Loading...
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 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 10 -foot 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 and/or barbed wire fencing in this area shall be removed. (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 I-1 and C-1 setback requirements. K:IRepor6120061PC Itelvi-ts102-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Way - Leverett).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 warn 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 alternative tower structures. (2) Tower or antenna height limitations. Towers or alternative tower structures are permitted to a maximum height of 150 feet. (3) 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. (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. (5) 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. (6) Information required to process new lower 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; K. IReports120061PC Reports t02-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2- Way - Leverett).doc (e) Describe why the proposed location is superior, from a community perspective, to other potential locations. Factors to consider in the community perspective should include: visual aspects, setbacks, and proximity of single-family residences; (I) 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: (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. (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. I (7) Required (after condition) balloon test and crane test photographs. The proposed tower shall be photographed from four locations taken 90" 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. K:1Reportst20061PCReporis102-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Way - Levere(t).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 a combination of both. (12) Setbacks from 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; K IReporls12006lPC Reports102-13-061 CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Way - l evereu).doc (d) Additional antennas may be installed on an existing tower of any height, and additional buildings or other supporting equipment used in connection with such additional antennas may be placed at the lower site so long as the proposed additions would add no 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 carder 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; (3) 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) K:IReports12006lPC Reports102-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Way - Lererett).doc Fayetteville Unified Development Code 161.16 District C-1, Neighborhood Commercial (A)Purpose. The Neighborhood Commercial District is designed primarily to provide convenience goods and personal services for persons living in the surrounding residential areas. - (B) Uses. (1) Permitted uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 12 Offices; studios and related services Unit 13 Eating aces Unit 15 Neighborhood shopping Unit 18 Gasoline service stations and drive-in restaurants - Unit 25 Professional offices (2) Conditional uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 3 Public protection and utility facilities Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 34 Liquor stores 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 10 ft. Rear 20 ft. (F) Height regulations. There shall be no maximum height limits in C-1 District, provided, however, that any building which exceeds the height of 10 feet shall be setback from any boundary line of any residential district a distance of one foot for each foot of height in excess of 10 feet. (G)Building area. On any lot the area occupied by all buildings shall not exceed 40% of the total area of such lot. K:IReportst2006tPC Reports102-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2 -Way - Leverett)-doc 161.20 District I-1, Heavy Commercial And Light Industrial (A)Purpose. The Heavy Commercial District is designed primarily to accommodate certain commercial and light industrial uses which are compatible with one another but are inappropriate in other commercial or industrial districts. The Light Industrial District is designed to group together a wide range of industrial uses, which do not produce objectionable environmental influences in their operation and appearance. The regulations of this district are intended to provide a degree of compatibility between uses permitted in this district and those in nearby residential districts. (B) Uses. (I) Permitted uses. Unit 1 City-wide uses by right Unit 3 Public protectiOn and utility facilities Unit 4 Cultural and recreational facilities Unit 6 Agriculture Unit 12 Offices, studios and related facilities Unit 13 Eating laces Unit 17 Trades and services Unit 18 Gasoline service stations & drive-in restaurants Unit 21 Warehousing and wholesale Unit 22 Manufacturing Unit 25 Professional offices Unit 27 Wholesale bulk petroleum storage facilities with underground storage tanks (2) Conditional uses. Unit 2 City-wide uses by conditional use permit Unit 19 Commercial recreation, small sites Unit 20 Commercial recreation, large sites Unit 28 Center for collecting recyciable materials Unit 36 Wireless communications facilities (C)Density. None. (D)Bulk and area regulations. None. (E) Setback regulations. Front, when adjoining A or R districts 50 ft. Front, when adjoining C, I, or P districts 25 ft. Side, when adjoining A or R districts 50 ft. Side, when adjoining C, I. or P districts 10 ft. Rear, when adjoining C. I. or P districts 10 ft. (F) Height regulations. There shall be no maximum height limits in 1-1 District, provided, however, that any building which exceeds the height of 25 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 25 feet. (G) Building area. None. K:IReportsl2006IPC Reports101-13-061CUP 06-1893 (Smith 2-N'av - Lecereti).doc Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 10 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- I, HEAVY COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL and contains approximately 2.04 acres. The request is for a wireless communications facility on the subject property. Morgan: This site is located north of North Street on Leverett Avenue. The applicant requests approval to construct a 150' cellular tower in this location. It is somewhat of a unique site — the property is designated as mixed use on the General Plan 20/20 and it is currently zoned Industrial, although it is surrounded on the south by a bit of C-1 property and surrounding that RMF-24, and even further east of Gregg and west of Garland, RSF-4, with single-family residential developments. This particular site is located in the flood plan, therefore it is the low point in this valley. As you can see on the topography or the terrain profile handed out by staff, you can see the difference in the elevation between this property and the surrounding hillsides as well as where a 150' tower would fall in relation to these points. The applicant has indicated that Cingular has requested this monopole be located in this location. In 2002 the applicant requested, based on Cingular's need, a cell tower in a similar location in the northwest comer of Garland and North Street, or Garland and Wedington. This application was recommended for denial by Staff at the time due to the prominence of this location and the impact that a 150' cell tower would have. The item was tabled and then withdrawn by the applicant. In this application, it was stated that this was the prime location for coverage in this area. For this application, the applicant has stated that capacity is the primary reason for the request of this cellular tower, that the population has grown and an additional tower is needed. We do have a coverage map provided by the applicant in the booklet which shows how this cellular tower in this location would potentially alleviate some of the coverage needs in this area. Staff is recommending for a tower in this location; however at a lower height of 100' and we find that there are potential co -location capabilities. There has recently been approved a six - story master development plan at the former location of the corner of Garland and Wedington which may be able to be used in the future for additional towers which may help the coverage area in this location. Additionally, there may be other sites useful for additional capacity. With regard to screening, the applicant is proposing a vegetative screening around the pole. There is nothing on the site, no natural screening on the site as it is developed for industrial use. The camouflage isn't very practical in this location with regard to a flag, steeple, or some sort of clock tower. The applicant has proposed a painting scheme from green to sky blue so that it will blend with the sky as well as the proposed vegetation. Additionally, there is discreet 60' radio tower on the property that the applicant has proposed to remove with this request. Staff is recommending approval with the tower at 100' and twelve Conditions of Planning Commission Februaty 13, 2006 Page 11 Approval. We have had five responses from those neighbors living within 500' feet which are all positive and we have not, as of yet, received any negative feedback. Ostner: Is the applicant present? If you would introduce yourself and give us your presentation.. Reynolds: Dave Reynolds representing Smith 2 -Way Radio. Let me pass out some of this stuff here. The first single page that I passed out there. We met with Steve Mansfield this afternoon and talked to him about several different options about co -locating at his facility and inquired about the possibility of building a tower at his facility. After we talked about some of those things and looked at the property and discussed it, he has decided that he would decline at this time any interest in a cell tower co -location at his new facility. The second package is the responses to the notifications of the citizens in the affected area there. I think we received eight back and no negative responses. This is zoned industrial, it is surrounded by C- 2, RMF-24 and 40, above Gregg Street within a half mile radius, there are some single-family homes. But it is primarily in a long-standing industrial area. It will be screened on three sides at the base of the tower; two sides completely by industrial buildings, the third side will be behind a car wash that is there on Leverett Street, currently not used. This comes with all our standard things, the vegetation according to the City plans, the ten -foot wood privacy fencing and screening, all the things you looked at before. Staff mentioned the camouflaging paint scheme with this. I leave that up to you. I think this one might better be left gray since it is the industrial area and won't break the skyline on a couple of the sides. Whatever you feel that should be, we are amenable to that. With this we asked for 150'; Staff's recommendation was 100'. There is a little bit of a difference on this between us. This is one of our sticking points. We originally asked for 150' feet. In your package there, there is a letter from LeAnn Fager, the real estate and construction manager of Cingular Wireless/Oklahoma. They came to us a couple of years ago, 2002, and looked at the site there behind Harps and that seemed to be quite a problem with our application. We found a better spot here, in the meantime, since that withdrawal happened, a lot has happened in three or four years. The population has gotten bigger, more cell phones. So this issue with capacity at the VA water tower has become a real problem for them. She states in her letter that this is the busiest site in Arkansas. It has the highest percentage of call blocks of any site in Arkansas. They need some way to relieve this capacity issue. To do this, they need a site in the same proximately of that one, as close in elevation as they can achieve with that and still cover the specific area. It is kind of hard because the water tower is on top of a hill with a very steep drop down on Gregg Street there. We have talked with them and since Staffs recommendation has come out, we talked with Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 12 them in the few days. We have been in consultation with them. They say they can work with 130'-140' if we had to give some, they would still do it. It doesn't leave us a lot of room for co -locations. Cingular is there, Sprint/Nextel, Cricket — there are four major carriers that are in this area, are now on the water tower at the VA. They all have the same problems - we see a definite possibility of co -location with multiple carriers on this. There are no other towers in that area. There are some facilities at the University that are in use now. We explored several other areas around there, the North Street Church of Christ.. They declined to have anything put on their property, as it is up for sale. They are moving out to Mt. Comfort Road. This would not be a very good thing for them at this time. Tune Concrete, we looked out there and it puts us further and even closer into the flood plan and discussions with Staff indicated there was a future biking/walking trail going to be in that area. So we wanted to stay away from that. With this we looked for a spot that we could do some good. We could definitely clean up this area that is there; we can move an existing tower that's already there. With that, you have some of the photographs and things; this is the same pole we built at Zion and 265 in the Deane Solomon. It is a twin engineered pole, as far as the number of carriers and things like that. I don't know if you are interested in having the photos displayed or have any questions for us. But we definitely want to use this pole and have had interest in co -location already. It is the same as the packet. That is our presentation. It looks like a good location, it is zoned industrial and we need a spot in that area — I couldn't think of a better one. Ostner: Thank you Mr. Reynolds. At this point I will call for public comment on this. conditional use request — CUP 06-1893. Seeing none, I will close the public comment section and bring it back to the Commission. Anthes: A question for Mr. Williams. Can you comment on our current ordinance, I understand that a lot of the standards for broadcast structures are based on 1996 laws and our current ordinance and I understand that the SIEIATIA 222G is coming on line. Can you comment on what the changes that provision will make and if we can consider those at this time. Williams: I cannot comment exactly what those changes are and if it is not part of the law yet, then it is not something we can rely on; in fact I think you should remain guided by our current ordinance. My advice would be exactly like it was in 2002 when I talked about what the law of standards were and the minutes were included in here; I just reread them to make sure it had not changed. Basically, the law says that the City cannot prohibit or expressly prohibit but have the de facto result of prohibiting wireless communication facilities within the City. You cannot discriminate against various wireless companies. As long as you have not Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 13 done that, and I don't think Fayetteville has done that. Fayetteville has approved many, many cell towers throughout town. I think there is full coverage in this area. I haven't seen any of the coverage maps like I had seen in the one tower proposal for College Avenue that was recently rejected by the City Council. That showed that there was not a lack of coverage, but a lack of capacity. I don't think the Federal law necessarily requires cities grant unlimited capacities to cell phone companies. They must allow, not blanket coverage, but there is a case that said that if there was a two-mile gap in coverage, that the city went too far in denying a cell tower. I don't know how small a gap these courts would go down to, but if there is no gap in coverage, I don't think that would trump the City's power in deciding for aesthetic and property value rights to deny a cell tower. Anthes: I believe our ordinance also states that if City property is located anywhere near a proposal, that should be marketed as land for cell tower. Is there City property in this area and has that avenue been explored. Williams: I'm not sure. I would have to refer to the Planning Department for that. They must look at that. It might be inappropriate land, too, or it might be fully occupied, but they are supposed to look to co -locate, if possible. I will turn it over to Jeremy about whether or not this happened. Pate: I'm not aware of any City property in this vicinity. I know that obviously there is University property and those do carry cellular antenna, the wireless communication antenna on some of the structures. Hopefully, more are coming in the future as we see growth at the University. But I am not aware of any City properties. 1 have been copied on e -mails recently of another carrier coming to town and we are actively discussing them and placement of their antenna on the water tower. It is something we are involved in, but for this particular application I can't think of any properties in this particular vicinity. Anthes: Jeremy, I would like to continue with you. Can you tell us what the General Plan shows for future use in the area adjacent to this tower? Pate: I believe it is mixed use. Anthes: Mixed use and residential — with the residential area being more to the north or on this side as well? Pate: I believe it is more to the north and west for residential use: There is a lot of mixed use in this area in the General Plan, most likely due to the nature of its current mixed use. Being zoned industrial, I believe all the Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 14 properties currently zoned industrial are shown as mixed use on our General Plan 2020 at this time. Anthes: On the other towers we have seen, the height that had been requested is often referred to — that at lower heights you can put fewer carriers, but if you are going to add more and more carriers, they ask for the additional height. In your Staff report, you say that in fact Cingular was the only carrier that had responded to Staff that there were current concerns with capacity in the area. If I'm looking at maps in the book and, not that I'm an expert at reading these maps, but it seems to me that the coverage area is pretty complete there. Can you speak to that and the height that is requested? Pate: Sure, the coverage maps in what we understand them as well, we aren't professional in looking at these either, but understanding the color graphics, it looks like most of the coverage problems are more to the west where the original tower was proposed in 2002 around the Wedington Circle, Harps -Garland section. I did want to clarify that Staff probably wouldn't be supportive of a cell tower on that site either, but antennas on top of those structures that are concealed much as many of the structures are currently; in the downtown area, one of those you wouldn't know there were antenna, unless you simply knew that. That is part of recommendation in limiting the height, is that that site is approximately 50' higher in elevation than this current one. If you look at the terrain models and extrapolate the 1400' elevation line across with the 100' tower, I believe that the capacity concerns could be alleviated simply because more antenna could be placed on the six -story structures located around the Wedington Circle area. That was one of the impetus of our recommendation for lessening that height, Additionally, if you also take a look at the elevation to the east of this property, it does rise quite significantly. I think we have the high point at about 1440' in elevation. The 150' tall tower would basically get over that height; however, in our opinion, the visual impact would exceed, the detrimental visual impact would exceed the positive gains, by having potentially a smaller tower and co -location in other areas. In our opinion, coverage issue was not as big of an issue as stated in 2002 in the record of minutes by Cingular as it was capacity in trying to hand off some of those, split off some of those calls at certain times, peak times; so we felt it was appropriate to recommend a lower height at this time. Additionally, it is simply hard to camouflage a tower here. You are at the low point elevation, there is no other structure that is high, there are no trees in this area to try to camouflage. Anything that is above two stories in this area, is simply going to be out of place until future development catches up to it or simply out of place now and in the future. Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 15 Anthes: It seems like the 100' is still extremely tall given the conditions here. It seems to me that you also have stated that there are some other locations that you think would take care of the capacity issue, because it doesn't seem that coverage is the big issue. I believe that our ordinance states that we cannot deny coverage, but we can capacity. Williams: That is true. I will say that the Federal courts, when you are faced with this kind of decision, do require that there be some substantial evidence before you, aesthetic problems or issues, especially from the neighbors, people that would directly be affected by this, arguments that their property might be devalued or something like that. I am somewhat concerned that in the public comment section, we heard nothing from any neighbors making any kind of concerns. That is something that does make me somewhat concerned; in this case it seems like there was notification and yet none of the neighbors have communicated to my knowledge. Have they communicated besides being here tonight? Pate: We have not heard - we have spoken to the church, I believe, but that is part of why we have a process of conditional use. You just don't submit and come to the meeting next time. It is to allow for that time, for us to hear from any neighbors' concerns. It is part of that process. Anthes: But correct me if I am wrong, but the majority of the property in this area is multi -family and therefore you have contacted perhaps the property owners, but not necessarily the residents. Pate: That is correct. Anthes: Is the radio transmitter also going to be located on this tower, or.is it cell only. Reynolds: . This will be a cellular type site only. Anthes: Is there radio business on the existing poles in that area? Reynolds: At the Johnson Heating and Air location there, they have some of their own service there. We have talked with them about removing it and picking it up in other avenues. That tower existing could come down without any detriment to the business. Vaught: My only concern is that I do worry about the 150' in this location being too tall and I also think that in our booklet, in the photo section, the first photo is the predominant view of the site and you are going to be looking down on it, it is going to be backed by trees, so I do worry about leaving it the gray. I fear it will stick out more from that view. I know when you Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 16 are next to it, it will look funny when it is green, but I think that corner of Wedington and Garland is a major intersection of town. You are coming from a higher elevation from almost every direction except north to this site, so I would like to see some kind of paint camouflaging of this site and I would be wanting to lower it. Whether we stick with the 100' or go to 125' is something we can discuss, but I do think 150' is too tall. I would like minimal screening of this because you are coming in top of Wedington and look down, you are going to see a big blue pole in the middle of a bunch of trees. I am not opposed to it; I understand coverage is a very important component to their business and I want to be amenable to that. I do think that there will be locations to the west of this that will be necessary in the future. I don't necessarily think the 150' is necessary. It looks like to the west of this site, they start to have coverage gaps. I foresee a site somewhere west of Garland along Wedington in the future, as we look at those coverage maps. I don't know where it will be or what it will be; I know the response from Mansfield said they don't want a cell phone pole and we weren't suggesting a cell phone pole, we are suggesting locating on the building which could be something once the buildings are built, they listen to, if their residents have bad coverage. I am not opposed to this site, I am opposed to the 150'. Ostner: Mr. Reynolds, is this picture — is this the full 150' that you are proposing. Reynolds: It is close. Yes. Trumbo: Question for the applicant. If we have coverage, but not enough capacity, sounds like to me that some people aren't going to have coverage. What is the difference between coverage and capacity? Reynolds: The VA water tower is an excellent site. That is why it has been there for such a long time and been in such heavy.use. But now what's happened is the population of cell phones in that area that is covered by the VA water tower, it is a huge area because it is so tall. It is a prominent feature in town. Well, since that time, the influx of cell phones into that area has overloaded the capacity for calls. If it contained X, it is at X + a number almost all the time. Trumbo: So we have coverage, but not enough capacity. Reynolds: This is coverage issue. What is does is that when the site is full and X ± 1 calls, they get a fast busy and they don't receive service at that time. They want to split into two to three sections. This is the first of those sections. Trumbo: Question for Jeremy. The six -story building, is that the Mansfield building we are talking about? Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 17 Pate: Yes. Vaught: One additional question for the applicant. Are there not additional possibilities to add more antennas to the VA site and achieve the same goal? Reynolds: No, that's where they are now and that is stated in the booklet, at least from Cingular's point. They went as far as to state it. The rest of them have talked about the co -location there. But they can add no more at that site. I did want to clarify that when we spoke with Mr. Mansfield, we did talk about roof mounted, side mounted antennas, all the options there. It wasn't just to build a cell tower. I asked Mr. Mansfield after our meeting if he would quickly write something to bring to you to show that we did speak with him and had these conversations. We can clarify that later if need be. Vaught: If you look at this coverage map, there are already areas that look like they are lacking coverage, just to the west of this. I do think another tower is going to be eminent somewhere along that stretch, especially with the PZD we just approved, that is going to add a lot of people to that side of town. I foresee additional tower applications to fill those holes coming. Lack: That illustrates a concern that I have. When I first looked at the site, I thought it is not a terrible place for a cell tower, as places for cell towers go. But when I look at the map, when we are approached with a cell tower, I am used to seeing a dramatic change between the current map and the new map. When I look at this map, I had to look for the change. There is a change to the west, but the change is actually to the west over a ridge from where the cell tower location is to be. To the east, I 'm really not seeing any change. Reynolds: With this capacity issue, that is right, there is adequate coverage. If you take your phone there you will receive four bars. What makes this important and unique is that to split the traffic off of this site, it has to have a second site in proximity to the water tower that will draw the traffic away from the water tower. It needs to be a good site to draw the traffic off, have strong coverage and compete against the water tower site. After they start to draw the traffic off the water tower site, as they state in the letters there, they will shrink the coverage area of the water tower down, so it is more compatible geographically with the number of phones. That way they can eliminate this call blocking issue and they can continue on. There are several other things in the plans, in the works, and we have talked with Staff about this, but this is the main concern for these carriers Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 18 at this time. They are constantly blocked at this location and they can't improve it any more and this is where the problem is. Lack: And I think that my view of it, it would seem to be prudent to be farther west with the tower, with the understanding that you might lose some direct proximity, therefore some direct signal, power to the VA tower. Certainly I would anticipate that this would not be a total loss, that moving away a quarter mile, a half mile, something of that nature, to the west to get better coverage wouldn't totally dissolve the benefit of pulling off of that tower. And the other concern, I guess, is that we have talked a little bit about — Mr. Pate has mentioned to us that you have a presentation of multiple sites, multiple areas, that you are looking at and that you mentioned to me. I think that is wonderful, that is a good proactive approach to facilitating cell coverage in Fayetteville which I think we all need to do. That is something I look forward to, to work through. I think that it would help provide a good feeling, a warm fuzzy, for this site if we had had that meeting and I wonder if the timeframe would allow a review of the full needs of the City before having to determine this site. Reynolds: I understand what you are saying and we have worked with Staff on that. We have talked with Cingular Wireless and Oklahoma Wireless Association to get the other carriers to divulge their plans. These are four or five very vicious competitors in a small market business; they don't like to tell each other where they are going to be next year. But they see a need in Fayetteville to get facilities. If you look around at the tall buildings in downtown there are cellular tenants there; if you look at the University, there are five cell sites; there is a cell site in Bud Walton, there are three at the football stadium. Those general areas generally take care of themselves with the capacity and coverage issues that they have. As far as being able to delay this until we can come up with - well, we call it a comprehensive plan, with this, it would be my druthers not to but if we need to, we can I suppose. If Staff would be willing to help us and whatever we need to do to facilitate these meetings and show everyone what's there and what is planned. We'd love to do that. Trumbo: A follow up with Mr. Lack. What would be involved as far as Mr. Lack's plan? Who would have to be involved in that and how would it be done. Reynolds: We would need to involve the Commission or representatives, some sort of task force. I've attended some of the Hillside Task Force meetings, almost the same type as that. I suppose some industry representatives, carrier representatives, builders or developers. There is not only us, but SBA and other tower people. See what their plans are and see if we can define what is a good spot. That seems to be the question we have every time is why does it have to be this high and why does it have to be here. Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 19 We are willing to work any solution we can work. You guys are tired of seeing me so anything we can do with that, we would be glad to do that. But I do want to stress that this is an immediate problem with this application. Every day I get a phone call. Clark: I need to back up and go to Cell Tower 101. Smith 2 -Way Radio owns the towers. You lease the spots for these cell phone representatives to have their equipment. Reynolds: Yes. Clark: So it would be in your vast best interest to have this task force so we could force these carries to divulge their business plans. You are still going to put up towers and profit over carrying their signal. Reynolds: Yes. Clark: So every time you are before us another on of your customers has called to complain about their specific coverage. Reynolds: Yes, usually more than one. Clark: So if we did the task force like Mr. Lack was recommending, we would in fact be forcing these companies to come in and tell you where all their expansion goal is in the future. Reynolds: No, it wouldn't be just us; it would be open to any person who would want to..... Clark: I see you a lot, Mr. Reynolds. Reynolds: Yes, you do. You see me because we are local and in town, our market. Clark: So one of your carriers is having a problem in this valley with not coverage, but capacity. Vaught: I think that this task force is great in a hypothetical world, but as we all know, I don't think we can hold up specific applications on a task force that doesn't exist with an unknown time frame. I think that is not fair to the applicant and not fair to the company, or the citizens of Fayetteville that are the areas that may need coverage. I kind of draw a caution sign at that and ideally it would be a co -location, but the buildings we suggest they co -locate on don't exist. I have a real issue with that. I think we need to look at the specific site and the conditions that exist and make a decision on that. With that, I would even be, I don't know if we can do Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 20 this, but set a time limit on the conditional use so we could review, and if other sites in the west could be developed this one might be taken down in five years. I do think it if it's an issue with capacity, it could be resolved as more cell phone towers develop to the west, so setting a five-year time limit on it and limiting the height below 150' for sure I think could be an avenue of compromise for us to let them have time to develop these plans and possibly have a task force that looks at it, and it might be done in five years at the way things go. I guess that is a question for Staff and the City attorney on the time limit, if that is something available under conditional uses. Williams: I have not seen that before that a conditional use would just run out. I would think that the applicant would be agreeable to it, so if the apps can actually agree to a time limit then I guess it would be possible to do it. I really don't think that the plan for cell towers in Fayetteville would take a very long time to do and I don't think it will be totally industry driven. I think the City of Fayetteville needs to look at sites that they will believe should be used exclusively primarily the water tank sites that we already have, although I have a couple of those next to me and wish we didn't build here then. I do think that probably if we aren't not going to have many, many cell tower sites throughout town near residential areas, then the City itself needs to be proactive, work with the cell tower industry, but not be driven by the cell tower industry. Say these are the sites that the City of Fayetteville will allow and primarily the ones we can control and the ones that already have water tanks on them which are already to some extent aesthetically "damaged' So I don't think it would be a very long process. It always takes longer than you think; I will agree with that, no matter what you try to do. I don't think it would be years long. I have seen some maps Smith 2 -Way Radio has already in hand and looking at that, and working with them — I'm not saying we would not work with you and the other cell companies who are interested here. I still don't think it would be totally industry driven. This should also be what we want — what we want our town to look like. Lack: I think the idea of task force and the perception that we have in the City of Fayetteville about task force and the time frame, is a post generation of the idea that I presented. What we were presented with from Staff was that there is a map currently of proposed cell tower locations around the City that will come before us soon. And I would hope that rather than piecemealing these in, that we could look at these as a comprehensive plan. I would hope that this is a one meeting, two meeting endeavor and that is what I was hoping for. I think that there is one carrier who has already divulged that and that is where this plan is generated from with possibly more than one carver_ Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 21 Reynolds: We have worked with several and talked with some. They are in the process of putting together their plahs or deciding what portions of their three and four-year plans they want to divulge. We've gotten one and two that look very likely in the next month. Vaught: I think it is easy to isolate coverage problems, but capacity is an issue and I think it is an issue that is legitimate for carriers to have. It would be really easy for us to say — there is a blue spot on the map — they are probably going to put a tower in this area. I wondered how detailed those plans are — I doubt they are identifying specific pieces of property rather than areas, which we could do by looking at a total coverage map of the town and there is no way to identify capacity which is an issue. As cell phones become more and more popular and we get more density in some of these areas, it will become more of an issue. Hopefully, we will be able to co -locate, because with density comes height, usually. But I don't know how we can plan for that. That's an issue that is out there, I don't think it's an issue we had ten years ago with cell phones. But now a days we do. I believe that capacity is an important issue to look at with these carries as well as coverage. I think they are two separate elements that are just as important — it is important to the City, not just the carriers to have that availability. If businesses can't get their coverage, it is going to affect Fayetteville and residents. Ostner: And to be clear, we do have an application before us. We really only have a limited mobility in our reasons in turning it down. There are some very valid things we can say about it. There are reasons to vote against it. The ad hoc committee, as they used to be called, idea aside, what shall we do? Trumbo: I'm going to go ahead and make a motion — I think you said 130' feet would work? Reynolds: That would work for the carrier's needs at this time. It doesn't leave a lot for co -location, but it will solve the immediate problem. Trumbo: I'm going to recommend 130' as a compromise between Staff's recommendation and the applicant's request. Also, based on the fact that we haven't had any public comments against this. I understand there are renters there. So with that I will make a motion for approval of CUP 06- 1893 with the change to finding #5 changing that the tower shall be no taller than 130'. 1 don't know about the painting, I'm not good at that. Allen: Let's just call it a transitional paint scheme that would blend the tower into its background. Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 22 Trumbo: That's fine with me. And finding in agreement with all of the Staffs other 12 conditions of approval. Ostner: Does the motioner have any wish to talk about the five-year replacement scheme that has been discussed. Trumbo: No, not at this time. Vaught: I'll second. I have a question for Staff, too. In the past we have added a condition at the end of these, that somehow read that if the technology becomes obsolete, the tower will be removed. And I hope that would also be included, if it is obsolete because of need or coverage. But I'd like to at least add the condition of obsolete technology, they will remove the tower. Reynolds: We have done that on all of them. That is fine with us. Trumbo: I think that should be standard, too, if we can craft something that states that. Ostner: So the motioner agrees to add a condition #13 that if the technology becomes obsolete or easier replicated at another site, he will agree to dismantle this. Reynolds: That's fine. Ostner: We have a motion and a second... Allen: I would like to make a comment that pertains to the fact that we didn't have any comments from neighbors, but I think that sometimes in less affluent neighborhoods that there is some intimidation with dealing with the City and I think it is our responsibility to look out for them, too. Just a comment in general. So I don't think the fact that we didn't hear from anyone, doesn't mean that they don't care. Anthes: I am reading the Staff's report and I think it was well written and well prepared. They put a condition of approval that said that the tower should not be taller than 100' and I would tend to agree with that, if we should have it at all. I'm looking at our ordinance and our ordinance definitely states that it is not coverage but capacity that we can talk about; about denying aesthetic reasons, I think we are talking about putting this tower in an area that right now appears to be an eye sore, but is prime for redevelopment in our general plan and a very tall tower in that specific location may hamper that redevelopment potential in the adjoining property. I am also looking at Staff's report where they say Cingular is the only carrier that has responded to the problem, so I don't think the co- Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 23 location issue requiring additional height on the tower is as much of an issue as we have seen in other parts of the City. I also am referring to findings of fact that states that there may be additional sites that are actually better suited, that possibly there is an opportunity to erect two smaller towers within the large property that would be more easily screened, and also the visual impact would be great to any property within the valley. And with all the reasons and for answers to questions I asked earlier, I am going to vote to deny. Ostner: I probably am also going to vote against this proposal. I was considering the 100' tower, with the current motion, I will vote against it. I do think there is a visual difference between 100' and 150'. I just don't see the evidence that the extra tower or coverage is vital to this application. Myres: I am going to concur with commission Ostner and Anthes. I would have considered approving 100' or less, but even at 130' 1 think it is too tall and I live about three blocks from this site, and I was outside the area of people that needed to be contacted, I certainly was never asked about my feelings about the impact. And because the valley down there is relatively flat, it is not going to encroach on my view shed particularly, but every approach you make to that part of town is from a higher elevation and I think it is going to stick out terribly. The only reason I am not supporting your motion is because it is 130', not 100'. Vaught: I would suggest that if that is the issue, if several people feel that way, you can always amend the motion on the floor to be what you want, or make the proposal. Myers: Are we just trading yea votes for yea votes? Trumbo: I'd like to point out that the reason it is 130' is the only person who deals with this daily is asking for 130' because he is telling us that is what he needs; 100' — we can put a 20' pole up but it sounds like 130' is what it is going to take. I don't know — I have to take his word, based on his needs and requests. That is where the 130' comes from. It sounds like 100' isn't going to solve anything except have an ugly 100' tower that can't be used. Reynolds: I want to stress if I may, that it is not just our word; it is Smith -2 Way's word that I know I can sell co -location on this pole at that height, at that above 130', but you have a letter there from the construction manager and RF engineering manager, and real estate manager from Cingular Wireless stating that the tower needs to be as close to the height to the VA water tower that it can be. . Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 24 Ostner: I appreciate your perspective. I suppose my reason that I'm probably going to vote against it is that it is a balance for me between what they need and my interpretation or my voice of the people, so to speak. We don't represent the people, we are not elected, but our UDC is the document that protects the peoples' interest and I think it is a balance. And I think between the limit of how much this the City can take. I don't understand a better way to say it, but I think we could take 100' as a City and if it isn't going to work for the applicant, I think I'd look for another place. I think there are other options open. I'm not trying to say whatever you want you can't have, I'm saying.... Reynolds: I'm sure there are several other people who would want a 130' tower there as well. The people of the City who would like the service, those who are having problems as well. I understand your point and appreciate it. Ostner: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Graves: I'll move just for the sake of discussion — I will move to amend Mr. Trumbo's motion to change condition #5 to 100' as Staff suggested. Ostner: Okay, we have a motion to change condition #5. Allen: I will second it. Ostner: Is there any more discussion? We are just going to vote on the one amendment. Graves: And I will discuss the reasons why just for the record and that is aside from the discussion, I think that it sounds like from the applicant's comments that he wants a higher level primarily to co -locate additional carriers, but this level still may serve the actual purpose that is needed which is hand-offs of calls for Cingular. That is the reason for the amendment. Ostner: Is there any further discussion? We are going to vote on this amendment first. Will you call the roll please, this is for 100' on #5 only. Roll Call: The amendment to change #5 passes by a vote of 7-2-0. Vaught and Trumbo vote no. Ostner: The condition #5 is now phrased that the tower shall be no taller than 100' including all antennas, arrays and other pertinences. There is a motion on the floor currently to approve this conditional use request. Is there any other further discussion? The motion is now phrased at 100' maximum Planning Commission February 13, 2006 Page 25 with the other things that Mr. Trumbo talked about, the paint scheme stands and I sort of phrased #13 about dismantling it in five year. Trumbo: When it becomes obsolete. Ostner: If it becomes obsolete. Will you call the roll. Roll Call: CUP 06-1893 fails by a vote of 4-5-0. Anthes, Allen, Myres, Clark and Ostner vote no. Planning Commissioi August 12, 2002 Page 61 CUP 02-25.00: Conditional Use (Callahan Tower, pp 404) was submitted by CF Hull on behalf of Callahan Tower Joint Venture for property owned by Linda Kay Hinkle and located north of Wedington Drive and west of Garland Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately 0.29 acres. The request is for a wireless communication facility. Hoffman: Item eight on our agenda tonight is CUP 02-25.00, which is a Conditional Use submitted by CF Hull on behalf of Callahan Tower Joint Venture for property located by Linda K. Hinkle and located north of Wedington Drive and west of Garland Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and contains approximately. 0.29 acres. The request is for a wireless communications facility. We have twelve conditions of approval. Dawn, do we have signed conditions? Warrick: No Ma'am. Staff has recommended denial on this project. Hoffman: Ok, I will go ahead and read through these conditions however. 1) Applicant shall comply with all applicable federal regulations.2) Equipment used in connection with the tower shall not generate noise which can be heard beyond the site per §163.29 (A)(1). 3) Lighting on the tower shall only be installed if mandated by the FAA. Security lighting or motion -activated lighting may be used around the base of the tower provided that the lighting is shielded in such a way that no light is directed towards adjacent properties or rights -of -way. 4) The tower shall be a monopole, no taller than 150(including all antennas, arrays or other appurtenances). 5) The utility equipment at the base of the tower shall be surrounded by a wooden security fence of sufficient height to screen all equipment housed at the base of the monopole. 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. 6) 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 §163.29 (A)(1 I). 7) Any connection to existing utilities to provide power to this site shall be located underground. 8) Only ownership and cautionary signage located on the screening fence shall be permitted as provided by §163.29(A)(3). 9) 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 as provided by §163.29(B)(9)(a). 10) The applicant shall conduct inspections of the facility not less frequently than every 12 months to ensure maintenance and safety as required by § 163.29(B)(9)(c). II) Grass and weeds shall be cleared from the existing sidewalk along Wedington Drive. 12) Written approval from the Fayetteville Municipal Airport Director shall be provided prior to installation. Tim, do you want to give us the benefit of your information before we hear from the applicant? Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 62 Conklin: This is a request for a monopole structure, 150' tall co -location. Mr. Craig Hull did meet with staff prior to submitting the application. We did express our concern with regard to locating a monopole at this location. We did ask that they consider looking at co -location opportunities in this immediate area on adjacent buildings and businesses, possibly the University of Arkansas. I will just compliment their current provider that they have gone out and co -located on many structures in Fayetteville avoiding the need for new towers so they have made that effort in the past. However, at this time staff is not convinced that all of the alternatives were looked at with regard to how to provide additional capacity for this provider at this intersection with regard to the utilization of co -location and if you can't use co -location on an existing vertical structure the use of some type of stealth technology to help mitigate the visual impact at this location. What we are talking about is we did see a church steeple proposed at 265 and Township. Just researching this topic there are other methods of using stealth technology to help mitigate the impact of how these facilities look in the community and light poles have been used and other types of method. At this time staff is recommending denial of the request. We feel like at this point in time once again, that not all the alternatives were looked at with regard to how to provide additional capacity at this location for this particular wireless provider. Hoffman: Thank you Tim. Hull: I'm Craig Hull with Hull & Company. I am representing Callahan Tower.Joint Ventures, which is the applicant for this proposal. The client would be Cingular Wireless who has submitted propagation studies and as requested at agenda session, I do have some additional information regarding the other sites in Fayetteville. I am passing around the results of the balloon test that happened Friday. This is the full color site map and then I have black and white. This is the advertisement that was in the paper for the balloon test so we have submitted everything. It is quite a process. [ would have to compliment the staff and Dawn joined us for the balloon test Friday. As the pictures will depict, the wind picked up at times but it did get us pretty vertical for a little while for a couple of the shots that we got. Location, as you are aware of, is directly behind the Harp's Store and the Arvest Bank facing Wedington Drive. This tiny sized property dictates a tucked in kind of design for the site. The engineering drawings are supported in the application package. If the Commission finds that the staffs recommendations are to be overruled then the applicant would be happy to comply with all of the conditions of approval and would also entertain further requirements as far as something like a flagpole if that is necessary. I will leave it at that for questions. Hoffman: Thank you very much. Is there any member of the audience that would like to address us? Yes, if you would come forward please. Richards: My name is Joyce Richards and I live at 1673 N. Stevens. I got a call from Mr. Planning Commissic August 12, 2002 Page 63 Wilson last week and he said that he had provided you with a packet expressing his concerns and recommending that you follow your staffs recommendation for denial and I told him that I would come here and tell you that I supported his view. I drive through that intersection probably everyday of my life and I don't see how you can camouflage a 150' pole at this intersection where two major arteries into the City of Fayetteville come and going up to the University. It seems to me that if you put a pole up there you are going to turn this into what looks like an industrial area and I just don't think that is appropriate. Also, I hate to stretch the point but if you are looking at safety there is a lot of foot traffic up and down both sides of Wedington on that sidewalk. There is also a lot of foot traffic into Harps and I am sure that you are aware that just northwest down through the trees you've got College Park, now known as Garden Park. Given the history of the residents of that complex I can just see some night someone throwing up a challenge "Why don't we go climb the tower?" I know you have a safety fence, safety devices, you've got camouflage but I just don't think is the right site for a pole of this height and I would ask you to follow your staff's recommendation and vote no. Hoffman: Thank you. Is there any other member of the audience that would like to address us tonight? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the Planning Commission for discussion and motions. Hull: At your other recommendation from agenda session I would go over our process of elimination of how we arrived at this site. The tower that is down at 1780 Holly Street, which is the old radio station down the hill, is a 1971 vintage 24" face guide tower with short guides and would require, it won't hold anything like what we are talking about and it is tightly restricted onto the space that it is in. Hotz Hall immediately to the south of this location on the University campus has rooftop installations that are already in place. Additional antenna spaces possibly could work there but for this client particularly, Cingular, it won't work because they are positioned, as you will see on the site map, on the Razorback Stadium and it is too much interference. That doesn't accomplish what they are trying to get done, which is cover that gap down the hill. This is a pocket of high population and high traffic and of bad coverage for Cingular so that is what we are trying to respond to is the needs that they have expressed as far as meeting the needs of the resident population as well as the traveling public. We have looked at other alternatives as far as, they are already on the VA Tower. They are on Hillcrest towers. They are upon a building on top of Mount Sequoyah. Cingular has done an excellent job of trying to work with the existing topography and the structures that are available. There are no big, tall buildings around there. College Park building itself would maybe be the tallest structure and it is down further in the hole and it is still not nearly tall enough to do the job so I would suggest that if you have it in your heart to entertain a motion for approval of such a facility that the applicants could consider additional requirements that might satisfy staff. Thank you. Planning Commissio, August 12, 2002 Page 64 Hoffman: Thank you. Conklin: Madam Chair, do you mind if I ask the applicant a couple of questions? Hoffman: Please. Conklin: The first question would be for Cingular Wireless what elevations do the antennas have to be at to work at that intersection? Hull: The desired height is 150'. We are pushing them below that to stay within the ordinance because our actual lightning rod will go up to the top of 150' so they are going to be at 145' or so. Conklin: So the RF engineers stated that the antennas to work for that intersection to work with the system have to be 140' to 150'? Hull: The propagation study that you have got in your packet is from Cingular and it is based upon covering that area with that height. Your ordinance allows 150' as a maximum and obviously my clients in this venture are in the business of providing wireless communication antenna space. If you reduce the height of the structure to 130' or 125' or some absolute minimum size it limit's the potential for future co -locations for other installations, which by the ordinance, we are kind of in a pickle here. Conklin: I understand that. That is why [ asked the question. If you are not looking at co - location just to provide the capacity needs for Cingular Wireless what elevation would they have to be? Hull: I didn't bring their RF engineer to say what the minimum level is but I am sure that they could probably live with 10' or 15' difference and make the coverage. When you get down below the canopy of the trees you are obviously fighting it. Also, the topography as you are well aware of, we have got a hillside to our immediate south and a hole down further to the north and then that whole coverage area out toward the freeway. Conklin: In your application submittal you put other locations considered and you stated that subject site was selected after consideration of various available single-family dwellings that were for sale. You talked about common sense told you that you wouldn't want to put that tower in a single-family neighborhood but you did discuss a little bit tonight about your other considerations with regard to non- residential property. I think you maybe answered this already, but did you approach the Harp's Development, Arvest, commercial development across the street, I guess all four corners of that intersection and then possibly the City of Fayetteville Fire Station. I am not sure if that site would work and whether or not Planning Commissio August 12, 2002 Page 65 the Fire Department would like that if there are firemen watching tonight or the Chief, but there is a city ordinance that talks about marketing city property, public property, to encourage that. Whether or not there would be space at the fire station near Eagle Street to serve that intersection. Hull: I think that is more up toward the Cleveland intersection. That is really right in proximity with the Hotz Hall location as a general. Of course, Hotz Hall is much taller than any of the existing structures so we kind of did a process of elimination using that as our base and showing them on RFs where that is and they said "No, with the stadium we're stuck." As far as looking at the other corners of that particular interchange, Arvest Bank is a small, short structure. We did approach Harps, they said no. I called Fuzzy's as you suggested. We worked through the process with our local commercial. Nobody wants all of that equipment in their parking lot, especially with tight spaces and slopes like you have got in that area. You are eating up parking spaces, which are precious the commercial ventures. Even though these are relatively lucrative leases, you give up customer base in a commercial center for a bunch of equipment then you are killing yourself as far as making the retail space work. It is a catch 22 as far as that is concerned. I have seen clients actually have to pay for additional parking spaces in a lot after they got a monopole up just to put another piece of equipment on the ground so it is a delicate balance on the space. The 60X60 compound that we are talking about, we are considering even a reduction there and possibly even coming in if we can to look at a commercial structure that can be put in front of it if that is even to your liking. The clients are willing to work on this with y'all to make this thing kind of go away if we do a flagpole or something but they can't go too far out of that spot or else we are in a neighborhood or on an unwilling partner situation. We did our homework, contrary to others opinion, we do a pretty through job of eliminating the possible suspects. It is just hard to find a good site in Fayetteville for cell towers. Conklin: I have one more question. You are in line of site of the VA water tank, the other providers have facilities, co -location on existing poles and are able to address capacity issues currently. I don't have their information, my question is can you add additional capacity since you are in the line of site with the VA water tank and possibly other structures in Fayetteville by adding more antenna arrays on those structures to serve that area? Hull: As I understand it, they talk to each other and offload. The proximity of the VA is almost two miles away across the hills, a mile and half I suppose. The RF guys have that on your propagation study and show how this ping pong effect works back from hillcrest towers to the University to the VA and to catch this area that is in the hole. I am not an RF engineer. Conklin: I am not either and so when I go out there and I look up and see a blue water tank at the VA hospital I question why. Once again, I'm not an expert here. I have Planning Commissioi August 12, 2002 Page 66 heard that you have shadows with the hills and shadows with the trees and foliage during the summer and that you have to have this almost direct line of site to make your cell phones work and then I look up and I see the VA water tank sitting on top of the hill without any other hills or vegetation within the way from the intersection of Garland and Wedington or North Street right there. That is why I ask the question because there is nothing in the way of that water tank. Hull: If you look in the information that Cingular submitted in their justification statement they said that this is a capacity filler issue where they are offloading some signals from the VA tower that is overloaded and of course from the University when those football games, basketball games, and other special events happen you have got way over capacity as far as the use and they need over that hill to be over capacity that way and then everybody drives all over town, they swamp the VA and that is a layman's version of it. They told us they needed that area and that is why they gave us that range and that is why we went through the process and have gone through all of the considerable expense and trouble to go through this application process. We are trying to respond to your ordinance as creatively as we can. It is just tough because you've got population, you've got traffic, that is where you want service so you have got competing demands here. Conklin: This is my last question. So you have 72,000 people in the Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium and they have cell phones and you have a huge capacity issue there and you are already on the stadium, is that correct? Hull: Yeah, they are in the stadium but they can't handle it with what they've got. Conklin: You are in the stadium already. Hull: That scoreboard thing just completely fouled them up last year. Conklin: Ok. When you say capacity issue I am looking at you have a stadium full of Razorback fans with cell phones and you can't hit Garland Avenue. Once again, I know RF engineers might be saying something different. I am just curious how that all works. Hull: They bring in a set of their own wheels for those events as well and they still can't handle it. You get fast busy no matter what you do. We are just hopeless because every time you turn around the age group goes down. We have got elementary school kids with cell phones now. Conklin: Thank you for letting me ask those questions. Hoffman: You bet Tim. Thank you for your answers. Bunch: I also have a series of questions. We are looking at capacity and growth. There is Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 67 a considerable amount of overlap with this particular site and with the existing VA site and the existing Razorback site and a little bit with the Hillcrest site. Has any consideration been given to the tower that is on Markham Hill or to the two towers that are on Dinsmore Trail? I realize that they are probably just a hair over a mile; just like the VA according to the map that you are showing here. If you: are showing a one mile radius it is maybe a mile and an eighth rather than a mile and a half We are getting in the position here it seems of looking at finite distances. Has Cingular's research and/or your research included looks at expansion to the west to pick up these other towers to help offload if we are looking at a capacity issue? Hull: As I understand it Don, and like I said, I am not an RF engineer, but the population density and the traffic patterns are such that central Fayetteville is Where they have more cluster of units. If you see Markham Hill, and I mean, not Markham Hill but Mount Sequoyah and Hillcrest towers aren't that far physically apart but you have got a lot of people and a lot of traffic movement and then you have got the other side of Mount Sequoyah. By the same token, if you go along Markham Hill then you've got Dinsmore to block you to the west and the heel of Markham Hill, which is questionable as to availability anywhere except the existing water tank location. As I understand it the heel of Markham Hill itself would shield you and then you have got that other bump where Hotz Hall is and that is sitting right on top of the stadium again. The long and short on it is that this is from professionals at Cingular that want to invest a significant investment in this site and try to solve the customer needs that they want to meet. I don't understand all the details of electronics. Bunch: What I understand about it is that we had an applicant not too long ago that came in from out of state, not even familiar with Fayetteville at all and was able to provide us a packet that included all the information that we needed to make a decision. What we are looking at here we don't have the information that is called out for in our ordinance. I realize that our ordinance is stringent but we had somebody totally unfamiliar with Fayetteville walk into town and boom, they hit it right on the head. They provided all the information, they met our ordinance, stringent as it might be. This is the second application that we have had from you and this tower group that you are representing and both times we have been underrepresented on the information that we, as a body, need to make a decision. I am sitting here scratching my head, I am looking at one of the options that was listed was the radio KUAF radio tower on top of Yocum Hall, which is really a non -issue because I don't even see why that was listed as a place that you researched and could not use because it is totally unusable even if their antenna would support it. Just like the question you just gave about not being able to talk to the stadium. So one of the bits of homework that you have us as a place that you found and eliminated was a moot point to begin with. Hull: It was an existing wireless tower, it is a stub tower on top of Yocum Hall. Under Planning Commissioi. August 12, 2002 Page 68 your ordinance, I had to get a response because it is as I identified it, a facility that I have to inquire on. I apologize if you feel my application is incomplete Mr. Bunch but please let me go on. You have to understand that if you have a site like the one that was just approved down in south Fayetteville with no opposition to it and with no opposition to it and with no apparent problems and then they come in with a monopole structure that meets the ordinance and it gets approved. If the next applicant comes along and asks for a monopole of 150' that meets the criteria, and if I missed something I'm sorry, but I believe I've got a pretty complete application as I went over it with the staff. I have indicated and I hope that you will remember, my clients are willing to work with you on further considerations of cloaking if that is absolutely a standard but if you look at your history of approvals you have only approved monopoles so that is what they applied for. Maybe I misadvised my client by telling them that that was the minimum requirements in Fayetteville was to build a monopole. Bunch: It is kind of a confusion factor to use Yocum Hall in the first place because one of the things that was used was an existing antenna not attached to the structure itself. That became questionable also instead of attaching to the building structure that would support the antenna array, the letter that we have says that their . antenna would not support an additional array. That threw a confusion factor in. You know, why was this even presented to us. Hull: I did a one mile radius, I checked all of the antennas that were in that one mile, that was on the list, I eliminated it. I am sorry if I confused you on that. Bunch: Again, in looking at that location it is almost as far away and with the topographical concerns as the VA Hospital. Again, is it even a valid consideration. You know when we are talking about the cloaking and the stealth and the camouflaging it seems more like this particular application has misinterpreted the camouflage and the stealth are to apply to the physical structure of the antenna support system as opposed to the application process itself. It seems like there is more cloaking and camouflage in the application where we are trying to look for answers to questions that the ordinance says must be answered. I can't support this as it sits right now because there is such a lack of information. Williams: As you are aware, I handed out just a two page memo about what the law is. Of course, one is that whatever finding you make needs to be in writing separate from the minutes, which are always transcribed, but that is insufficient according to the courts. Secondly, the only regulation that prohibits us, or puts burdens on us, is the federal regulation which states that our local regulations shall not prohibit, or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, which means that you don't have to necessarily approve everything that comes forward, you just can't adopt a policy in Fayetteville that would prohibit any cell tower locations. I think that we have established through all the towers that we have in town that that is not the city's policy. You do have to have some Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 69 reasonable beliefs and findings and facts to "support your decision one way or the other. Aesthetics can be considered, it has been recognized by several courts. Public comment can also be considered and also, our ordinance itself can be considered and there are a couple of parts of that I wanted to point out to you. First, subsection 4, it is entitled CAMOUFLAGING OR STEALTH TECI-INOLOGY ON NEW TOWERS. It says ifthe applicant demonstrates that it is not feasible to locate on an existing structure then towers shall be designed to be camouflaged. That puts the burden entirely on the applicant to show that there is not an existing structure upon which it is feasible to put this cell tower. As the City Planner has asked, his questions he asked about existing structures, I don't know if I didn't receive all of the information that you all have but tam not aware if when they gave you information whether they checked out the large barns that are located immediately north of Deane Street on University of Arkansas property that seem to be where they would be able to cover this shaded area. You might be able to attach a cell tower for example to that. I will also point out that under sub- section 6(C) INFORMATION REQUIRED TO PROCESS NEW TOWER REQUESTS, it states that the applicant will provide a map that shows other potential stand alone locations for your facility that have been explored so it is not only current antennas but also stand alone facilities, where else could this be located that would adequately serve the needs of the telecommunications facility that are still within this area close enough to cover it that have been explored. That is a burden that the ordinance has placed upon the petitioner. Those are some further things for you to consider while you are making your decision on this issue. Motion: Estes: It is my opinion that in assessing the visual impact of.the proposed tower that that impact is significant. In addition, the applicant has not developed a record demonstrating that it has made full effort to evaluate the other available alternatives and that the alternatives are not feasible to service customers. As Mr. Williams has explained to us, our ordinance requires that he applicant provide a map that shows other potential stand alone locations for the facility that have been explored and that map has not been submitted to us as provided by the ordinance. It is for those reasons that I would move that we not approve CUP 02-25.00. Hoffman: I have a motion for denial by Commissioner Estes, do I have a second?. Bunch: I will second. Hoffman: There is a second by Commissioner Bunch. Is there additional discussion? Ward: I do know that there is an area, I have friends that live along Sang Street that have no service with their cell phones, and they live there. In fact, I was talking to one this morning. He has to walk out of his house and drive somewhere Planning Commission August 12, 2002 Page 70 to even get cell phone coverage so within very close distance of this so I think there definitely is a need. I feel like that instead of voting for denial that I would like to see us table this and we have asked for some specific documentation. Hopefully there are some other locations that this can be located. I don't know if there is or not but I also think we have a federal mandate that puts a little more pressure on than just saying we don't want it. I am not sure that we couldn't let the applicant, now that he has heard from Commissioner Bunch exactly what we expect, I think that this would be a much better issue to table and then if it is not something that he is not interested in or willing to do, then it dies anyway. Hoffman: I think that is a good point. I believe that a denial of a conditional use is appealable only to the court? Conklin: No, the ordinance changed. It can go to the City Council. However, if you do deny it, it can't be reheard within one year so it does eliminate this site for one year. Hoffman: I too would've voted against this particular site for the aesthetic reasons and for the lack of documentation on alternative sites so I am weighing in. If anyone else would care to let the applicant know and then maybe you can let us know what your pleasure would be regarding a motion to table instead of a motion for denial. Hull: I am sure my clients would prefer to have a table motion with some possibility of salvage at some point down the line. I certainly respect your request for additional information. It was not my intent to mislead you if that is the way you felt. Hoffman: We recognize that you have a tough job to do and we are going to give you more time to do it it sounds like. Estes: With the permission of the second I will withdraw the motion to deny. Hoffman: Do you want to replace that with a motion to table? Estes: No. Bunch: I will remove my second. Motion: Ward: I would like to make a motion to table this particular item, CUP 02-25.00 for a tower. Hoffman: I have a motion to table by Commissioner Ward. Tim, when would the next time that this would be reheard? The next Commission meeting? I guess that would Planning Commissio. August 12, 2002 Page 7l depend on you about how long you think it would take to get the information together. Conklin: I think we would want to do the notification again for the public and have the applicant do that so it would be September, the first meeting in September. That way we can renotify the public again. We don't really have enough time to do that between now and the 26th. Hull`. No more balloons? Hoffman: [t depends on if you change sites I suppose. Bunch: I would like to read something into the record on this. It is from a letter that was in our packet. As in any project, the more information provided and the more listening done by all parties, the better the outcome. This was a letter to Ms. Joyce Richards from Craig Hull. If we could take our own advice and get some more information on this. Look at things like the shopping center across the street on the southwest corner, the school. Look at closer to the Overlay District. There are an awful lot of possible locations and a lot of structures in that area that could possibly support a tower or an antenna array. Hoffman: I have a motion by Commissioner Ward to table, do I have a second? Bunch: I will second. Hoffman: There is a second by Commissioner Bunch. Renee, would you call the roll please? Roll Call: Upon completion of roll call the motion to table CUP 02-25.00 was approved by a vote of 8-0-0. Hoffman: The motion carries on a unanimous vote. Thank you. YG2. `A�•Y•'iSe? yP 1 ?. T+r> ;'� f Srr Nn*[hil 1X'YES+.nRAS K I4 Y1Im + 1+/•js;Y1 4'h'i YI' •n V fh�u c•J a -"`j l�t� �"'"'}^�l F>]� T x i� f )FYICht 5Jlri A.. fy .vi �aJ �4b'i �Fi ,;/c.k �,Y, a ..L�"Yi1' . � T3K �.Ye`i- J P M i�F k ?./ Y � '.��2 l [4w.Zy1..', ;"'pcs;srCl��k"-4...b rb '. .ysni+i Yu'a! I✓ fr { pica sv'w !rR Va'R't�s`x v+4>✓`1>1 - A { ♦ Q Vi `i♦ kl k/cfbF. -a/ }A .,, Suw`;C ! r- 1 `r _1 tqP SQXGr �`�.4w` we. • Syuf '. 1.1 \ i Y ttYi /� ..f!'II :'Ar"4... • iay:'rif 1 I♦l Y T A��a. AIP N t s ernD ^. I^/ •.` 1r lS aSyj ni i xi :ry t 1 ""{'+�i • ! I ...' A 1 Sf r A[ K.. xl 1 S S'x+1} L .x 5., lJ+r .GJfi -! 1T pi 5.Y Fr Cfjv . • sits vr�:M _0 � Rv .rri' 4• ai ) ' o e (It.r FY , t i K'4 �m ♦,FYi 'a:! ._ Ar i,eIr�^'� ✓ .v J h 1 a 1 -' y!. ...'- � • ' L t1t"lY�K, 1`�{R � J+ ivi�✓ \X MlGV:4 ✓t?Y a 1 M � 4'SyF:µ :r�i., ifi.1-1i1HN/�tni•y=i' lEat'k!(Vr F'^V'r+Y�Getit - \�� y • �},\'a VYTt ♦ s§ -l.- " ≥J'. ,rit i.'1" i:' l \ - _. 1 .t1.�1 .`� x ♦ 1��rv* [fj� 1 4'Yf�.i �xl.� �•L `�''} SaYVTJ ti. ♦en\ ♦3' f' R \ n TT j .4! i /�, Pimp �'-? r� Y♦i T`• kr ice} .• LL i .74 a _ I d+4tvj�'+ �+ 4. 1�J`JfI p I •' ''� o S:irn ' i •• �'}"r4.N�'�T .y 41ii .. O i r (aY rf,G;Wi�vc ..a -$J:c + ♦: R E•fr4.�ist.1 klii .A. • 4j- . ♦aSwF` l+\ M �. J .ni a'yai n -!F j15 ilri xn F• ati' d'r Ai t J !. n aTf. i�J t • r d U � 'RI 1aMn;fe T y • ,v'y+,lhs ♦ 1 p,��i 1 + a I � + r ♦' • • �}'r4x i+•R S`1+y.♦ "t-+* 11t'x y �' I Y - �. • 4{ yRi P� �H J`�,'4K : - -• -SzJ�WCfy r.3.13's 4n Y�!!{ .. ♦ t i _ 3, _ �=k' ��.1 • M{i ..r: �FY$i �£. r \.n..:.i�. -.a .. e.r • ri7 C L L ri r t - /. t A L w. C : I 1 r -_ i Q - `a Y Sri U 0I =`4 r L Y• - {• 1Y..C$$C�� b �C `4 �1 4 ... =tictA Wi ! L > Z z r ? } }F to N •_ u 11 E w 4 3AY H3a3A31N:. 3 ; Ii&A 1 M i 1Ao?t4 ELEVM bks LOADING DOCK LEVERETT EAST ELEVATION (LOOKING WEST) SCALE: t'=40' LEVERETT SOUTH ELEVATION (1 MNG NORTH) SCALE: 1 n4O �t `' LOADING WEST B2 V MTI04 DOCK r PC Meeting of January 23, 2006 THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 125 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479) 575-8267 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Suzanne Morgan, Current Planner THRU: Jeremy Pate, Director of Current Planning DATE: January 19. 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 cellular tower on the subject property. Planner: Suzanne Morgan THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO THE FEBRUARY 13, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. j . el -k- ,p_p Clarice Pearman - Res. 34-06 & 40-06 Page 1 From: Clarice Pearman To: Pate, Jeremy Date: 3.10.06 4:53PM Subject: Res. 34-06 & 40-06 Jeremy, Attached is a copy of the resolutions passed by City Council, March 7, 2006. If anything else is needed please let me know. Thanks. Clarice CC: Bell, Peggy; Deaton, Vicki; GIS rr C, I '1 S. as -•- - -O- cn N ��) �� 13AOSSObO O I - m e d rC/),. z 0 z I v- _U •3AV CNV12IVO O I 2 I- r I I o - - `r I—, F- Z Ii 01 I- LI ` 2 z O 0 I U I_,—_ Z 1 Z I I ro 0'I I —1 , - I r Z - , Q - Cl, !b Q ai to 0 U .- m 0 - 3 t1 0 - NO0) C 0 ° ., O C N wc V� ri 0 Iy 0 w cn O a ,� LI.. C , .1 0 I C m I 1 a cO , 1 I1 .1 _ �1 .- I I tJI W O `'- tto -- -- ,oII 0 1 t---4 0 Ob a3AOSSOHO I 1 z o (f o a !b 2 O .r.. 0 Oa 3NVl,UO YZO ti WI . , t _. ° � - I •� 1� y*10OHOS ONVIbtlO - CO aaN --- CO o Z I-, z OL .4 - I 0 W 1- - Y 0 I z I I- 3 --,0 1 1 _ o 1 1 -' U- 3 • I Cl A Z O I :��� - -! O-7 0� V+ I 0 F - �J 7 I. r •� ` `- °1 ≥i3AOSSoo and aNvm vo F - z N ' C O o oN.O. N I 03 N Cot l`0 o w a gy I Y U)m +�+ w o a N 04) L• H C w r c w F Z O O(ow wE • Q 3 =- a O O I9 II II II I II g X V aE O O N o. 06 a C >, E CD 2 c0 X 0)v Q Q 7 N 0 LL J U) m d H a V) 0 'p m = w ° m LL C L = v f0 N L C w 7 N T T ►' E O O 3 Q o 3 w c- 0 �•+� C C C W w C (V CO m 7 p N C O 0) O 7 O O C U) O - to U O -a' U = T 3 y � 03 to C C O O C O 0 j D. N 7 O O V p o Q N O` v6 Q U O d V o a o > r a m Fm 1 Co z 3ne ar�d1HdD DD" as � II ' > m Y — m a <n C (0 m O) CU) m L Q' O U O) C_�gU o 0-LLO a) C 'q. Q (� a E C II) Z_ - O ' m L�L N N C Q J O O N >1 3>w m a) 3 °ow J 2 O U� L J'C U ' w Z d o Y Q n m r Or m ° U) C N L N na)Z mr.m O Y O a O m Y at N 3` O Q O Y > Y m C a n° c O .L.• N N L Y X m �_ O o 0 0 O 3 N m 5 m L) o N U U a m c C •`+ T _T N a) a) m E N L_ m mL N U E E "O U C� ..- 2_ ° N OUP 7LL'N >-O '0.o m o 0 o v Coca) p C N 3 E a N N W C N w E m O Y @ m U L n NnuiO— U UO - C U) o F- 0' V J m m w O 5 E Z O a) > C m N O a) m O T m N U U a) U T . U) m- "O a) w L O a) m U-' Ew Og Oa)w-o 3Y> ~ a) m N C Q) L y a) c c O -a r--E U 3 r — Cc U)) a1_U) o Zo CJ Ctm U aci N ° t n O aci w. m 5 J >Q' a) N O Q > C >>O 01 i-+ fn U i C j N C L —a > 0 0) t o m N t Z `o ° rnY z 0 O (6 N Q .C .c N mLo'=N33� O N O L 0 C E C o O m I. O m �p 3 a) Z N •o m E N Sd m O 0 —'-C 3 m Y ≥ m° N N` C O c a) c m 3 O7 C N 0) H C o- m a) C L N .O E o 2 -a E m m E m o m U) U) ctW c CL 00 O m Y On Omr m y L m~ 'C C m O L cw'E O ° O M 7 3 m N (D N O 3 E�a'2a> > m N nU N m a`_) c o) ax)o . C a) w L O> m 0 0 m N ma) '—E o m0 a)m E0m�O c� L U m m C d +-' O O m O)L- O U. n -o Y U O a) . C N E Y- O N N `) am m cn N 23w C Y a) c m m C U) N ° p y V U r m C) OQ)CW30 Y N 3 -N o22 O -° a) 0 Y 6) C N a) C Co C 0 U) U O 0 0 C C Ct a) N C 0 Co a) a) a) m a) N L I- Iry ' b 3AV OHv1H31N Nl aV11O1 .i23; k� 3AV A317VAWN) _ '~ 1 • � ���• .... D � p `� 3Av �a9'd _!'"• i---� � - 3MV A3S100M a a r lwMf ary N o 9 w i pA° r ry +wpI a ' �q�SIH19O3,64=a 1 .N1AOYHS,N; ff oe .m 0eAAItI..-... .}i 9 a + 3: i .zi 'I aafl $ 9Pc O N'7 �•�� �aL= � •�aY l� o°i "w3h'INOSl1M a eC?_� �' 1 3Ad073a'3� ao HMvo zf RISCO AVE i0 bI131VA1ad "#1 ld HVON►p3AV.1YVH11HM, lo 1*:�aD o�o r 3AV143d3A3L.. p I03In rv.�D,F�nLI t�D�Cl�ai 3Aaot1/} m to a oea0003 O ]AV ONVIXVO '• W .. y 0 r is . �j �. �, Av ONiI� 3 AY 3Tf3ON . 3AV ONVINYD _°___ s • _-E • '••. ,lIF 1� �t1F• p� , 3AV �IHVf{ ,+ p � = x is. l* �° a' 3AV TRrHUI a r 4 • czl 2 •{ ■ f� n i s . •• 0 r 4 b'3AV WHdUS'-Mi°'. *000 0 i!1t . • • �. • F- csTh5)a013SNfIS .V., 41 aa L c�, a N N GO 4 0 `u � A [ Cc J LL LLLLC LL LL LLC LL Q •y N m Q N N .. S a 4 < G r 6 U r r A q 7 O O'. 4• d C K 6' OC 6' C U U U U J V1 N @ JCN w } � ---- _ o my2 \. � !. }�` /; 3 $g [ /« .. . §C/b3 ?\k a . r z � - \ -- __: 4- }.. U) N r r 1* r r I I U CO a CO U i W 0) CO 4) O 1 i1! a o ® 0 O a % It k § 0 @ k ■ 2 2@ O �I �wo20)c-02 R �f . D) � o: o O sf cc 0•— ��/��f 5 E c ■ k E Co o 32 q>v 3 Cu CL 2 @ © 2 o m k 0� �• k / k — 0)1.- @ E_ >.U)�� �� �� O ■�-O■R cX -a a ■ U) cl. @ 2 E ��a�ff4— a3§J .�f:■��C 2 c E e- q>» @ @ — f S o ■ .O ■ 3 /Cu ■ -' @: % a @ m 2■ cuE: CO ■ m 0 o. c E ■.C@ EQ)R� _ _ § / / k 22 § •- S3-fr k §0 § a o C 2 0 Co « n fl o 0■ 2 C an 07 O> § ■ k k k -00 22% 7 E 0k® k k § 0>8 2 0 = k��\ � (D R > = @ 0 co 0 Q 7 U) 2 0 J c o «@ 2 O# 0>§ 0 2@ o1oO 7 LW 0t = k 2 2 2 / a0 @ ■ � k co F/c k00 Co N 0 L Cu Cu C O Co C O U J U Z O LO a) a) V O 06 C � � O N ) m > m ui a) - J - N m OfQ 'L O E O 5 a - a 2 d a)�U W Wu)Li IX C t C O ; w N E L U M> O C U) C a) c O L L C a Cu'U p (D a) O _ O y N a a) O C N C x L a) c fq "p Y .L.. a) N a) a) X m m O≥ N O N> 7 V a) C D O L.. 0 N O L r f0 D O L y O C C N N a) 3=Ojm c- C N C L m C C L m N y rn m v N WO N m 2 cCu m Q m° E -j2C N C O C= C N N L OO -O, a C N W L-' ACu N O N .0) E m C m= U a) I-.- L c 0 H J p 2 L U C.L., Ct U C .0 7= C Q N J fOq "'' > J O~ OI a) L_ C� a Z' a) X O C 'O C a) C y V Q a3 N a) C L F V> a) m N U m c C C > N C 'C m «. y C a) O V N N.ca) c N O L C N m L C` mmaN)A5avvm°c'nUc°�m0 N c mU ma00 CL a"i 8 aci.a) a°iw my t O'o aEi E 3 3 oC) o N o CWd Qao c c N m OC N ... m ai m E 0_o wxt- m 7 N> O a m O '- la 0 Cu a N N J 3 Z N C U as c p a a N a o 7 y O N a) O L c _ N 0 L c6 a) r a) 0 O m yt N Av 1- C 0 > U y N w a3 L H O1 U a)o y N L` L o= � � Lo� 3 � D o x c C' fa J N 'N o O U N a) O N L O CowO O C _ O> N E tow 7 N a) U O m a c a) m L 0 ._ N L N >" C O( Oflfl Uwe a) ≤ m U U O C m m N C m 0> U a) y 0 C« a •.t. O N 00 C U y 0 a) LL) y O- �' = m L > O N O N 3 C� m m cat �,'3.O E 14 N O _om mm. w m o Y r V> U a w a3 -O 2 12 E N N N C l- Oct N C fO.1 N Z m yr 'C 7 E -C N "d N T O 0 •D N �, N a) N w C Y W LL N O)O O m 4) t .- U)•- - 0 w U_ cO c0 0 �w+L.., N CfnS U m'O 7 2 C a3 m N aS OC C J w°o a3 c E Y a) m 0 U m N a1 N=L O m L'O O ;) E m m E 0a 0 3 N m W Sic o oa a) m �v L a3 N N y O X m m O d a > m J a) a) U C aaNC.H«S N a)�J 2w a)>O.N LL NS m O � O cn _ O L O O N O o N . D U OO aJ ' U O •— _ >' U fA a a) OU O c X O O — C LLI O O 4) co O o L O U c p 4-- O V - ca o V) a) cA O Z ,� ca E -cC O (n O U O 0 O O a) cn 0 .0 o) °�ct 3 0 0 0 O o O ca tUJ U L OU O> 0 C 2 c w C cn C .2 06 LU( I- a C tN o .O p L •° 3 o a) m M N C U _ OWED N O._ ._a J 7 U Uoa)OE.c 0 2 U' •� c E O c a w. —o o2 3 a O O N • �E- a) coS- c, ca mo > ca O OD rncnc O cn a O c ° rn c`a ca cn CL 3o Q c c mo oO.) O4 — ca a 0) i 3 aU_ O ca O ,EcoN 0 O 3 O ca to Oct +. o ca U) o o U) 3 U O cn U) O (a p UU) 00 O L O L s C a U) — U) E L L ca (D- a) U) O a) Q ca ca L . at O O c L 2m 96 ow OOOO 00 O 0 0 OO 0 000 O Or Or 9002/L L/Z 9002/L 6/6 5002/L 62 900Z/L I-/ l L 9002/L Li0 6 Y 900ZIL Li 6 50OZ/LL/L GOOZ/LL/9 9900Z/L Lis 90OZ/L 6/b O N a) C) U L a) N — N N @ N o U O N 3= te me>aci N aoi3 Y C m -o C: 0 c c m _c s N o c a) N (n 0 Y @y E m a) -C •-- O H C`@ 3 c uoi n@ n dc° E L 0 m U f06 m V U d m a m=° cc ) a) o a) y m c m 3 O m O U I Y U m a) C Y m E m'4- C_ T N Q E m N ,�. C a N U N m m O L `Y° o a N m m .cm J m mo !E = 3a) (D C Z T U a) C O m= mm Z a) 1l Y H M C m L m a) a) N '4-C) U L @ w a) Cm L W L O L J Y> —m o o ca o0 0 u -O o o Z O) C m Y Y C a3 O E L O) N N C a) O a) C a) L_ L Q '� m L Q) T! -o w a) L .r 2 d aL. @ O V Ct O O ) a) r cn O C= V) Ct c te a) = L L C O Y J m 0 O L ct L- N C N C N L 7 N a) m N U a) m m a) U I" o c C m 0 a) �= L L 'O a) L U N U -•' •— N d m O d m •I— N- C)0(t m U .' 0)O y) a) N ,C ow 0)c -O VI O U_ • U N m o-0 N m m m N a) r..v: J .•.:.t�.I, m c�3mm W Q N 00 (95 00 m Q m Q m Q m Q Z = 0 C9 0 0 C9 W V) m Q ~a m Q 00 Q O -J O Z U U o H U O C m w m V LU 0 w Q >0) J cC N Q O cc z 0 0 H (I) O C N N 0 W I- Cl) <U) O w d Q w } H W L m H w F- a w z 1- 0 O 0 ~ U c0 I- Li. w U) A p O >w �U z w of p U w� QF- Q(I) o • • 11 • a #111 _ • .cciSps 4,4 ! • • .nassIJr7da q�,.; O4 O U Ct C) (9 O U O z w - . St ry O O O O O 0 I- ~ O w O O 0 w 0 F- 0 O a Y Q w 0000 O 0 o 0 Z Z O 3 Y O Z w W O O O > z w z II II O w w Y Ow z w a J >- O CO C) w (N 4) Cl) Co 0 fl'ir a 0 Cl) Cu C) z Co c 1 .. C O a > a) C m O m O G E m a) m p m≤ a r 0 a) w U Y O N m O> m w L c TE p 0 N O > N C p C N . m N O Y E a OO N m C O "O E m m 3 O F m r o).O c > J Q U C_ 'C N N m a) O L J m N m c O a) T( O L a).L... 0) O d C r N n U O -O m O N N C B a m C O �' m m o d U CU L N mmt E E as X m OC 'C N a�—nU= oQ -00 J.• m N m - T f0/! -' 4 - IL >C O c r (D d ami a) m g = E c C :• C aaNa o <a) m 0 m O 0 m m C C V -O F- ._ m w m U mm N c T1] N N N m O L '- E O 3 O a) J U N a N N O K U p m 0 .C c E m c 0 € a) O m N m a mooE°) m > > C m N 0 U O a) a) 0 3 O U m C1 O C N E o w o E w Y N m E o n c t N N m n m T m C 0 J a)E°m�m m m aa)) w 0 T N n N N N m J a) o r C .`• 01 C O N w E a V O N - a) N J n O N N.N E E a m o m I I I U E I o I I I LL —a CE O CO aJ O c O O «N C -c N a) •Q C N f6 O U f6 E= N 3 a) 0 - C N N LC O U m .-• f6 J U N (9 k @" C'O O W N wCww cu C C 3 U N U C Ev R I- .? d -O c ._ U r r O) LLJ r r L L/ V Q i) C) th Cu ao a) aioE > 3 c • C) c > V O N °) (B U O U O O a) L 7 .O U a) C @._ U U O a) a) U Cu X r N a Q) N Co (6 a) N N(t V/ O o O oO O_ C o r Q N m L L O rc E O ^C I . a) 0 Ct C C a) 4-I Q cu N U U Q F- d O O. O C O N d o b Q 0 50 = U O1- O r C R. O Z n Tr t7 y C R m O m O0 J L 0 O C.3 LL N r `O N tD LL LL cc E d 'CI - (1,O Q O. O E O Q � CC N CD U O m as LL N O O LL _ > (0 w N 3 U E CD m m N Q L m f6 L - Y V Q @ > m - -O E ar U O (0 0)-a COO) C O O o E d O> m m o ) a o o m N C L' C O m m > O O C) 0) NN C '----..= N C C N>: D_ U &' U m= - N N C C m c o 3 m .S U) c .N E o c C w— O" O U O -o E U �- CO m y (6 O O W a -O ` >, C9 N O C .>' aN) c o m a> >+ N- N N O aO E. EO_ U O O C > >° U w o` m a) o m .N o C c O C m O U) N y" w O c O O L > N N U) -0Z2-1 N E o>U) OOO. E J I 0 0 c ^ n i1! .. 2 o O 3 r. 1 - I •r II Lr:. • i. $ :z :j _ '*CtJ' r.t sr .. ': a yrr. y i _e4 .� r 1-• 1 1 • 1 . A i • „ 1 -ILL r � 1 Jut 1 i W2 �► 1.1 ' ljr,r N Ai + : 5 e N II 1 +'•: i Vt aaaa' J. ,ter ♦ .� • •�� b , s °a 0 it 0 ITt F- 0 z z F- D 0 CC 0 F — W a \W /1 J LS) C C. N N 'N C 9 0 0 I - w cb z O 0 v / cc w Vi w O I — H w LX w w J L. LS7 O O N 14; as I AW O O N 0 H Q W z H 0 0 J H w ix W 0 H W ry W W J io N (NJ a a a 0 0 ('4. C C- 0 H O Vl W � t________ iII t IY t �Yr ,. Ti -----Original Message ----- From: steve@mansfieldpropertymanagement.com [mailto:steve@mansfieldpropertymanagernent.comi Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 5:06 PM To: Dave Reynolds Subject: Cell Tower at Wedington Circle Dave - It was nice to speak with you today, but unfortunately I do not believe that erecting a cell tower on our project would be in our best interest at this time. Thank you anyway for thinking about Mansfield Property Management. Sincerely, Stephen Mansfield --------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . cingular raising the bar Monday, March 06, 2006 Michael Smith Smith Two -Way Radio, Inc. 520 N. College Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 RE: Proposed Leverett & Hatfield and 520 N. College Tower Locations Dear Mike, I would like to take this opportunity to address the service problems faced by Cingular Wireless in the areas around Leverett & Hatfield and 520 N. College Avenue. These two locations are necessary in order to solve near term capacity problems in the area. As we move towards next generation services of wireless services such as high speed data, site placement and distribution of traffic becomes imperative to ensure that wireless costumers in the area receive adequate service. We have concluded that these two locations are in excess of call handling capacity and are Degrading & Prohibiting Calls Between 10% to 15% on a daily basis. Current Cingular and Industry Standard is less than 1% to 3%. The service to Fayetteville customers needs to improve and is set as a top priority Arkansas. The two locations at Leverett & Hatfield and 520 N. College are in the specific areas that I have measured as necessary to offload traffic from neighbor sites with such excessive usage. We have a method of reducing the dropped connection rates on sites that are experiencing excessive usage, but it entails putting the user on a secondary, or even tertiary best serving site. Using this method degrades the voice quality, and increases the chances of a dropped connection. Cingular has made the assessment that the Leverett & Hatfield and the 520 N. College locations would help alleviate congestion that is present on heavy traffic days. The Leverett & Hatfield location is close to the halfway point between the VA Water Tank site and our site located on Hotz Hall at the University of Arkansas. Both of these existing sites experience heavy usage each day, which translates into the likelihood that users will experience degraded voice quality and dropped connections. The Hotz Hall site is a rooftop application that is limited by space and by power consumption from all of the carriers that are co -located on that site. The VA Water Tank site is in a similar situation since the structure is space constrained and cannot support additional radio cabinets. Our only method, therefore, to effectively address the traffic problems on the on the Hotz Hall and VA Water Tank locations is to build another site in their vicinity. The Smith Two -Way site was chosen to help offload an affected sector between the VA Water Tank and the Northern Face of the Hillcrest locations. These sites experience heavy usage each day, and the Hillcrest location is affected by the same space constraints as the VA Water Tank location, as discussed above. I have recently performed a usage study on the Hillcrest location for another project and through the graph below I will attempt to explain the phenomena of excess usage and dropped connections. The sector shown currently has eight GSM radios, which are capable of handling 112 calls. The pink line shows what we classify as Digital Radio Engineered Congestion (DREC) and the dark blue line shows the number of dropped connections. DREC is a measurement of the number of calls attempting to be setup or handed into the sector. The sample rate was based on the site's busiest hour of each day, which is how telecommunication systems are measured for expansion. You can see that during the month of August, coinciding with the start of the Fall X cingular raising the bar Semester at the University of Arkansas, there is a large upswing in the amount of congestion. At the same time, you can see that there was a large upswing in dropped connections. This happens across the afflicted sectors that are currently serving the areas of the Leverett & Hatfield and the 520 N. College locations. Hillcrest Alpha 1000000 . 100000 N - 10000 .\� m 1000 100 10 M , : ,• o o O O O o 0 0 o O O O O O 0 0 N N- N N n i r N in (D N m rn o Week ID CO CD o O O N- n N N r N #D-REC-BI E911 is currently a subject of importance to Local, State, and Federal Agencies. Cingular Wireless has deployed a TDOA (Time Difference of Arrival) measurement system to assist with the location of a mobile device that has attempted to contact 911. In order to increase the accuracy of location of a mobile in possible distress, additional measurement locations are necessary. These two additional sites will help in the location of a.user in the area nearby vicinity. Cingular Wireless provides coverage to many consumers and businesses in the Fayetteville City limits, and the neighboring areas. We make every attempt to ensure that our capital expenditures are not in locations that will not adequately serve our customers. Based on our review and study of these locations, we expect growth in -excess of 10% over the next four years. This growth means that without expansion of the wireless network in these locations to address the significant capacity problems which we expect, it will be difficult to continue to provide adequate wireless service to our customers in these areas. Highest Regards, Craig Conwell Senior RF Engineer IV Cingular Wireless — Arkansas Market Mar 7. 2006 10:23AM PASCHALL STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION No.0436 P. 2 Tuesday, March 07, 2006 Fayetteville City Council: RE: Ptojea for Sweetser Properties partneringwitli Smith Two -Way Radio From the outset, it's been the practice of Sweetser Propettics to continually analyze innovative ways of serving our clientele. Recently, we have been in discussions with Smith. Two -Way Radio on a new venture that can bring new innovative technologies to our existing customers. Through this initial communication between out two companies, we have been informed that new technological advances could be easily made by the implementation of the proposed tower on Leverett Street. This potential project could benefitover 400 of our residents, and it's our interpretation that the aforementioned tower would be in our economic interest fox this prospective technological project as well. With that being said, Sweetser Properties would encourage you during the duration of the discussions over this facility to please keep these factors in mind: 1. The benefit of better cellulat service to all of the residents in the area, many of whom use a cell phone as their primary phone and do not have landline service. 2. The potential technological benefit to over 400 of our clients. Sincerely, Make Swee et New tower Page 1 of 1 Dave Reynolds From: Jacob Haskew [jhaskew01@alamosapcs.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 4:48 PM To: Dave Reynolds Subject: New tower Concerning the proposed tower at 36.07949 -94.17026 we are currently evaluating it to see if a possible co - location would be beneficial to our network in the coming 2006 and 2007 build outs. Thanks Jake Haskew Senior RF Engineer Sprint PCS M: 405-816-0459 W: 405-533-3408 F: 405-533-3467 Sprint' p { int' Together with NEXTEL 3/8/2006 WARD & MELBA ADAMS 1317 EASTWOOD FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701 ii 4 lam in receipt of the notification for the proposed Wireless Communication Facility to be Located at1250N Leverett AV ✓ I approve the Wireless Communication proposal _I object to the Wireless Communication proposal Comments: Name: £37J Dater I I I TAYLOR, BLAIR 44 HARTMAN AV ' FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701 I ' I am in receipt of the notification for the proposed Wireless Communication Facility to be Located at 1250 N Leverett AV approve the Wireless Communication proposal _I object to the Wireless Communication proposal II Comments: I. Name: f✓'2 �� 1 Date: f _06 II II 11 11 SWEETSER FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 730 N Leveret AV FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 Jam in receipt of the notification for the proposed Wireless Communication Facility to be Located at 1250 N Leverett AV Iapprove the Wireless Communication proposal _I object to the Wireless Communication proposal Comments: Name: WLLLtAAM (3. . SWEETS`€ Date: PENDELTON FAMILY TRUST 3422 BREKINRIDGE DR FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 Jam in receipt of the notification for the proposed Wireless Communication Facility to be Located at 1250 N Leverett AV /1 approve the Wireless Communication proposal _I object to the Wireless Communication proposal Comments: e rn y �. ���y �c a7.l {"ccc.sfc_z Name: 171 a Tres 3— Date: NEEL LANCE REVOCABLE TRUST 19375HWY74E ELKINS, AR 72727 I am in receipt of the notification for the proposed Wireless Communication Facility to be Located at 1250 N Leverett AV iI approve the Wireless. Communication proposal _I object to the Wireless Communication proposal Comments: "1 1, Name: Date: / /,i. /O 5� PIERCE PRIDE, LLC 630 N Leveret AV FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72701 1 am in receipt of the notification for the proposed Wireless Communication Facility to be ' Located at 1250 N Leverett AV approve the Wireless Communication proposal _I object to the Wireless Communication proposal Comments: Name: r Date: L L f ct1- I L i TUNE CONSTRUCTION CO PO BOX 1826 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702 I am in receipt of the notification for the proposed Wireless Communication Facility to be Located at 1250 N Leverett AV I approve the Wireless Communication proposal _I object to the Wireless Communication proposal Comments: Name: 1'L L I Date: ROBERT MARTIN 600 OVERCREST FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72703 lam in receipt of the notification for the proposed Wireless Communication Facility to be Located at 1250 N Leverett AV approve the Wireless Communication proposal _I object to the Wireless Communication proposal Comments: Name: r7 B c Date: