No. 1747, 6-29- 70; Code 1991. §160.036; Ord. No. 4034, §3, 4, 4-15-97; Ord. No. 4100, §2 (Ex. A), 6-16-98; Ord. No. 4178, 8-31-99; Ord. 4727, 7-19-05) K:1Reports110061PC Reportsl0l-09-06ICUP 06-1875 (Smith 1 Way Cell Towe,jdoc r i City of Fayetteville Planning Commission 113 West Mountain Fayetteville, AR 72701 Attention: Chairman and Members Re: Smith Two -Way Radio Proposed 100' monopole tower December 2, 2005 ( One is always hesitant to speak up on public issues for various reasons; including fear of creating enemies. However, please consider the following. I live about I t/2 blocks east-northeast of the Smith Two -Way Radio business and have for 30 years. As you know, the Smith operation lies just west of the Washington -Willow Historic District; which currently is one of the wonderful, unique areas of Fayetteville. Why would the citizens of Fayetteville wish to diminish the charm of the area with a 21st Century 100' tower? If the proposed tower is approved, will it be lit in such a way as to add to the light pollution we already have in the area? If so, I am absolutely opposed to the new tower. It should be in an industrial area or some place that is more suited to 100' of light pollution. Further, I think the City needs to investigate the effect the current Smith Operation has on its neighbors and what effect the new proposed tower will have. Although I am on Cox Cable, at my house, sometimes some kind of interference makes my TV reception blurry. If I have my radio on in my car, I get good reception in my driveway and Eastward down Davidson Street; however, when I get about two car lengths from Highway 71 B (College Avenue) some sort of interference attacks the signal so that I can barely hear the radio. So, if I must wait at the stop sign, I have to turn my radio down to stand the static. After leaving the stop sign, the signal gets better so that about 2 blocks away from Smith's, the radio is normal. . This is really a quality of life issue. We in the Washington -Willow Historic District have a wonderful place to live; please be very cautious when considering anything that might diminish our quality of life. I hope the people at Smith Two -Way Radio will not consider my objections as a personal attack on them. It would be greatly appreciated if the Planning Commission would take the above into consideration before voting on the issue. Respectfully submitted, Jim H. Boyd 206 E. Davidson Fayetteville, 7 701 RECEIVED cc: Smith Two -Way Radio AR QEC 0 55 CITY OF FAYEITEVILLE £ _INNING DNISION January 9, 2006 Planning Commission CUP 06-1875 Cell Tower! Smith .: Agenda Item 17 Page 18 of 22 Planning Commission Janua'y 9, 2006 Page 46 CUP 06-1875: (CELL TOWER/SMITH 2 -WAY, 446): Submitted by MICHAEL SMITH/GARY COCHRAN SMITH 2 -WAY RADIO for property located at 520 COLLEGE AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2 THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The request is to approve a cell tower at the rear of the subject property. } Garner: This property is located at 520 College Avenue, the site has approximately one half acre. The applicant is proposing to remove two existing shorter wireless communication towers and replace them with a single taller tower. The existing towers are one, a 65' guyed tower with a 20' antenna extending above the tower, and two, a wooden utility type monopole and extension bracket that supports antennas up to 62 feet above the ground. We have received several public comments the last several days. There was a petition signed by several of the neighbors in opposition to this. I received a call from one property owner in particular that wasn't allowed to be here, wanted me to state her name in opposition. Her name is Claudette Honeycutt. We received a couple of other phone calls as well in opposition to the project. The applicant has included a lot of their written comments in your packets and we have the signed petition if you want to see that. We also have a letter from the representative from the Washington -Willow Historic District as well. It was passed out before this meeting. Smith 2 -Way radio states there are capacity issues that need to be resolved with the existing towers in that the coverage in tower -to - tower hand-off issues due to the distance and barriers between the existing towers creating a deficiency in the wireless communication service. They also stated that due to the growth of the tree line in the area, the applicant cannot maintain a line of sight signal path to the closest tower which is located on Mount Sequoyah. To improve the call handling capacity cellular coverage and tower -to -tower handoff, they propose to remove these two existing towers and replace them with one tower that is a maximum of 100 feet in height. The applicant is proposing to landscape the site and remove the existing barbwire and chain link fence and replace it with a 10 foot wood type privacy fencing around the site. They are proposing to use a slim line T -mount antenna and transitional paint scheme to camouflage the pole similar to what was approved on a previous project. Staffs opinion finds that wireless coverage can be provided at this location that will not detract from the scenic quality and character of the area. We find that the proposal would actually improve the visual quality of the area by removing the existing outdated towers and replacing it with one tower that would be 20 feet taller than what is currently there, but would be a slimmer, lower profile type tower and would be camouflaged. We feel that with the addition of a wood privacy fence around the site and removing the barbwire and chain link fence and landscaping the site would be compatible and do find approval for this conditional use request. I wanted to call your attention to a couple of the Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 47 conditions: I) the applicant is required to comply with all Federal regulations, 6) utility equipment at the base of the proposed tower would be required to be surrounded by a wood security fence of sufficient height to screen any utility equipment. The existing barbwire and chain link fence would be removed; 7) landscaping shall be added to the site — we would have to see a site plan prior to development; the other conditions are relatively similar to ones we have seen on other wireless communication towers. We would be happy to answer any questions you might have. Ostner: Thank you, Mr. Garner. Is the applicant present. If you would introduce yourself and give us your presentation. Reynolds: My name is Dave Reynolds and I am representing Smith 2 -Way Radio. I live here in Fayetteville on 1519 Center Street. With this application on this, and public comment by folks.... some of the comments we have heard back are from people that were afraid that they weren't notified in proper manner. I wanted to go through this with Staff while we are here. All the proper notifications were sent, certified letters to all the appropriate houses. We spent hours today checking and double checking addresses and mailing receipts and postage, and dates to make sure all of that was done. That is done. So everyone that was supposed to be notified was notified. Then past that, we worked with the West Lafayette Historic District, with the Washington Willow Historic District, and anyone else we could think of in the community. Until Thursday, we had received two comments from the notification process that some folks were a little bit upset with this. One from Jim Boyd and one from Ann Thomas. Other than that, we had sent out 43 notices, we received 15 back, which in our experience with this, quite a number of receipts back. Eighty percent of the property owners that responded were in favor of this. Twelve in favor, three against. I wanted to point that out, we worked with everyone we could find, talk to, call or knock on the door. Comments that are coming up now, I would appreciate the time to address them. or go through this. There are a couple of other things with this that I want to bring up with this application. This application is brought forward by Smith 2 -Way Radio. The towers that are in the rear of our facility have been there for 35 years. We've been in that building since 1952, started Smith Radio in 1929 right down the street on the square. We've been in Fayetteville a long time. We don't build something ugly; we don't want to mess up historic areas. I wanted to point that out. With these towers we use, we use them for monitoring and maintenance on area systems, such as Arkansas State Police, City of Fayetteville, Ozark Electric, Washington County — the list goes on. We have over 500 customers. We monitor and listen to these areas from these towers. This is our workshop. The towers being 35 years old — when we put them up there, the trees weren't quite that tall. With this, we have to maintain a line of sight connection for Planning Commission January 9,2006 Page 48 some of our maintenance work, for data signals now. We need a line of sight connection to Mount Sequoyah. We don't make it any more. We have to bounce it off the top of the Radisson and do some other things, some fancy work to get there and it is not as reliable as we'd like. That's one thing with this. In doing this, taking down the two existing towers, we can take out a lot of the outdated equipment, modernize it, reduce it, move ourselves up and still have room to provide co -location for a cellular carrier or two. It's a financial bonus for us if that happens, but it's not the only reason. It's not going to be just a cell tower; it is a facility for our use at our business. I just wanted to make that clear. In the information I've seen, it says it is a cell tower. It can and probably will be used for that purpose, but there are also other purposes for it in with that. You've had the'packages there and as you can tell, this tower is only 100 feet tall. The two towers there top out at about 65' and 82' at the antenna height; so we're taking those down and putting up one that would be 20 feet higher. Our proposal is to build anew tower; we've worked with Staff to see if we can do this under an administrative process to take down the two, and put up one; under administrative review, replacing an existing tower. We can do that, but what we've got here is we want to make it a little better than that. To make these changes that we went to do, it has to come before this Commission and through the process as a new application. So we want to do it a little better that what we could do. We want to do the landscaping, the fencing, the screening, remove a lot of the stored material that is an eyesore. I'm sure the people that live behind, they don't like to look out their back window and see this. We are going to move that, screen that so you can't see it, and what we are going to replace it with the tower won't be any different or worse than what they see now. The trees in that area (I've got some slides) top out at between 65 and 75 feet. So we are only 30 feet above the tree line with a 100 feet of tower. Right now we are below the tree line with our towers. With the existing tree line, homes and the angles this will be seen from, it won't make it any worse. We have talked to many people in the neighborhood and they didn't even know the towers were there to start with. You have had a chance to look at the coverage book and the pamphlet that we submitted. I've got examples in slides that will probably answer most of your questions when they come upt Ostner: If you could hold off on the slides until we have questions. That sounds good. At this point, I will open it up to public comment. Please state your name and share your comments with us. Wilson: My name is Carrie Wilson. I do Section 106 compliance for cell tower review for the Paw Paw Tribe of Oklahoma. One of the things we look at under cell tower review, section 106, the National Historic Preservation Act. So any time for the Paw Paw Tribe that cell towers come in, they always ask the Tribe if they have anything of religious or cultural Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 49 significance; they require an archeological survey, and quite a lot of stuff. This doesn't necessarily pertain to here because this is already been impacted. But also, the construction of a cell tower is a Federal undertaking because it has to through FCC licensing. So as a Federal undertaking, it has certain Federal requirements it has to fulfill. One of those requirements is, does this impact historical properties? It will get signed off by the State Historic Preservation Office. There are citizens within the Washington Historic District that are concerned about the impact. And it is a visual impact, too. It's not just the physical impact; but the visual integrity, the visual impact of the site, and one of the things that can be done (not necessarily in this case), but gives you an alternative that it doesn't have to be a guyed wire pole or a monopole. They can be disguised as church steeples, flag poles or a number of things that can be incorporated into cell towers. So you don't have to look at a cell tower with this big thing on it. I would get as many as 25 requests in a week, certified mail, so there are tons and tons of them going up. I think sometimes, it is good to see cell tower construction going outside the box and trying to disguise them in different ways to it doesn't impact the community as much. This will have to be signed off by the State Historic Preservation Office and it does have to take into account that aspect before it can be constructed. Hunnicutt: I'm Claudette Hunnicutt; I live at 520 N. Washington Ave. My house faces so that I would see his towers from my front windows and my front door. It is on the back of some properties, but the whole front of my house would be facing this. Landscaping would be fine, but that is around the ground. How tall is the fence? A ten foot fence? We're talking about 100 foot tower, are we not. I don't think he is going to build a 100 foot fence to conceal that tower. It will have an impact on the Historic District and it will have an impact on the property values around it. It is my understanding that the City wants to beautify College Avenue. Do we want a cell tower right there? A 100 foot tall on College Avenue. And while I'm on the subject, there is an alleyway that goes between the Lunsford property and goes into Smith Radio. That is the only alley that is still in operation from College Avenue into the Historic District. My property had an alley that extended— we closed it fifteen to twenty years ago. There is no reason that that alley should be there, because it was constructed to collect trash and garbage. City trucks do not use that. Smith Radio is using it as a back entrance to their store. Now, to me that in itself is impacting on the Historic District and I think that alleyway should be closed, but that is not before the Commission right now. I do think that this tower will be an eyesore, I don't think it should be constructed there. I was informed that it was coming up; I did receive a letter from you all. I went out of town, so I didn't mail my response back. But I did call this morning and I'm here tonight. This is just not an enhancement to the Historic District, and when we start chipping away at Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 50 our Historic District like this, we are going to destroy it. And that is one of the assets of the Fayetteville community, our historic districts. And ordinances have been passed so that we can build garages so we could get our cars off the street, not to build apartments, but to build garages to make Washington Avenue a prettier street. We do not need a 100 feet cell tower right at the borderline with the Historic District. He said he received a lot letters in reply. I would like to know how many of those were homeowners in the area and how many were business owners. Business owners would sign off on it; it is not going to affect them one way or another. I would like to know how many of those letters would like to have 100 feet cell tower sitting in their back yard. Lunsford: Claudette Lunsford. Our property is not directly behind where this tower would be, it is just slightly caddy comer. We did not receive the certified letter; I understand today there was notification. I don't know why our mailman did not give it to us. But for whatever reason, we did not receive notice that this was happening until about a week ago when we got the letter from the Planning Department. I went around and started speaking with quite a few of my neighbors and we were not the only people that didn't know this was going on until just in the last few days. I don't know if in the Christmas season, people get busy and don't pay attention, I don't know what all the reasons might be. But there has been some rather late notification from everyone that lives in the neighborhood. I did want to make sure that there were thirty plus households that signed a petition that objected to having this placed in the Historic District. I think that the fact that our area is so close to a commercial zone, we feel a lot of pressure from all the traffic and noise from College, the cut through traffic. Having something that's this close to our neighborhood seems like it is more commercialism encroaching upon a fairly unique area that doesn't belong there. I don't think that seeing the cell tower from my back yard would be something I would look forward to, and also agreeing with Claudette Hunnicutt that being able to look at it while you are driving up and down College Avenue isn't something people would expect in that area of town. I think it is inappropriate for that neighborhood. I think there are other places that could possibly be looked at if we need cell coverage in that area of town. Maybe some other avenues need to be checked out to see if there is an alternative before you just put a cell tower in the middle of the Historic District. That's all I need to say. I would like you to think about preserving the nature of our neighborhood and its uniqueness and try to keep that in mind. Laller: I am Nan Laller and this doesn't really affect me directly so this is genuine public comment. I am curious as to whether you have ever requiring cell towers to be disguised, like Carrie Wilson said. They can be disguised. My husband and I went West last fall and we saw a number of them disguised as trees. The first one we saw was a great tall pine tree coming Planning Commission .January 9, 2006 Page 51 out of the California desert; that is weird. So you kind of notice that something is wrong here, what is this? So as we got closer, we could see the little crown on top and realized it was a cell tower. So we started looking for them. And as a matter of fact, when they are among other trees, it is a pretty good disguise. So I assume California or at least some counties in California are requiring them to be disguised. Fayetteville is supposed to be at the forefront of everything, so I'm wondering if you have ever considered asking for them to be disguised? Thank you. Ostner: And yes, Ma'am, we have. That is part of our ordinance. We will go into that in a little bit. S. Lunsford I'm Scott Lunsford and I live at 513 N. Washington. I know that the "Not In My Backyard Argument" is not a really strong argument for this kind of service, but I do question that it is not just my backyard, but we are looking at a ten -story structure in the 500 block of Washington Willow Historic District. I'm just wondering if that location is really the most serviceable location for what they are trying to achieve as far as cellular coverage. I think that the issue is really the Wilson Park Basin. I am thinking that this tower should be closer to Wilson Park Basin. I'm not an expert in cell technology. I know a little about it and I'm a little bit concerned about being shown some slides later and not being able to come back and comment on those. Will we open to respond to any further presentation by the applicant? Ostner: Probably not. We will go ahead and hear the public comment now and the slide show will simply illustrate what we already have in our packets. S. Lunsford: Of course these are items that we have not seen, and not being able to comment on them or to take them and study them, kind of puts us at a pretty serious disadvantage. Allen: I just wanted to mention to you, Mr. Lunsford that we have had this debate recently because the applicant usually has the final, middle and first word. There would be circumstances that we would allow if the Commission as a group would permit it, we will sometimes allow public to speak again. S. Lunsford: Thank you. If cell service is the main drive here or is that part of the enhancement or part of the package that they'd like you to believe is necessary or certainly a fruitful result of this conditional use. I have to say I have not personally experienced any Cingular cell problems in my area and I understand that there are probably more cell phones that cell towers, but I'm still not sold that that tower has to be at that location to enhance that service. I'm quite certain that the monopole tower does not contribute to the character of the Historic District. Please, please don't approve this conditional use. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 52 Reese: I'm Karen Reese and I'm president of the Washington Willow Historic District. I must say that Dave Reynolds did contact the neighborhood association early on in this process. He contacted us in November. He asked to meet with citizens. I feel like I must disclose this in spite of what has happened in the last few days. He did contact me by phone, he did send an e-mail and he did ask to meet. I posted on the Washington Willow Neighborhood Association List Serve and asked everyone who was interested in this project to join me. He had already sent out the letter and at that time I think he had fifteen responses that said they were favorable and he had one at the time that said that he was opposed. I posted it on List Serve, no one showed up, 1 went by myself and met with Dave, we toured the property, looked at everything and he told me their plan. I came back and reported my findings on the List Serve to the Neighborhood Association, and said I invite your comments on this. I showed up today, no one showed up with me, but I invite your comments. Nothing happened. I heard nothing except for one respondent that said I think they are handling this in a responsible way. That's all I heard from the neighborhood List Serve. . I got back from vacation on Wednesday and on Thursday I had a call from Dave who said would you please write a letter saying what the Neighborhood Association feels about this and I said I would over the weekend. Then I just got a call from some of the neighbors on Friday who said they had not been notified, so even if it is just a friendly thing to do to notify the neighbors, Mr. Reynolds told me that he had notified the neighbors in a 500 foot radius by certified letter. I guess that some of the neighbors did not receive that which made me not to be able to sign on to send him a letter that said that the neighborhood felt this was okay. I had to write him a letter that said that some people who are really worried about this project now. So I'm just trying to give you the background of what has been going on in the Neighborhood Association. I went over and looked at it and did not find what they were doing didn't seem that awful to me, but it's not directly in my back yard. The people who are here tonight, it is in their back yard. Ostner: Is there any further public comment? Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission for discussion. Myres: It seems as though if the commenting public had some of the visual images that we have in our packet, that they might be a little bit better informed about exactly what this looks like from where.... Would it be appropriate to share my packet with them, or not. Ostner: It would. I believe the applicant has a presentation, if we want to go ahead and do that. I believe it reflects exactly what is in our packets. You want to go ahead. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 53 Reynolds: I have some additional photos that we took today from some of the locations that are in the petition. Just so I can show you those specific locations and those houses. Presentation: This is a checklist that we worked from, many times that is given by the Planning Commission, including flood maps, drawings, contacts, notifications we have to send out to neighborhood people. This is a standard form. This is the geographical area that this would serve, not only in the Smith 2 -Way, but if it was used for cellular coverage. It shows some of the area from top of hill of North Street, across from the old WRMC, up to about Dickson Street by the Courthouse; in that basin and a little bit toward Wilson Park. These are the existing and planned facilities that around there right now. The center one there with orange is the location questioned. There are two locations on top of Mount Sequoyah, one at the AWG Tower, one at the Methodist grounds and Water Tower. Also, at the Water Tower at the VA Hospital. There are also cellular facilities at all those particular Cingular locations there, as well as anyone else that can possibly fit on those: Alltel, Verizon, Sprint. The surrounding area is definitely full. This is one of the diagrams requested showing the single family residences within 'h mile radius. As you will notice, we are located in the C-2. There are lots of single family residences 4 per acre located behind us. This is the existing towers that are within that mile — the two at Mount Sequoyah, the one at the VA, the fourth one is the top of the Highland Towers, I believe, and there are a • couple at the University Stadium and a couple more at the University. The site plan that we submitted — you are all familiar with the fence and the way it runs there behind our building now. We purchased the facility next door to us. We are going to move everything down into that back open lot that's down there behind the engineering company now and fence it up, scoot it back and landscape it on all four sides. -We have worked with the City on the landscaping plan and some of the things they want to see there to meet the ordinances. We are working on the drainage — we are going to fix that up, close it up, put it in pipe and get rid of it. A copy of the warranty deed. This is a close-up of the location. We would set our sheds back down further into the tree line and plant some more trees and shrubs and all kinds of stuff there. This is the area of land use. We are in C-2, a commercial thoroughfare is where we are located. There is a 100 foot radius of the tower, so if for some reason, it did happen to fall over, which they are engineered not to do, there won't be anything there left to hit. It does not touch or intrude on any residences. Signage. These are some of the opportunities for other cellular companies. Right now we doing Cingular Wireless, but there are several other carriers in this market. Our goal is to get them all on our tower, so we try to build them in a place that everyone needs them, not just where we can build them. This looks like a good location. This outlines that we will take down the two towers, removing the chain link fence and so on with that. We will only be protruding above the existing trees twenty to thirty feet. There is no Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 54 lighting. The A/Cs will be commercial A/Cs, no loud noises or smells. This is part of the coverage map. Red is better: red, pink, yellow, green. This map was furnished by Cingular Wireless and this is what it would be when we get it in there. It will still fill up the sides of Mount Sequoyah, through that Basin, start into the Wilson Park area, and help out in the hilltop on North Street. That's just in the coverage area. A lot of the other issues that we have talked about before are capacity issues. If you look around Fayetteville, and this will please you guys, we've got about all the hilltop sites we need. They're there. We've come before you several times now. We are always asking for the low land. That's because that's where we need it. What happens is that this tower, built several years ago, with any wireless companies came as true cellular. The technology has improved and has gotten better. The population of Fayetteville has exploded, we'd all agree. And it is also the population of cell phones of among the people of Fayetteville has grown. It takes the site that used to be on top of the VA Water Tower and Mount Sequoyah and Highland Terrace, you would have X number of phones calls and you would never exceed X. But now in the last five years, we have doubled the number of cell phones in Fayetteville so it's X plus 500 at any given time. So then you get all circuits are busy. I'm sure everybody who has a cell phone that has ever tried to make a cell call during the football game, even if you aren't at the football game, gets all circuits busy. There is not enough capacity to accommodate all the calls. Clark: I.hate to interrupt this fascinating presentation, but I would really like to focus on what the views of the towers themselves are and not go through the packet one page at a time. I'm most interested in what the visual representations of the cell:towers are. And to let the neighbors know what they literally would be looking at. Ostner: Are the other Commissioners in agreement — Yes. Reynolds: This is a typical monopole type of structure, that is NOT what we are going to do. What we are going to do is on the other side, except short and small. More compact than even that. You won't see this. That's part of the conditions. We have one at Zion and 265 that we built that was recently approved. I'm showing the difference between the painted and unpainted. The tower that we are proposing will be painted in this scheme, with the green transitioning to the blue. Ostner: But it will have the T on it like the others. Reynolds: It will have a small T on it. Here's what we are looking for. These are photo simulations we did that are required by the City for this. This is standing next to IGA on College Street. You see the little cross — that's what the tower will look like from that location. This is not a large tower Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 55 and it is only this wide at the top. This is from the opposite direction, standing behind Curry's next to University Auto. This is what it will look like coming from the other direction.. The structure right here seen above the tower is a crane that we rented for the day. We raised the ball up to 100 feet and hang it over to where we need to be, the exact location of the tower. That's how these site lines are represented. The scale is forced. Myres: Can I ask you what the structure immediately to the left of that is? Reynolds: That is a small antenna that is stuck up here on the side of University Auto. It is 15 feet from the photograph point. The tall one that looks like it is a mirror to the other one is actually is right in the foreground —kind of a forced perspective. If you look here, you can see the existing tower that I have marked and if you look in the center, there is another small tower. It's kind of fuzzy in this picture. Those will be the towers that will be removed. Here it is from the little motel right across the street from us on College. This is in their parking lot. This is what it would look like from that direction. Twin Arch Motel. You can see the existing tower is located in the tree line. This is it from right in front of your house, ma'am. That is how tall would be in actuality. That is the view you would see through a tree — it is behind the trees. This is the 100 foot line at College and North St., the top of the old WRMC lot. It is there, but you can't really see it, it is a distance away. This is it from the top of Washington School coming on Maple St. — on the corner. Here it is from Mount Sequoyah. You would be looking down on it into the City, if you could see it at all. This is some structural information. Ostner: I think that is plenty. Allen: I'd like to first broach the tree idea that we have discussed one other time. We also talked about a clock and other objects. I wanted the neighbors to hear about that. Reynolds: On several other occasions we have talked about camouflaging as a tree and things like that. Technically, would this work as a tree? Yes. This would work as a tree. We would rather not build it that way; the reason is, it would be the tallest 100 foot tree in the neighborhood; it will triple the cost. We have to do something to get our line of sight back. We can build within administrative review on top of what we have to eighty feet and that will get our line of sight back. But, to do what we want to do and use this and the revenue it generates as a cell tower, to pay for these improvements and pay for itself, to add another $120,000 on top of the project, which would more that double the cost of the project, it never pays back as an economic model. I'm not saying we wouldn't do it, but if we did it, but as the applicant, we would ask for a taller tree!! If you look around Fayetteville and the ones we have built, I'll be the first to admit I f Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 56 poopooed the transitional paint scheme, but it works. l would have done anything to keep those poles gray. The transitional paint seems to work. You can look at the one on 265 and Zion. The commissioners have seen it and it works. Just for your information and for the public, tomorrow morning the last tower that we have talked about at Deane Solomon Rd. - we will be standing it up, if any of you are interested. And it will also be the same transitional paint scheme. The flag pole with the antennas that we want for our personal use and for monitoring, some of those are 18-20 long, some VHF and low band antennas that will go lower on the tower. They won't work. The tree situation, we could make that work. Allen: The questions about alternative sites. When NIMBY comes up, I think that this is a slightly different: situation because if we are going to have historical areas in our City, they are all of our back yards. I feel like this impacts. the entire community, because this is something that we are focusing on and are talking about in our Downtown Master Plan and areas that we have in our City that are appealing. I wondered if you could discuss alternative sites. Reynolds: Alternative sites for this tower? We have looked around. Of course we own the land, so we wouldn't have to buy another piece of land on College, since we have already bought one. As far as the RF coverage - wise, it could move 500 feet, a quarter mile maybe and not be affected. If we move it that small of a distance, in any direction, it still is in the back yard. We are willing to put it in our back yard and take down some of the mess that is there and fix it. If we move it somewhere else, that doesn't help Smith 2 -Way's problem with the line of sight issue. There would be no secondary benefits for the City or for us. Allen: I don't know if the other commissioners would consider it appropriate, to open it up again to neighbors. I'd like a little bit clearer feeling as to why they, if the area is to be cleared and landscaped and fenced, why that additional footage is that large of a concern. Ostner: Let's go ahead. I'm going to put stipulations. We are not going to repeat the same issues, we are not going to repeat the same comments. If you have something new to say, we would be glad to hear it. Allen: The question was for that much additional footage to be added, considering that they are going to clear up the area, and landscape and fence, why would that particular amount be objectionable. S. Lunsford: I guess there are three things here: 1) cleaning up the mess that is there; I don't think that should be tied to adding a ten -story antenna in our back year. I think a good neighbor would clean that up anyway. I don't think the cleanup is necessary to get the tower; 2) the additional twenty feet— Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 57 looking at the extreme distance that those photographs were taken, and I can promise you that at 1,500 - 2,000 feet away from an object that this thick at the top, it is going to disappear in this image. Did we see anything ten feet, twenty feet away, next to the tower? No, we didn't. All those images were from a great distance, so the closest we got was 250 feet, and at street level, and not at the second story level which many of these houses have, and 3) I keep hearing that it is only twenty more feet. If you look at these towers that are existing now, yes there is a twenty foot piece of antenna on top of a 65 foot tower, so it's a little bit misleading to say that they are only adding twenty feet — they are almost doubling the height. I think all you have to think of is ten stories. Think of what ten stories looks like twenty feet away. That is the scale we are talking about. Ostner: The overall maximum height will be a 100 feet, which is 18 feet taller than what is there now. It is not doubling. S. Lunsford: What I'm saying is that composition of what is there now — the last twenty feet of that 80 feet is this big around, not this big around. So it's a structural difference — it is a visual difference. I know it is easy to look at those photographs and say that this doesn't look bad, but you are thousands of feet away from it. Ostner: Do other commissioners feel we should have more public comment. Myres: Maybe people who haven't spoken before? Hunnicutt: One of the differences is the towers now are below tree level, so even in winter with the leaves off, there are concealed somewhat. Now they are going above the tree level. So anywhere on Washington Street you are going to see this thing sticking up. On his tapes, I was concerned about the service area he is talking about. It's just from Mount Sequoyah to Wilson Park. That's not a whole big area to disrupt the Historic District to service that one little area. He said revenue -wise, it wasn't worth it for revenues. Revenue is their bottom line, they don't care how they impact the District. Ostner: That is sufficient; we are going to go ahead and close the public comment section for good and we are going to discuss it among ourselves. Myres: Can I ask for a point of clarification? Probably from the applicant. Back in the beginning of your presentation, that the primary service that you provide to the City, the State, the Highway Patrol, for signal bridging. Reynolds: We monitor and maintain and administer all the communications for the State, City, and local County fire departments. We use that in the repair of Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 58 their systems, so that we can stay at our location and monitor the signals at those locations. Myres: So the primary purpose of improving the service at this location is to make it possible for the police and the fire and the highway patrol to communicate with each other in a way that allows for consistent quality of transmission? Reynolds: I don't want to say that. It is a little bit overstated. What is used for in those systems, they operate independently of ours. What we use it for is if they call and something breaks, we have people on staff right there with all the equipment to monitor and diagnose that. So we tune into their frequency with those antennas and see what is wrong. Myres: So it is a repair service. Reynolds: It is a repair service at that point. That's how it helps to maintain those systems, but it is not an "integral" part of their system. I don't want to mislead you on that. But it is very, very important to us. And it is important to them when it breaks. Ostner: I have a question for Staff. There is building permit, a red sign up, just north of here on College that used to be some sort of entertainment venue. How tall is that building going to be? Do you know off chance? Pate: It is at least two stories and I'm not sure if they are going to increase the height of that structure at all. They are retaining the two stories there. Ostner: I was just recalling at the agenda session we were talking about building height and the new County Courthouse has a sort of hiding story that is hard to see. I know our ordinance requests them to look into other locations. I was just thinking outside the box: Graves: I might have a little more heartburn about .this if there weren't already two towers there. I understand Staffs recommendation for that reason. If we were bringing a tower to the Historic District for the first time and there wasn't already a tower there, I probably would not support that or it would have to be a lot different set of circumstances and conditions than what we see here. There are already two towers there. I haven't see the two towers, but it sounds like they aren't very visually appealing towers and maybe a larger around tower is at least a part of them than what this monopole being proposed would be. So from the standpoint of the visual • aspect of it, it sounds like discounting how high we might vote to let them go, whether we go 100 feet or something different than that, just looking at the tower itself and the, paint scheme or what we decide would potentially be less impactful on the Historic District than what is there Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 59 now. Also, looking what is in the public interest, even if it is only a five minute breakdown in emergency services, this tower would help bridge or repair, that is more important in the big scheme of things than intrusion visually into the Historic District. I think that most people would agree with that. Also, it is in the public interest. This is not just a cell tower, it is the public interest to try to modernize equipment and to make sure our communications facilities in the City are in good repair and highest quality that we can have. And the co -location of not just more that one cell phone company but also these other services that this tower can provide, is also an important aspect on this one single tower. There is not church sitting on this piece of property and obviously anybody would prefer not to go out and buy another piece of property just to try to cover the area that is involved and whether it is small or large, it is subjective. If there is poor cell phone coverage for some or all customers, and poor coverage for other purposes, it affects the people in that hole and it may be a pretty important to them, even if it isn't important to anyone else. So from that standpoint, I think it is clearly in the public interest to have some type of improvement to what's there now, if they are having to do all kinds of crazy bouncing of signals to try to get things to work properly. Looking at the height and what it ought to look like, I think that is the bigger issue and bigger debate. To me it's not whether it ought to be there, I would prefer to see them tear down the old towers and put in the newer high quality, high tech, slim model of a tower. This tower that they are proposing at 100 feet is 18 feet higher than the height that extended by the taller of the two towers. I would be open to something less than that. Can I understand from previous submissions by this applicant that in order to co -locate two or three companies on there, there has to be enough height to give space to the different cell phone companies on that tower? So I understand that it can't be a great deal less than 100 feet, but 90 or 95 feet may be better than 100 feet to these neighbors. It might be something that you could do what you needed to do and get your sight line back and still have room to cash flow things and pay for it, than 100 feet. Then we are only talking about 8 feet higher than what is there or 20-30 feet higher if you don't ,count the antenna. I would probably be more interested in seeing something along the lines of 90-95 feet and would throw that out to the other commissioners to see what they think about that. The other thing is that we have never really explored what the cost would be making it look like a tree or is that is something the other commissioners are interested in. We talked about it at one time about six months ago on one of the proposals (Zion Road) and in that case, the tree line was only 30-40 feet so it was going to look ludicrous to have 100 foot clock, flag pole or tree out there. It wasn't going to fit in or match — it was going to look crazy. Here it sounds like the tree line is quite a bit higher and making it a tree might be something that works a little bit better here because it is not as out of place. I would throw out those two things — maybe something less that 100 feet and still allows the applicant to do what they need to do Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 60 and possibly discussing a different design, although the paint has worked pretty well. I think anyone that has seen that, it does blend in pretty well. But on the issue of whether this ought to be there and whether the conditional use ought to be there, it is already there in one form and I would support allowing them to tear down these two towers and put in another tower. Trumbo: A couple of questions for the applicant. Will there be a light on top of this tower? Reynolds: No lights, no wires, no sounds. One of the towers that exists there, the taller one, is a guyed tower now. It would be a smaller version of the Zion tower. Trumbo: When I see these on the agenda, it is probably the worst thing to have to deal with.up here, because nobody wants them, but we all need them. No one wants them in their back yard. I certainly understand the neighbors' concerns and feel for them. When we did the Zion pole, I had reservations about it and especially about the paint. But after it went up and taking a look at it, it worked. It is a tower, but it doesn't draw your eye, in my opinion. Some of the photos I saw, especially I believe in front of Ms. Hunnicutt's house had trees in front of it, so it looks like most of the pole would be blocked. I don't think it would be offensive as the neighbors believe it would be at this time. I would probably in favor of allowing the tower in the conditional use. What's there is a mess and needs to be cleaned up and I agree that a good neighbor needed to do that a while ago. I want to hear from other commissioners. But I don't have as much angst about it as I used to. Ostner: If I could ask our City Attorney to give any comments about our stipulations. How far can we go. We have been advised in the past that these conditional uses are little bit different because there is a Federal body that is asking cities to provide infrastructure. Whitaker: Exactly, there are actually quite extensive sections of the Telecommun- ications Reform Act of 1996 that deal with local regulation cell towers. Now, our ordinance which is section 163.14 in which all your decisions are based on and the criteria that the Staff sets forth in their report, was composed with the provisions of the 1996 Act in mind. So what is in there, if you comply with the ordinance, you are complying with the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Written in here are things that you would not consider in another conditional use. Ostner: Thank you. That helps. I have a question for Staff. On page 13 of 22 of our packet, the section 163.14 B2, it says towers or alternative tower Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 61 structures are permitted to a maximum of 150 feet. Am I understanding that if the applicant wished, he could simply, he could be proposing a 150 foot tower tonight? Pate: Yes, he could propose that. It would not have to be approved. Ostner: On page 6 of 22, our conditional use guidelines basically require us to scrutinize the general compatibility with adjacent properties and other properties in the district. Staff has answered that well, but it is a judgment call. I am agreeing with Mr. Graves and Mr. Trumbo, that this does not present a huge threat, but I am still not in favor of it in this location. I don't think it is compatible. I think there is another place nearby that this cell service could be found. I think the impact is too much here. I understand that there is another tower here and there is only a net gain of 18 feet. As with our Downtown Master Plan discussions, sometimes you make rules or you could make rules to phase out the old, and not simply allow it to continue. I think the fact that it already exists there doesn't necessarily mean that we need to allow it to continue if an improvement or an increase in height or conditional use request is passed to us. I'm separating those two things in my mind, and just looking at it as a conditional use. I'm not sure I can see it. Graves: I have a question for Staff. There has been an allusion made a couple of times that some administrative process that they could have gone through and still increased the height of this tower, that they could have torn down these two existing towers and put up a new tower without even coming before us. I was curious what that is all about. Pate: That is an alternative in the ordinance and it has already been submitted to the Office as sort of a back up in case this doesn't go forward. The applicant always has a right to increase the height of a tower by a maximum of twenty feet from the original tower structure, but a determination would be made on the original tower structure and administratively the height of that tower could be extended by no more than twenty feet with an additional antenna. It would not allow for a replacement or a new tower, or even a monopole tower that would comply with City ordinances at the same height but only twenty feet taller. It specifically references the same tower, it even speaks about the width, if it is a guyed tower, you can't go more than 36" more that what it was, so there are allowances written into our code that do allow for the existence of existing towers that are nonconforming and expansion of those administratively without a conditional use process. Graves: So they could have the old wide, less attractive version of the tower and add to it so it is an 85 foot tower with an antenna on that. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 62 Pate: Twenty feet taller than the existing tower structure, whatever that may be. Ostner: It is 82 feet right now on page 6 of 22. So that would be 102 feet that he could do without conditional use. Graves: I think the 82 included the antenna. 1 think if was 65 feet, but whatever it is, they could add twenty feet to that and then have an antenna on top of that, so it would get to about 100 feet tall. Trumbo: To your point that it could be relocated, you are right, but. we'd be having the same discussion as soon as they picked out another place along 71 or wherever. Those neighbors are going to be in here as well. Their back yard. Ostner: I'm still not so certain that there aren't serious camouflaging opportunities — on top of a building that is so wide that you can not simply see until you go to another town and look down. I'm just not sold that this monopole in this location is the only way for them to go. Graves: I have one follow up question that you made me think of. Would they be required to put any type of camouflage on it if they went through this administrative process? Pate: I don't believe so. I think it states that you just have to..."the addition or modification to the extent possible should be designed to minimize visibility." It does not fall under the section of specifically being required to camouflage or utilize monopole technology. Graves: To me this is back to the Commission, we are confronted with a choice where we can turn down this application and they simply go through the administrative process and have an 85 foot tower that is not camouflaged at all and that is built in the old manner and then with an antenna extending about 100 feet, or we can try to work with this application in such a way that we get something that everyone is as comfortable as possible through this process. Allen: Back to the "not in my back yard argument" as I stated previously, I think there are some places in Fayetteville that we have deemedunique and special, places like the Square, Old Main, the Washington Willow Neighborhood, Mt. Nord, the Post Office, all over town. And those are all in our back yards, not just these particular people. I think that does make a difference. It concerns me that there be that kind of an eye sore in an area that we as a City either through time or choice have created something that we consider to be unique. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 63 Lack: Question for the applicant for clarification. I had understood from your presentation that the services with regard to maintenance for the police, dispatching that you supply, that these would have to be at your location and would not be as flexible as the cell tower. Reynolds: No, we can't move or relocate any of that for any reason. Lack: So with that understanding, my understanding is that we are going to look at an upgrade of this tower one way or another and then if we looked at a different location, we would looking for a location for your cell tower in a remote or otherwise chose location and the upgrade and extension of the radio signal towers. Reynolds: •Yes, our location for our purposes, we have to upgrade that tower. That's basically the inquiries into the administrative review process, Plan B if you will. As far as the other part, if it is not approved there, I'm sure it will be back at some other time somewhere else. Lack: With that, I see this as an opportunity to co -locate those functions, clean up and make better a condition that exists now and bring about a more attractive tower than what is there currently, in agreement with Staff's findings. I would support that. Clark: Exactly how much taller than the existing structure are we talking about? Pate: The application states that it is a 65 foot guyed tower with a 20 foot antenna, extending above that tower to 82 feet. (that would be an 18 foot extension) taller than what is existing. Then there is an existing wooden utility type monopole (page 19.) Clark: I'm struggling with the difference that 18 feet makes. I drove by the facility today and it is one of my favorite alleys that is left in Fayetteville and it is ugly. The whole facility around those towers is terrible, especially as it reflects on what I consider to be a beautiful and unique neighborhood. So I am truly torn over taking that eyesore out of the picture for a better, safer facility, a better looking facility. And shame of you for not cleaning it up on your own any way. I'm assuming that you can't see the tower now because I've lived here my whole life and I didn't notice the darn thing until I was looking for it. If the trees continue to grow, if the Neighborhood Association continues to fight those tree pruning measures and they stay healthy, eventually they will grow to camouflage this 18 feet as well. So I'm struggling between the difference: tearing existing structures that have been there forever and a day, landowners right by use. This is their property. And going back with 18 more feet. Right now I am at the point of cleaning up the mess and making it a better and more functional space. They have to improve it Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 64 anyway. And do they go up, do they do an administrative tactic that doesn't require some of this stuff? That is entirely possible if this does not pass tonight. I am inclined to support this conditional use simply to clean it up and make utilitarian use of the property. Allen: I do think a neighborhood might be more supportive of what you are doing - if the place had been cleaned up to begin with. It might make them.look more favorably upon your proposal. Shame on you again. Graves: I am going to move for approval of conditional use CUP 06-1875 with stated conditions of approval but amending condition four to 90 feet. Trumbo: Question for the applicant. If we amend this to 90 feet, is it going to accomplish what we need to accomplish here for you all? Reynolds: At 90 feet, that would technically work for us for the Smith 2 -Way portion of it. It would limit or decrease the ability to co -locate cellular on that tower. At 100 feet, we might be able to fit two on there. At 90 feet, it would be one, at best, ever. Clark: Second. Ostner: So we have a motion for approval. changing condition number four to read the tower shall be.no taller than 90 feet including all antennas, arrays, or other appurtenances.. A second from Commissioner Clark. Is there any further discussion. Allen: - So now to the math. Graves: It would be a 25 taller tower but 8 feet taller if you count the antenna. Allen: So this would clean up the area and would add 8 feet of tower. Graves: It would add 25 feet of tower, but only 8 feet gross height. Trumbo: I would be in favor of the 100 foot tower based on the needs of the applicant, however, with the 90 foot alternative, if that's the best we can get, I will go ahead support that. But I would also support the 100 foot tower. Reynolds: We can build this to 90 feet. What we would like to do then or offer a compromise if we can, in that we can build the tower now at 90 feet and if the need arises later, that we could put a flange plate on the top of the tower and extend it at a later time, and extend it another 20 feet if we had to. Right now we have one carrier that wants to go on. Planning Commission January 9, 2006 Page 65 Graves: Would this expandable joint add any height to the tower. Reynolds: One inch. Ostner: You would still have to come back here. Roll Call: Upon the completion of the roll call, CUP 06-1875 carries by a vote of 5- 2-0 (Allen and Ostner voting no) CUP06-1875 Close Up View SMITH 2 -WAY � t�� �n�¢¢�Y�"`r �' � 620 t� M � c}E` CRi Gl� a� � �t + \ F S •Y t fC �y} y�e V F JI iJ M 'D'HI �`2t S m I . (Thw C � Sy 1AT _p�sssiT'1 Legend 9oo0�Overlay DWnct 61000 — FLOO0WAY --- 500 YFAR 1WYEAn -- IJMT OF STUDY — — - Basetlne Probe O Fayetteville ( Ovine CRY corns -'n ® a.GEH.Foebx2004 0 75 150 300 450 600 Feet January 9, 2006 Planning Commission CUP 06-1875 Cell Tower/ Smith CUP°6'$'5 SMITH 2 -WAY One Mile View . , I 111 RAf � • �— -. -- _ r p� JAI RSFgF. .J ____Ti' .pi:r RSFJ I, � � -i CIO ♦ Tf a LttyJy }. }J a� i a " L < _ J IRSF�'„ 1, {'i IROI '1 r 1.� -' S -I'--•-' -ti .. ��u�y.y `` �yc�;"ax •- n I Jw ,, _ qy Jx `�::� I I' I r>L . ) ki" w4 L _RSFJ- ,_ _ F3. . t L:; _ > 11 P-1 !_ , .. y i .1 . • / R3J •--.R; 1�.i' : _ t -.--- -J�ur 1 i ��. -' r-.1fxa t/ T 1' �� i �%FIF)IFRT.DR 11:� ' _1 C2 LI l A,tjr' i JJl r i : — l'ri.y r .� ' _ n .4.i �' L� •, I1 ,i t�d % 17 r —{ ♦i'ST `\ Lx i ri �jf�6'F.1 " J i x-. '�fi�rJ'. r 1 lyj`' —F�yK, ! �• �. - �� i x� �_� Ro T tr V rh^Y�L+1.'YUJp_�s _ • T r r -'-r N -r. : `- ._ { kl� SUBJECT PROPER TYt , � F ♦ f c -t Jr� ~ � ]r'.1 • �� 1PPI�4. iI.W. 1�5 • i i J i� r� - �3€ ,F }� _",`,�i_E fA1TE4T �.' If l'{I�zl� , L P f 'ti ri y i t TR"Y .1-J ((i5tyi-r�'-WJ 7c..-i.i i.: r„-; 3 Jr, ,>uiii]'! .,,-..,�P,If15FJ RSi41+rk`1�. A56J T `; • _ _ _ y it:: 1 , 'IS.F.1f 1 irk I I . r r r- - 1 , -ft RIF_]0• �,A,�zaJDy r'T L 1 1'4' a .� J AFB_ fl •:..L"L RAQJOIP-1 ']L�x1` ." T a___ Y""tr r^�.-•.'-�1 t L< A 2 � 0.5FJ lGF (� �RSF;'I ,�� t�tF.il �—: II .IJ ♦ rA Ir 1111` , rF � ) i�1 � : Iti lF-01r 1• ' I 4, F- > - rTt Rl4JD TtNa . Y- I:�SR ♦: 111 ] r ) r,e'1• J �� f 1 jj�' J G � `r ��� -gV ly f � :. I 3, • i e� �_ 1 RSFJw a: I iLi r I I_ I 3' I :y`r'1.1- II 1 rry-+II R$FJ if L,t ax ,:R3y.R5fJ-_- t I pt 'RN1D YI n t r f; LJ "J [ I'Q , R'V rI _. r I FUJI I�, y, ?i w �+ i�'jf�Nay I !fi0 1 IRSFJ�rRPS➢ 'r R�3JI SJ RSFJ .. -- rrlil. IL :i 3^' RSI'J F'=i ° Ti,,IC^l II GS W y �!G3 ¢'J' .._J:� RSf # %�: ___ 0.1 jY RA6J0 fi' 1 �: R r �-{ � .t{l� - p;r -r -� i 1, f .� 1W, y yy Pl i I R , , e �� .+ 4 .. v j�lr - Qn Llrr [yS� ♦ R-0.+ : r .__....� ui 4� fir-�r'�.�Y•�•�i T l, 'f.NAF 26\ jx'Ihl 5Ky:iry�O{ " 1. Ip#— i!� i. ^IY �RLFJo 'RJ � "I F� •i(' e' I_-.�Ff�tl I).L �{l' : I � FFF,11 ;I, 1 f4 l LlJ Wtri- t t i,i-' 1 . :� i W .(•"1 '[ 5Nrr �Tj rfr {YN-'-�I L=�--- P, P11 �, • 4J1 kki' ijt- 7 � Iry 1 RNF. I)I _ v � tL- RQ- - i j • .. )AW. i mx r�.lr.c. Ie.�ci q a', G •1'1=_ �I' - i-If: _ r 3 Gi +.Y y..sv yY r 'q' , Kl ri•J N,y '.'!"7r-__,. < • � t_ x< r_ cJ �-0 J 1�!`,'�t 1 !:I u 1 �� I -`f IPM i� =' y ' I �II ' - 1 i fl(t�.Ci f `r-, rjj •0.1 : D RRfJ� i i 'l 1i 1$';4J.'. rl�`' Y �anF14D 't� 1.4t� 9 JLt =..¢ $Y r u 1 e t r , A'S1 S r fl l F[1.IF4 I ' Y' F'� ♦_-tl�'�.lC 1 1 :dz . � Yi'ih r'� �+ I L� l" , Y Overview Legend Boundary _ ---i Subject Property ,- , P m dng Az a CUP06-1815 p000g O]eday Dlsoict . qw Oou Outside City _ __: _. Legend 0 0.120.25 0.5 0.75 1 January 9, 20 Planning Commissi n IIesJP 06-1875 Cell Towed Sm Ih 7 Page21 of22 � S January 9, 2006 Planning Commission CUP 06-1875 Cell Tower! Smith Agenda Item 17 Page 22 of 22 r.N January 6, 2005 The Fayetteville Subdivision Committee has been asked to review a proposed CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT described as follows: CUP 06-1875: (SMITH 2 -WAY, 446): Submitted by MICHAEL SMITH/GARY COCHRAN SMITH 2 -WAY RADIO for property located at 520 N COLLEGE AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The request is for a cell tower at the rear of the subject property. We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 1. Printed Name Residence Address N. W11As tur City Zip ItI -1)3- 2. Printed Name Residence Address n City Zip 3. Printed Name GM I C Residence Address City Zip -7ZJdI k 4 We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 4. Printed Name Residence Address geq ?f4 //' 5. Printed Signature City hJ -7x701 6. Printed Name Residence Address vJTvf Ll1 l/V 1/t Et..�i:A In 1t. At T r O 7. Printed Name Signature , 8. Printed Name Residence Address cn,rc� 1"tUs arrc. yzz �� �a5�iv�G lave Signature City Zip We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 9. Printed Name Residence Address bbl p T tet( q1S Li i4Ja4k Signature City Zip rte_ ,2 10. Printed Name Residence Address / Z11 / .�yrf�� y/c— /r/i4Syi S7n Signature City Zip ffl 6//IL f O/ 11. Printed Name Residence Address 1I /1i4t6N hAiEc. /%/�� I/C� `V Signature City Zip 12. Printed Name Residence Address Sign re \ City Zip 13. ed Nawee / .� - Residence Address 70 � We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 14- Printed Na Residence Address Signature 7 City Zip L iio1 15. Pied Name Residence Address Sig re City Zip e ,; � � / 761 16. Printed Name ReS14t'ence Address Sign re City Zip ] 17. Printed Name /Residence Address / 4e . I U114wd 51 N •3 WQ7V1 �� i71:Ln✓I lh�'i Signature City Tin 1 x. Pr/hted Name Residence Address 513 1 UJatin4 4-ut City Zip lit(p,k1 I We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 19 Printed Name _ Residence Address Signature City Signature 21. Printed Nam I4 Name nom• .•U Signature Q/J e 23. Printed Name C- 034, City Zip Residence Address b°I City Zip •1fl Residence Address `iL6 a City Zip 7o/ Residence Address . 3Z2 City Zip We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 24. Printed Name Residence A dress tL9 J. lLLtfri Si attire j City Zip 25. Printed Name 26. Printed Name Signature Residence Address / 7 City Zip Residence Address City Zip 27. Pri t d Name Residence Address hh �1C)q CAS t�l Sm Ayt �2Cv N i�a��,,ncj7M ( ik Signature City Zip 28. Pn't Name Residence Address Cl City Y Zip (61.e F1i ) l c, .At 916? .7277] IVt I r We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit'CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 29. Printed Name Residence Address Signature City Zip 30. Printed Name Residence Address / 1tfl1 Signature City Zip 31. Printed Name Residence Address Vj gl ,'4 P iz.K /nos l C Signature City Zin -70/ 32. Printed Name - Residence Address Signature City 33. Prinpted Name �! Residence Address n ��1�1vv1/Yfftl/ l�lQ�,riS %N, lt/acsr/l1� Signature City Zip We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 34. Printed Name J / Residence Address /�ln/I1�J 7� /A:/d// c _Cnz .V, /.i1/_LenJ Si nature Cit Zin g YAt 77a 35. Printed Name Residence Address /2'I/dCE `4.Yt7a5erfI2/o E leavi'dsan Signature City Zip 36. Printed Name Signature 37. Printed Name Residence Address l S &0 `e N- V'1l Jn4) City Zip `S (� rResidence 3 / V ' Signature // City Zip o) t • . a t 2 v � • . I If i.1r y i 1 ..IrI&iPkt1:i2:L"J/ r: A. • , 7.. �. �l: ,•;.•.-Z? ° . i � J. rater II i — . .1 I . !.IL:; 1 4 1 Yl� 0 �;`fi- `` 'frwr �f.. ,.. �[ �' J .>•ub�5. . r .rs.v iL.r 1 ' Z• �"s. r f ev Z c T O : 1. • �?,. 3 0 � r �-4 1 .' t' 1 ry t } .g ar ' N a Ala. ;'!'� i :,A - i"" •..' f 1 . . ++ a ,. J ti ._ 0 v —1. ... 1• • -2r",l • 1 CI) W LL w } 1 r .Ph'1P'IujI1n 1. f 1 1 Z 4 J � J ♦ 1 f n > � J • •1 iU • O w+ of N N 0 i;. • N O.'L O ^ p.ca. C H �, (L— F •- C p C 0:0.. a �� �' ws •L. (n 0 U •Q) Q). N i a) . VO . U V C .. L. .N...Q N"��.,.�,..O.Q� ..y "Y U) 0) a) a�• Q ..�N.:� o'er - of >' O L cC C O Q p N C >, V J,• M .�.R\ ...''Q) CI / •�y�I W : V V..— •. . L'.L A W:!i _ VI ♦ �.L ifs N N i V a e .':G c �Y0 fir♦ (4^` �. "rtCN p > / — 4 •, ; - C) • - V . Q) ^) V U C WI''�, fi:V (� a L •o C O - •r.. .(B O `r Y � . (q .(6 �. c C ..— �' N..o' N Q' is E... �'W'� �- o . Q) E.O..-cLa Mc a).2 LL..• .(n r... L O N. O .> C N^ N • :Cr p •- •� .N N . U•:•c Q) cB O N U 7 O 1 Q �`N c6 N co ate, ca t J Q O U IL s■ 1: N ca IC O 0 0 Is n N co ' m o O O O O 0) O N U 0 _C'2 2 rn L O 3 O CU C U c= 0 H O Z 0)U c -a 53 a`) ' r VO C O C tO O c O 2 O- ' N N (0 `. O U O m - H O N O c O 0 p O O c i O U O O O e = i rte.+ c c c C —O Q >� ~ u�i co ° o2 N L c > L O J: O w N O <O 0 3 O <O Z U 0 co&O U • ta O = _ 911 "'O o t 4 f.C - ' o 1 N ® r �Uo�vJ rn L O 3 o m V 1 o I .' Cl) �� � m C III I I 1 ii I 1 II II I 1 i. 1 1 1 1 I. 1 1 1 1 Is • 5 E - -- I 1 .r � 4 K. t s I 1 3n L!&S' irrof 1 1 IITJ i I� 4'i r.. I'. • rw'.. I. .l , I 4 .[ S'U 1 II . C�A� 3 lilrfr>��� 1 ] •1 f dti . i JF R -.�--9f I I c O IFIf:'' w; •Cll �'itl2ss,u:i I. i ��ii:}• 71. . . F ; O E ; Q N F C ) ) TI Is W �cc Cu( aD o M =m0oo ct.c = c � a o -O (I) OooEccoc> OU, (6 E O c N W } C 0 U O N C O C > 0) c 0 0 0, O C o w O 0 V N H N OO a) L� C a) E •L ' � a) N Q C j a)ENtca)cZ0 C O5 w.2 >0) O O O •N O o=oct0CEw0 >%.g2 E -p 0 a C cu Oa) cu..... c 2 = a U ca CD— a) 1 Ov Cl)v/ Cl) Q) Li m a ?i o c a 4) U a) C V Ca. U O 0 O try C O CO O N 00 cU l)C O =0o cc) O � o m N 0 E Co `�- V C 0 N a 0 a) 0 m 0=0 C a L C -c U) u _0 ca O. CU co E N a°)C0= C rn o a O c c 0 C'.- CuO W c c 0 c E o O 0 O a a) .- - O N N N Q fC6 Q V 0 a) a C Co X t r O O _ Cu Cu a) 4-a N U CO O 0 U. 4- E a) L) Q C O Cu U C a) E >% O cu > -p CA' C W cu a) m 0 as 0 N Co N C Cu O O C .2 Cu C � O C E Cu E N O N O Oo O) a co 3 X a) ci)N N O �O O - r C C a) O c E 0)0 U •� U c N a) E a) a) U O a) a) c a O mCo Cut -C 0 0 O o 0) 0) (Dm L0 L O O) S co 0) 4- 0 N a) 4- C) Cl) O L) C cu C N a) O r.+ O O N mo 0 Co cn coN O : V °? m 00 .+� Cum c fQ � r O O 0 2 w 0 - yr Lttt L C 0 N> C r= N o U X E w O^ U O �l ca a) O W O Q > O 0 o rn a) 0 >% a) c m — UD.E ,aE X3O L C c`a o L C p a) -O C O O L C a) O' CC/) Co C Q > +�- i n `) U X O OO X C N O m O N C Uo'~ m N m 0 0= L co r C E N C) a. 00 — - 0 O C — L C ow 0 "— fU N = 0cu0 O 0 C CC OO L OO L L aCo -ac>,•2ca� Eon Killm -o a) C 3 C N C O L) O0 O O N O 0 • `~ X Cr® C r O C N O C 2 C O a) C ca CoV C. O a) O +_+ O a N 0.2 2 > L' O p 0 i D 0 0 uu> a) O o 0 O E Cu C cE�a)aiCD O >,a E a'cn 0 w a) a)Q a O t O.OOC0LI 0 k E� 0 ? Cu 2 E k o @ ■ / k @ .7C7a O4 -.C C '�a C - u 00 .0) / §o R L. 0 / cc c CD a. g @ a) % -0c0t t Cl) — 2 2. cu » o o ��3 0 - 02/ > 0 ©k 0 flc. 5 . 0 c k @ 2 WI Cu 0 -0 « © c ° $ UJ2 \ E x 0 2 A '7 0 § C — § 0 @ U)c O Cl) 0 3 c E■ 0 o.O C C� o 0_i-. 0 a) a. —.-.5 a a) % ( 0V 2 0 7%%02 7 . § o c ■ 0 7 @ 0 E o @ 2 E ■ E a Q /.0c o. / Cu 4- 9— (D 0 L. R o ■ o 0 0 .4- a) @ E Cu ) E 0 c Cu % a > \ 0) @ o > ° .§ - _5 ci) o c Cl)a) — $ cucu'-'a) o E co 0 Et CL/m o •.4— a)c 9- 0 2r o o 0 Wa) 0 -Dc E c o / k g / Cu / 0 E 0 $ 2 2 C) Cu @ 0 E a) R ■ 4— 0 ■ 2 @ E 0 @ I- 0 a. 0 \ t / .ca k f � 0 c / w g @ - C 0 2 o o■ 2— a @ [ / ( k d E @ Cu 'U L. a m - (D — k o \ .� R E k 0ct >0 0 � 2 . — CuO E ° ■ 0_ �N §k6 Ca) a 200 CCif >0_c § 2 o § . 2 0 kkE J�7 CumR a) a) C C - @ E 0 $ >' 2■_ �2 E c u.2! CI) C § t v \ o § $ © @ 0_nE �k? �:a 0 3 / k 2 -' @ k cn %o: o § q a) 0 c C O k$ o 2 .§ Co 0 0-0 m �k/ ■k0 0 E c 0 .ca) Cu I O .a Co 13 (O • In ca L L I U. a) > C O CU It ICU 13 ' ° L 1 > O Cu N U) o a) 4- > 3 ca a) m O O E C O N a) .O C (0 -C I- 0 4- 0 a coc C a)• to O— .�. N O N N > o — ° a) r� O) N U.C r= 3 E Co C O a) a) a) U 4- ao O CCr C •O O O O O a) 3 Co L C a) v m �. O Co o a) - N N O C U C X •U O O N H H ) 1 1 0 3 CO O C E O U .C O E E X U a) C ca O U cr U) U Co N Cu 1 L L a O L 3 a) C) O ♦a N O O C r U - O Q. _ O vi U a3 O a) Co C) �'X N .r a) C� 0 —�- a) wco U >. a) 1 O m O rn C E a) O) E E. CU O_ OCU a� CU) a)a) 00 - 0 LO E15 a) 2 C C Co -a U Cr O C rU w N (U0) cr N J >, 0< O aa > C CU a) = il Q o E > a) >, O L C C C u U Y C LL E Cfl a) C) 4 J J RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF INTENT REGARDING THE REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN COSTS AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING OF FIRE STATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE CITY WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas (the "City") desires to obtain financing for the acquisition, construction and equipping of certain fire station facilities (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the total costs of the Project, including expenses associated with the financing thereof, are presently estimated to be approximately $3,431,000.00; and WHEREAS, the City does not currently have adequate funds on hand to pay the estimated costs of the Project and related expenses; and WHEREAS, the City presently intends to obtain the necessary funds to accomplish the Project and to pay related expenses through the issuance of tax-exempt indebtedness in principal amount not to exceed $3,000,000; and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is for the City to declare its "official intent" to reimburse itself for certain preliminary costs (incurred by or on behalf of the City and related to the Project) pursuant to Section 1.150-2 of the Regulations of the U.S. Department of Treasury promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1: That the adoption of this Resolution is intended as the City's "official intent" to reimburse itself from the proceeds of tax-exempt indebtedness for preliminary costs of the Project and related expenses advanced by the City. PASSED and APPROVED this 7`s day of February, 2006. APPROVED: By: DAN COODY, Mayor ATTEST: By: SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk January 6, 2005 The Fayetteville, Subdivision Committee has been asked to review a proposed CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT described as follows: CUP 06-1875: (SMITH 2 -WAY, 446): Submitted by MICHAEL SMITH/GARY COCHRAN SMITH 2 -WAY RADIO for property located at 520 N COLLEGE AVENUE. The property is zoned C-2, THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL and contains approximately 0.51 acres. The request is for a cell tower at the rear of the subject property. We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 1. Printed Name turd— %�4Lt- Residence Address 43) City +��•lit 2. Printed Name Residence Address Zip I)??eeI City Zip l l 3. Printed Name 4 Residence Address ature City Zip We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 4. Printed Name Residence Address l ' l�fJ� ItiS �.� V /P�1�5yiru Si nature. 6. Ynnted Name f1n kx O Signature 7. Printed Name Signature 8. Printed Name O`rlY\� Wu 0 0C15 5 ia/ff c l I}V 7tn Residence Address { J'�'�^Flo I� �.. W loo✓lEv `Oln✓`� 1Cl� /Y)d 1/ City Zip Residence Address woshin n Poe City Zip v Residence Address YYt t(ZZ NJ t ln�a..41vtl Signature City Zip We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 9. Printed Name Residence Address Signature City Zip 10. Printed Name Residence Address A54 S71�-v Signature llz / City Zip 11. Printed Name .�1,4tati B44'<<< /T vi1 Signature C. 12. Printed Name �7�jXi�Ui<< f O Residence Address Gael C'14 51//ir City Zip Residence Address Sign re ! (ii •City Zip 13.ed Name� ( j:—)r�� rC Residence Address 21 We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 14. Printed Na Residence Address igature City Zip 15. Pied Name Residence Address , a ` t 1" G�� �c7�slV����'✓ Sig ire City Zip 16. Printed Name ResFence Address LuIoj3 c k (yJr7 Sign re City Zip 17. Printed Name Residence Address 114wd 5"3N' bod4 fjh ,,, L ,vi A i v Signature City Tin ILJkidT JI►`RTflT! Residence Address 513M kJa ,( . t Citny,� Zip We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 19. Printed Name - Residence Address 503 M.�i•1 �z5 -r,.� Signature City Zip 20. Printed Name Signature 21. Printed Nam Name Residence Address O3 A. City Zip 7J70 Residence Address 0°1 PV. kA/AL. City eEck4tc r v1 P Residence Address Zip L LEJ Signature City Zip 7a 7o/ 23. Printed Name Residence Address ail 1'kjn<1� �jZZ rJ G!�SNIh1i�� Si re City Zip We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 24. Printed Name Residence A dress Signature ()/J City Zip 25. Printed Name 26. Printed Name Signature 27. Pridtetd Name Signature 28. Pd t Name Signature /J I 770 Residence Address City Zip Residence Address a ti, Waih City Zip Residence Address City Zip IJ Residence Address City) /� Zip qL N(nZlfClil I(. ,(/ We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 29: Printed Name Residence Address X11�r rd ` A S St I ' Signature City Zip 30. Printed Name Residence Address Signature City Zip 31. Printed Name Residence Address ✓1���.✓,- Pr .K lnls I �. SttittC.) s Signature City Zip U( M4AtIv- 7 70/ 32. Printed Name Residence Address j'ter li� 7 � VJCi7,Lle;Y,. ¢„ � C-}-r�2 Signature City Zipv'. 33. Printed Name _ pp �1 Johan �qh •1S Signature Residence Address 9f N, btla c.ti to,/ City Zip fif ii-. 7s2o/ We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 34. Printed Name Residence Address 7y L /_� Si nature Cit Zip 4X 35. Printed Name Residence Address L an26e,f 2/O E Pa1rc?�sovL S"' Signature City Zip >cc�efit v5(Ic, 7Z,ZO( 36. Printed Name X1'1 e Irss Signature 37. Printed Name Signature Residence Address n�Cs &v B N. iN+JLi City Zip A -C 124 Residence Addre s (0 i 3 IV , �u�;�' City Zip o) SpgiLTcoo tJ&T We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 39, Printed Name c ( Residence Address 5K4V 1M0..1� 'J1 C)r�CL D lZ.5 czyKA� ST Signature /;;4 =1, Eat LLC ,4-02- ---2b j City Zip 40. d Name Residence Address Signa�� City Zip % 41. Printed Name Residence Address �� wl SCA rc�k-�sti <-ll N. &MW& M-' Signature Ci Zip 42. Printed Name Residence Address '3 G� C L5 N- 43. (r). i '1 C- 1 City Zip Residence Address 23 , ti,i1 rt-Ur City Zip -1 1 We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. I t+ 44. Printed Name L'Nar�QJ �C�rSov Signature via Residence Address 17 . SJlv- City Zip / x%270( 45. Printed Name Residence Address bo) W I LLbccJ Signature City Zip fl2'2O/ 47. Printed Name Signature City Zip 't2. 48. Printed Name Residence Address ivl C u r r SZc9 •v.- Signa / City Zip ,l`1 72-701 � M1 We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 49. Printed Name Residence Address /l1? 2�c^l c'rr lJ �N 5)t iv, LJ I L.LO ) Signature City Zip rSi rep -mac_- '72 7y/ 50. Printed Name Residence Address Signature City Zip 51. Printed Name Residence Address Signature City Zip 7o 52. Printed Name Residence ddress 7 a� l✓ ? o iA i Y d /:C Signature City Zip 53. Printed Name(.( e& ,1/) e, /-f/ei, Residence Address. Signature City Zip d 701 i • We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower -at 520 N. College Avenue. • 54. Printed Name Residence Address -A ICJ . j u 55. Printed Name Residence Address 56. Printed Name Residence Address i �ish ( Ikea 57. Printed Name Residence Address Cionafi�ra CityZip cu nr;nta,i Nama Residence Address Sionafiire City Zip { We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 59. Printed Name Residence Address Signature City • Zip 777° 60. Printed Name 61. Printed Name 62. Printed Name Residence Address St City Zip Residence Address City Zip ence Address n, it" 7;7o/ Sign e City. / Zip . 7d 4/.63. Printed Name Residence Address Signature City Zip 4TJ) cY/b 727/ We, the undersigned, object to the Copcjjt}qpl JJse Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smit}. 7 -way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 64. Printed Name Residence Address Ma,rinrl8 h. 1&rtll1 308. 8• JprI-nG��- Signature City Zip 65. Printed Name Residence Address �)okm �o- vSLk (1�4a✓i 2t is • c Signature 66. Printed Name (` G' Signature k Vin. 7a-7ol t U City Zip i a,. .th (/ 7x 78 7 Address �,q_t ` City �� Zip ra7U( 67. Printed Name Residence Address Signature City Zip Jsrnic 4%o& -o- . CLP .0 i. 77O / 68. Printed Name / Residence Address " y— ()/ We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith_Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520. N. College •Avenge. 69. Printed Name. Residence Address �6d�y BALI Irsar /L.veo' il4e. Signs re;.. -. •city Zip L 70. Printed Name Residence -Address Gllfti �V G�A iinicy5 3z3 fflorni✓� 5%C/t O c e �X Signature -` City Z'p FA,st lrl/I4 '4-I, 7a 7o! / 5 Printed -Name I Signature , Residence Address f1l,rv,it.c 5,Lt city r1141.i���(� Zip 72. Printed Name Residence Address n Signature City 73: Printed Name Residence -Address Sj&nature . Clh . Zip Zip M 127 0 We, the undersigned, object to the Conditional Use Permit CUP 06-1875 being granted to Michael Smith/Gary Cochran Smith Smith 2 -Way for the erection of a cell tower at 520 N. College Avenue. 7k -Printed Name M Residence Addres ns I coLY>1 I l`I'�P�tr� 339 Id- I�� afar, l Ve. Signature City Zip F' 75: Printed Name 1M&M&L c . IM X13 Signature & Oc-76: Printed Name 77. Printed N am e ResidenceAddress Signature Residence Address city Zip x+ nii,,A 7270 Residence Address tJ / city ZIP / 1 ' 78. Nine_ Residence Address Signature City Zip RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL COMMISSION'S PASSAGE OF CONDITIOI 1875, A REQUEST FOR A WIRELESS TOWER AT 520 N. COLLEGE AVE. TO RE NON -CONFORMING TOWERS. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby grants the appeal of the Planning Commissions passage of Conditional Use Permit 06-1875, (a request for a wireless communications tower at 520 N. College Ave. to replace two existing non -conforming towers), and denies the requested Conditional Use based upon the following factual findings: a. [Specific findings of fact will be inserted after the hearing.] b. (etc.) PASSED and APPROVED this 7th day of February, 2006. APPROVED By: •//\ r DAN,COODAY, Mao.' A 3': §ONDR,1 SMITH„ :ity Clerk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DENYING AN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S PASSAGE OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06- 1875, A REQUEST FOR A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT 520 N. COLLEGE AVE. TO REPLACE TO EXISTING NON -CONFORMING TOWERS. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby denies an appeal of the Planning Commissions passage of Conditional Use Permit 06-1875, (a request for a wireless communications tower at 520 N. College Ave. to replace two existing non -conforming towers), affirming and adopting all of the Planning Commission's conditions. -.. From: Clarice Pearman To: Marr, Don Date: 2/13/06 1:59PM Subject: Res. 26-06 Alderman Marr, Attached is a copy of the resolution and backup passed by City Council February 6, 2006 regarding the appeal of Smith Two Way. T Yify 12 fr2T'I JJ TL' Y , ! N r 1 • VA 4 {Yr.�T 4�Y`.YI YM. ♦•-��Y� -'3• • • r ♦ `• vilr '~J T r in YSr'YatR�0.Y Mx T�Tr St. ivti• fir^ d 3.- .V Yl ^•y�r rmtm•caMnYLw.JJ..Jo �'��._ .. .� .L .�..r.�_.f„�..r.r�r�.�•r—r{�w-.�+. ' ..sy. Sif/iKly'SYI.rCy. TG v R�a�a aY 4 P� ♦F i•r�✓F'M MYYrrai4 wi > a__-.—..-._I�{ •- .�.r/r\F/ .. .pT�•YYlr 1— •rata•\ \ •r\.Y� 'r, ?w w ♦}n +♦YMJL yyaaMr'.Fi rwr1 �`V Mi•YM• v !!a w i.Z' ' see... YY 4�irv'ir_P)F 'r-( 'r,,t /• __.- .y M1,_# 'T'r-tw._____r1IA - M- irM - J Y .r�'�rTrrrS /. r! '!♦— /T f.'r.1.rMFli}a / Y /' I }�Zi Ya... ~`S T _.•.•_I, �q.�/.i M ar Y —•—M TW�YFVV .•__.-_•__,._' lS�- • '.� a:-%4__.,.a_-..nai v3'.0 lir'MC. L•..• ay 6Y w Srr�iy i" terra r ' ♦ii .-L.i-:A. {.���.tn. r M �a.�.0 �y�r-Fa a' ..K..naLr"`6i�fi�trY�L' aa a�eMW ^L rtM1Aa'r'N r vu.ga'a7�__ Imo• .--"��•F- � - _G y_ aC.. Y �ib aI �'4rTa •'I .ter n ♦. a.'va:��T•�r �Y�L�+ {etr'] 4 SAa4• ra. ti..rty-�„dee... ' n ____ �t S♦ Lf _s Y a ^ nog` a { Q .rwc awu {•-. a .ta-.v,Fi -- V T '•-Ln�yy^t �L/ • [ L WM1..p(�.yy... Y'.Y u M'�y e',-,l��RJ i wri MrRYYY.•� Y M.{ F . 14 t. .ter ♦ Y YM. Y.'Y i> •}av � +rx_"♦•. * /- �• 'fi raP`n tpvav cc`T... "mk.--,>�'.v sn° 4 a .—,ur—r..-•rZ'T•'�"' diy-____aeRSiufei'.= Tt—t!r.a-_ 4 '+..y net j r TCyiw+•« �r � .�w'.tPrinaY. ��a.v �u'l�Ga"' Y r."R" �� .Y 'TW.� f+ IY a+F-.P a C-. rT'rix.-y N a .t .s ♦ rn 'rJYfr':ary.YYt3YSY^r+T� T r.r'rr _ Tar �.y�'aG.r �F.�'.e �i Cjr_J6!LNri[!�"/'��1riw�i♦TY•FCT�.J;" i a.ef Y♦'Ii <i r :-. vFi lwc .'5 iiS.�t ^��. i -.•fit r •C'� Y a.. Ij .^" .Lr• fl ai x L♦Yq r � .r ` rr. l � � • - �� r Ili ivi�₹� �1 wr a� t •L�iq. n� j. :4. . t� f '`FQIL.ry eat 4'j{ r' �.� - •Ld r � u'-....-. . .. _. _ _ - '- J s �"i::V!ao)Acn�aIWl9ui' s -I-- L O z C O O J S I O m O U z 0 N ., I V T �o Esc �7 CO 4 I - a 9 0 LC) s 4- 0 0 0 0 J S L 0 z 0 V z 0 N Lid x � o a a +- 4- O O F - W 0 v W H rn 0 V z 0 LU i� / U) C O N O sA ,j 1 -1 L T N 'h A n r 0 0 0 U 06 S 4- 0 L. E 0 L LL L Sr v 0 V z 0 N In Lfl C C N U o � i a O a 0 ) U E 0 L. IL L. 0 rn 0 U z 0 N LO I o O O N a^.,r rw # 4 wlL �i�.i�. ..._�-alrt_ �. �'t'4e .l '�A,.��•VK•� "�•}�iat �a `. •. La Y $1i 1 94' a' afl I f I' '` l I i , I � $1 - T fifij i C• I �r n I_ / t_ ' cc N a • k '1 i1 T . E Q • 1r -1 * K; r • g. This denial of the Conditional Use Request does not discriminate among cell phone companies as the proposed user already has been afforded cell tower space which serves this same area; and, h. This denial of the Conditional Use Request does not prohibit nor has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services since this area is already served by five cell phone companies. PASSED and APPROVED this 71 day of February, 2006. • :� : By: ;FAYETTEVILLE; DAN COODY, ATTEST: By: �i%l�•bJ �� SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk