HomeMy WebLinkAbout40-06 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 40-06
A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A
CONDITIONAL USE FOR A CELL TOWER (CUP 06-
1893) AT 1250 N. LEVERETT AND TO APPROVE CUP
06-1893
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
approves CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Way cell tower at 1250 N.Leverett Avenue) with the
thirteen conditions of approval attached as Exhibit A.
PASSED and APPROVED this 7th day of March, 2006.
APPROV=D: ATTEST:
B
GOODY; May
By:
�......i1K/TR p'.....
G• S
.> • '01Y OF •4t
•
•�• F.
V. •-A
:FAYETfEVILLE:
9s'9;�kgNSP�
SONDRA SMITH, City Clerk
CUP 06-1893: (SMITH 2-WAY/LEVERETT)
Conditions of Approval
Exhibit "A"
r
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. The 60' existing tower' in. the 'vicimty 'shall be removed, along with all
associated structures, prior to the installation of the new tower.
4. 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.
5. The tower shall be no taller than 100' (including all antennas, arrays, or other
appurtenances)
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.
7. 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.
8. Landscaping shall be added to the site (and shown on plans) which provides a
"buffer of dense tree growth and under story vegetation to the north and west
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.
9. 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).
10. Any connection to existing utilities to provide power to this site shall be
located underground.
•
11. Only ownership and cautionary signage located on the screening fence shall
be permitted as provided by Chapter 163.14 (A)(3).
•
12. All development shall comply with all federal, state and local regulations for
development within the floodplain and floodway. A floodplain development
permit shall be submitted to the City for review and approval
13. If the technology becomes available and this tower becomes obsolete, the
tower shall be dismantled.
ALDERMAN APPEAL REQUEST FORM
COUNCIL MEETING OF: March 7, 2006
FROM: Alderman Don Marr
APPEAL TITLE AND SUBJECT: CUP 06-1893: (Smith 2-Way/Leverett).
An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision regarding the conditional use
request by Smith 2 Way Radio for property located at 1250 N. Leverett. The
request was for a wireless communication facility on the subject property. The
property is zoned 11, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and contains
approximately 2.04 acres.
Al rman
Alderman
•2071.246
Date
—��Date
Z/L/C
Date
Alderman Date
City Council Meeting of March 7, 2006
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
Mayor and City Council
Thru: Gary Dumas, Director of Operations
From: Jeremy C. Pate, Director of Current Planning
Date: February 22, 2006
Subject: Conditional Use Permit for Smith Two -Way Radio — 1250 N. Leverett
Avenue (CUP 06-1893)
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission denied a conditional use permit request to grant the erection of
a wireless communications facility, submitted by Smith Two -Way Radio, for property
located at 1250 N. Leverett Avenue. The applicant proposed a 150' tower at this
location. Planning Staff initially recommended approval of said tower with a
recommendation that the structure be no greater than 100' in height and an existing 60'
radio tower be removed from the property.
BACKGROUND
The applicant proposed to install a 150' monopole wireless communications tower and
four accessory structures utilized for maintenance of the monopole located on Leverett
Avenue, north of North Street. The property is currently zoned 1-1 and C-1 and located
within the floodplain and floodway, near the future location of Skull Creek Trail. There
are several existing structures on the property, including an abandoned car wash behind
which the monopole is proposed. Surrounding properties to the north and east of the site
are zoned 1-1 and developed for commercial and industrial use (Tune Concrete).
Property to the south is zoned C-1 and developed for North Street Church of Christ and
commercial use (Mini -Mart and laundry facilities). The site is a low point of elevation
between Garland Avenue and Gregg Avenue. There is an existing 60' tall radio
antenna/tower on the property that the applicant has proposed to be removed.
DISCUSSION
•
The Planning Commission voted 4-5-0 in favor to this request on February 13, 2006, with'
Commissioners Anthes, Allen, Myres, Clark and Ostner voting no. Therefore, the motion
failed, and the application for a conditional use permit to erect a wireless communications
facility at this site was denied. Those who voted against the motion discussed their
concerns regarding the visual impact to surrounding properties.
in 2002, a conditional use permit application was submitted to the Planning Division for
consideration of erecting a monopole at the corner of Garland Ave. and Wedington
City Council Meeting of March 7, 2006
Agenda Item Number
Drive. Staff recommended denial of this request due to the high visibility of this site and
an inadequate investigation of other alterative sites. The applicant withdrew the
application after being tabled by the Planning Commission (see attached materials).
Taking into consideration the previous request for a cell tower in this vicinity, Staff
recommended the reduction in height of the cell tower to a maximum 100' so that it is
located further below the ridgeline of the hill to the east of the property. In coordination
with the construction of the mixed-use development at Garland and Hwy 112 (Wedington
Dr.), cellular wireless carriers may be able to accomplish both coverage and capacity
goals if co -location of wireless communication facilities on these multi -story buildings is
achieved.
The applicant states that the proposed tower is needed to improve call handling capacity
and cellular coverage. Though there are several towers in the area (i.e. VA Hospital) that
provide an adequate degree of coverage, the applicant states the existing towers cannot
serve the volume of calls in this densely populated area. Cingular Wireless is the only
cellular company which has expressed written interest in this area, as noted in the 2002
application. The information provided to staff by the applicant regarding Cingular's
interest in this tower location is relatively generic, and is the same letter utilized with a
previous tower request. However, the proposed tower would allow for the co -location of
several wireless carriers in the future. Stealth technology was not proposed with this
application. The applicant proposed a transitional paint scheme, the same as that installed
with the tower at Zion Road and Hwy 265.
BUDGET IMPACT
None.
•
Astri
a ®1.
Fayeiteviile
ARKANSAS
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PC Meeting of February 13, 2006
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (479) 575-8267
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Suzanne Morgan, Current Planner
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning
DATE: February 8, 2006 Updated February 14, 2006
CUP 06-1893: (SMITH 2-WAY/LEVERETT, 405): Submitted by SMITH 2 -WAY RADIO
for property located at 1250 N LEVERETT AVENUE. The property is zoned I-1, HEAVY
COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL and
contains approximately 2.04 acres. The request is for a wireless communications facility on the
subject property.
Planner: Suzanne Morgan
RECOMMENDED MOTION: Staff recommends approval of the requested wireless
communications facility 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).
The 60' existing tower in the vicinity shall be removed, along with all associated
structures, prior to the installation of the new tower.
4. 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.
5. The tower shall be no taller than 100' (including all antennas, arrays, or other
appurtenances).
6. 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.
7. 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
K:1Reports120061PC Reparts102-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Way - Leveret0.doc
•
•
vehicular and pedestrian traffic on adjacent streets. The existing barbed wire
and chain link fencing shall be removed in conjunction with this request.
8. Landscaping shall be added to the site (and shown on plans) which provides a
"buffer of dense tree growth and under story vegetation to the north and west 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.
9. 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).
10. Any connection to existing utilities to provide power to this site shall be located
underground.
11. Only ownership and cautionary signage located on the screening fence shall be
permitted as provided by Chapter 163.14 (A)(3).
12. All development shall comply with all federal, state and local regulations for
development within .the •;floodplain ;and floodway. A floodplain development
permit shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
•
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES
0 Approved ✓ Denied
Date: February 13, 2006
Actions by the Planning Conunission:
•
Motion. by, Trumbo to approve the .CUP with. a,modification to Condition #S,, changing the ,
height of the tower from 100' to 130', finding on Condition #6 that the paint scheme shall be
transitional from green to sky blue, and adding a 13th Condition stating that if the technology
becomes available and this tower becomes obsolete, this tower shall be dismantled
Commissioner Vaught seconded the motion.
Commissioner Graves moved to amend the motion by Trumbo to modify the height from the
proposed 130' to 100' as stated in the conditions of approval presented by staff.
Commissioner Myres seconded the motion.
KiReports120061PC Reports102-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Nay - Leverettf.doc
Vote on the amendment to the motion: 7-2-0 with Vaught and Trumbo voting no.
Vote on the motion made by Trumbo with Condition 115 now stating that the height should be
no greater than 100': 4-5-0 with Commissioners Anthes, Allen, Myres, Clark and Ostner
voting no.
The motion failed The application for a conditional use permit to erect a wireless
communications facility at this site is denied.
Comments:
•
K:V2eports120061PC Reports102-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Way - Leveretadoc
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is proposing to install a 150' monopole wireless communications tower and four
accessory structures utilized for maintenance of the monopole located on Leverett Avenue, north
of North Street. The property is currently zoned I-1 and C-1 and located within the floodplain
and floodway, near the future location of Skull Creek Trail. There are several existing structures
on the property, including an abandoned car wash behind which the monopole is proposed.
Surrounding properties to the north and east of the site are zoned 1-1 and developed for
commercial and industrial use (Tune Concrete). Property to the south is zoned C-1 and
developed for North Street Church of Christ and commercial use (Mini -Mart and laundry
facilities). The site is a low point of elevation between Garland Avenue and Gregg Avenue.
There is an existing 60' tall radio antenna/tower on the property that the applicant has proposed
to be removed.
In 2002, a conditional use permit application was submitted to the Planning Division for
consideration of erecting a monopole at the corner of Garland Ave. and Wedington Drive. Staff
recommended denial of this request due to the high visibility of this site and an inadequate
investigation of other alterative sites. The applicant withdrew the application after being tabled
by the Planning Commission (see attached materials).
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). The site is located at an
elevation of roughly 1300'. The Terrain Profile provided in the applicant's booklet does not
reflect the true elevation. Please reference those maps provided by staff that represent the
accurate topography of the site, as well as a terrain profile.
Smith Two -Way Radio states in their application that there are no existing facilities in this area
and that all carriers are suffering from lack of service capacity due to the growth in the area.
The applicant states that the existing cellular service platform structure is 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 as they have reached the limits of capacity and have
coverage problems due to "Terrain Shadows" along Gregg Street. Cingular Wireless is the only
carrier that has responded to staff that there are current concerns with capacity in this area. The
property in question is a developed area of Fayetteville and is mostly developed for multi -family
use.
The applicant states that the proposed tower is needed to improve call handling capacity and
cellular coverage. Though there are several towers in the area (i.e. VA Hospital) that provide a
high amount of coverage, the applicant states the existing towers cannot serve the volume of
calls in this densely populated area. Additionally, the proposed tower will allow for the co -
location of several wireless carriers.
There is limited screening on the site. The available screening consists of the existing structures.
There is no natural screening available as all of the site is developed and there are no existing
K:I Repo ts170061 PC Repons102-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Way - LereretO_doc
•
trees on the site. The applicant has indicated that the existing structures will screen the
monopole to the west, east and south; however, these structures are in disrepair and will be
removed from the site at some future date, leaving the monopole exposed. Surrounding the
52.90' by 60' pad will be a 10' wood fence beyond which a 10' landscape buffer is proposed to
the north and east of the property. This landscape buffer would be planted with evergreen
vegetation as required by the City of Fayetteville.
Surrounding Land Use and Zonine:
Direction
Land Use
Zoning
North
Commercial & Duplex
Development
1-1, Heavy Commercial & Light industrial;
RMF -24; RMF -40
South
Commercial & North St. Church of
Christ
C-1, Neighborhood Commercial
East
Industrial
1-1, Heavy Commercial & Light Industrial
West
Multi -family Developments
RMF -24
Public Comment: Staff has received written comments from five surrounding property owners
indicating support of the requested cell tower and a phone call from a representative of North
Street Church of Christ indicating no objections to the proposed cellular tower. The applicant
has notified all adjoining property owners within 500' of the proposed monopole.
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Use
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.
Decide such questions as are involved in determining whether a
conditional use should be granted; and,
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.
K:IRepons120061PC Reports102-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Way - Leveretl.doc
1
•
•
Finding: The applicant has submitted a written application requesting a conditional
use permit for a Wireless Communications Facility on property, zoned 1-1
and C-1.
2. The applicant shall pay a filing fee as required under Chapter 159 to cover
the cost of expenses incurred in connection with processing such
application.
Finding: The applicant has paid the required filing fee.
3. The Planning Commission shall make the following written findings before
a conditional use shall be issued:
(a.)
That it is empowered under the section of this chapter described in
the application to grant the conditional use; and
Finding: The Planning Commission is empowered under § 163.14 (see attached) to
grant the requested conditional use permit.
(k) That the granting of the conditional .use will not adversely affect
the public interest.
Finding: The property on which the monopole is proposed is located in the floodplain,
at roughly 1300'. Understandably, it is the lowest elevation between Garland
Avenue and College Avenue. Therefore,. a 150' monopole erected on this
property will be very visible from the properties in the valley. Unlike a
monopole erected on the crest of a hill, it will not be visible from properties
at a lower elevation outside of this valley. The existing tree canopy on the
hillsides will additionally screen the view of the monopole from a distance,
but there is no natural vegetation in the vicinity of the site with which to
blend the monopole or lessen the impact of its size and height from the
immediately surrounding properties. The zoning in which the monopole is
proposed is Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial and lends itself to being
developed for more intrusive structures such as a wireless communications
tower. The existing development of the site reflects the General Plan 2020
that identifies this property as Mixed Use surrounded by Residential Use.
Most, if not all, surrounding residential development is multi -family rental
units. Traditionally, the placement of more intrusive uses, such as a wireless
communications tower, are less adverse when placed nearby industrial,
commercial and high density (non -owner occupied) residential uses
compared to owner -occupied single-family residences, as noted in the City
ordinances. The nearest concentration of single-family subdivisions are
located east of Gregg Avenue, north of Sycamore Street and west of Garland
K:IReports120061PC Repons102-13-061CUP 06-1893 /Smith 2 -Way - Levereat.doc
•
Avenue. A 150' monopole will be visible from these locations as they will be
looking down the valley to the project site.
Although the I-1 zoning is appropriate for the placement of a cell tower and
the surrounding uses are more densely developed, creating the greater need
for additional cellular call capacity, there may be additional sites better
-suited for the erection of one or more towers Tess in height to reduce the
impact of visibility. A larger area of Industrial zoned property is located
approximately one-half mile north of the subject property. There may be
opportunity to erect two smaller towers within this large Industrial property
that would be well screened by buildings that have not been abandoned or
are in disarray, or locate a tower on an existing structure. However, here too
there is no existing vegetation with which to screen a monopole, a single-
family residential neighborhood is located adjacent to the 1-1 zoning district
east of Gregg Avenue, and the elevation is similar to the proposed site.
Another alternative site may be the northwest corner of the intersection of
Garland Avenue and Wedington Avenue. In 2002, the Planning Commission
denied a request to erect a cell tower at this location due to the prominence of
this intersection, as it is the entrance into the University of Arkansas campus
and the high visibility of the site. On February 7, 2006, the City Council
approved Wedington Circle R-PZD, located north of Wedington Circle and
west of Harps. The structures proposed to be constructed within the
development are six stories in height. Additionally, this site is located at
approximately 1360', allowing 60' in elevation advantage over the proposed
Leverett Ave. location, plus the height of a six -story building. While staff has
not supported a 150' monopole in this location, a co -location on the future
building would be appropriate, and would satisfy the capacity concerns
outlined by Cingular previously and herein.
It is for these reasons that Staff finds the presence of a wireless
communications tower in this location would not necessarily adversely affect
the public interest though the visual impact would be great to these within
the valley. Staff recommends the reduction in height of the cell tower to a
maximum 100' so that it is located further below the ridgeline of the hill to
the east of the property. In coordination with the construction of the mixed-
use development at Garland and Hwy 112 (Wedington Dr.), cellular wireless
carriers may be able to accomplish both coverage and capacity goals. The
applicant has proposed to use camouflaging by painting the monopole. Staff
finds that the standard green to blue paint scheme will not in any way hide
this structure as there are no existing trees or green vegetation with which to
blend the bottom of the pole and the top of the monopole will only blend with
the sky from the perspective of those at lower elevations. At high elevations,
the monopole will be set against the background of the adjacent hillsides.
However, other camouflaging (flag pole, steeple, clock tower, commercial
signage) techniques that staff has investigated to not seem to be appropriate
K:IRepor1.s120061/'C Reporu102-13-06ICUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Way - Levereu/doc
1
•
in this area either. The applicant is proposing to plant a vegetative screen to
the east of the site and a partial screen to the north of the property.
Improvements to the site will exclude the removal of an existing slim radio
tower as well as chain link and barb wire fencing on the property.
(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. An access easement will
be dedicated from the existing curb cut to the lease area for the monopole
and four accessory structures.
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.
(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.
K:IReports120061PC Repats102-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Nay - Lereretj.doc
1
(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
the 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 I-1 and C-1 zoning districts. The nearest residential
structures to this property are located to the west, across Leverett Avenue.
Based on the information provided by the applicant in the project booklet
and on surveys of the property, 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. The applicant has proposed to camouflage the
tower through a transitioning paint scheme. This paint scheme is depicted to
utilize a tree to sky color. Unfortunately, there are no trees on this property
or surrounding properties with which the tower can blend. Staff
recommends that the applicant plant large. species trees (evergreen and
deciduous) and evergreen shrubs that will substantially screen the base of the
monopole and paint the tower a neutral sky blue color. The monopole will be
visible from all properties within the valley in which it is.proposed, but the
hilly terrain of Fayetteville will ensure that it will not. be visible from many
locations. The applicant has proposed removal of an existing, non-
operational radio tower from this site.
CHAPTER 163: USE CONDITIONS
163.14 Wireless Communications Facilities.
(A)The following general requirements shall apply to all new wireless communications
facilities.
K:IReports120061PC Reparn102-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Way - Leveret!) (lac
(1) Noise Requirements. Equipment used in connection with a tower or
antenna an -ay 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: The 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 alternative tower structures.
Finding: The applicant is proposing a monopole structure.
K: IRepons120061 PC Repons102-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Way - Lerer-eu).doc
r
(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 150' 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 zona" 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: Staff has utilized available surveys and GIS information to review aerial
photographs of this property and has determined that there arc no
residential structures within the 150' fall zone of the proposed tower.
(4) Camouflaging or Stealth Technology for New Towers. If the applicant
demonstrates that itis 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 as screening. The applicant will use Slim line T -type -
mount antennas to minimize the size and visibility of the tower. Staff finds
that to utilize existing structures as screening is not sufficient for this site.
Many of the structures are vacant and dilapidated. It is likely that these
structures will be removed in the near future. There are no existing trees or
vegetation of any kind which can be utilized as screening, making the
proposed paint scheme from green to sky blue out of character with the
property. If all the surrounding areas were industrial or commercial in
nature, the lack of vegetation would not be as significant as in this situation
where residential properties are located within 180' of the property to the
west and 400' to the north.
(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 applicant proposes to 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.
K:I Reporls120061PC Reporls102-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Way - LeverettJ.doc
f
(b) Provide a map that show other existing or planned facilities that will be
used by the wireless communication service provider who is making the
application.
Finding: Item (a) and item (b) are reflected within the report, as provided by the
applicant and distributed with this agenda to the Commissioners.
(c) Provide a map that shows other potential stand-alone locations for
your facility that have been explored.
Finding: The applicant has submitted a map showing other potential stand-alone
locations that have been explored. The applicant has stated that they did
explore the locations of North Street Church of Christ to the south, Tune
Construction to the east, and the Industrial property adjacent to Gregg
Avenue. It is the applicant's desire to request approval of a cell tower in the
Industrial area near Meeks in the future; however, Mr. Reynolds has
indicated that a tower in the proposed location is also desirable. The
applicant has submitted a map showing the existing stand-alone locations
and information as to why co -location on at least the VA Water Tower is not
possible.
(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. Depictions of coverage in this area are
included in the packet provided by the applicant though quantifiable data is
not available for review. Currently, this area is fairly well covered, though
property west of Garland is not. With the addition of the proposed cell
tower, the coverage will increase in the immediate vicinitylof the tower and
enhance the coverage on Wedington Drive west of Garland Avenue. Though
the visual impact of the structure will be reduced by surrounding structures,
K: 1Reporrs110061 PC Reporrsl02-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2- Way - Levereu).doc
it will be very visible from all surrounding properties within this valley (see
pictures provided by the applicant). Staff recommends the reduction in
height of the tower from 150' to a maximum 100' feet in height to reduce the
visual impact of those developments on the surrounding hillsides.
(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
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 but did share information regarding the current use
of existing towers and the probability to co -locate. Staff has also provided
background information from a submittal in 2002, in which Cingular was
trying to address the same concern in this area. The applicant did describe
the current capacity difficulties in the area, providing rationale that the new
tower would provide additional service for the surrounding population.
(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.
K:IReports120061PC Reports102-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Way - Leverettj.doc
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 sight line representation drawn from four
points 90 degrees apart and 150' from the proposed tower (see attached
materials in staff report). Each sight line is be depicted in profile, drawn at
one inch equals 40 feet. The profiles show all intervening trees and buildings.
(9) Structural Integrity and Inspection of Towers
(a) The applicant shall provide a certification letter that states the tower meets or
exceeds design criteria and all local, state, and federal requirements regarding
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 Tess 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
K:I Reports120061 PC Repmvsl02-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Way - Lererett)dac