Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout191-16 RESOLUTION113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Resolution: 191-16 File Number: 2016-0485 APPEAL OF CUP 16-5558 THE WRMC CELL TOWER: A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF SMITH COMMUNICATIONS FOR CUP 16-5558, FUTRALL CELL TOWER, TO AMEND THE CUP TO ALLOW THE CELL TOWER TO BE CONSTRUCTED UP TO 150 FEET TALL. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby grants the appeal of Smith Communications for CUP 16-5558, Futrall Cell Tower, to amend the CUP to allow the cell tower to be constructed up to 150 feet tall. PASSED and APPROVED on 10/18/2016 Page 1 ��►a1��lTRr ►r1ir� G rP ': f'AYETTEVILI.E Attest: Y 0 AN:' c *' w LaLCT /?��LJri Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk Treasurer Printed on 10119116 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Text File File Number: 2016-0485 Agenda Date: 10/18/2016 Version: 1 Status: Passed In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Resolution Agenda Number: C. 9 APPEAL OF CUP 16-5558 THE WRMC CELL TOWER: A RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF SMITH COMMUNICATIONS FOR CUP 16-5558, FUTRALL CELL TOWER, TO AMEND THE CUP TO ALLOW THE CELL TOWER TO BE CONSTRUCTED UP TO 150 FEET TALL BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby grants the appeal of Smith Communications for CUP 16-5558, Futrall Cell Tower, to amend the CUP to allow the cell tower to be constructed up to 150 feet tall. City of Fayettevi0e, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 10119/2016 le— -, !a —//_ /a Adella Gray - Ward 1, Position 1 Sarah Marsh - Ward 1, Position 2 Mark Kinion - Ward 1, Position I Matthew Petty - Ward I. Position 2 CITY COUNCIL. TO: Sondra Smith, City Clerk FROM: Alderman Mark Kinion Alderman Matthew Petty Alderman Adella Gray DATE: October 11, 2016 RE: Appeal of CUP 16-5558 Futrall Cell Tower Justin Tennant - Ward 3, Position I Martin Schoppmeyer, Jr. - Ward 3, Position 2 John La Tour - Ward 4, Position 1 Alan Long Ward 4, Position 2 Please consider this our Appeal of the allowed height of 120 feet for the Futrall Cell Tower pursuant to § 155.05 (A)(3) of the U.D.C. The Planning Commission was equally divided when asked by the applicant to approve the normally allowed 150 foot high, flagpole type cell tower for this site. Since a 150 foot high cell tower could probably furnish colocation services to additional cell phone companies, such high tower could help avoid the future need for additional cell phone towers in this area. We therefore appeal the height limitation so that the City Council may examine this issue, hear citizen concerns and ideas, and determine whether this authorized cell tower should be allowed to be built higher than 120 feet, but no taller than 150 feet. Mark Kinion Alderm n Ward 2 Matt Pew Petty Alderman Ward 2 A delli, Gray Alderman Ward 1 CITY or F'A t•rrEV1I,r,r 1 113 W. Mc>UN'rnrr SMELT I Fnt•ETTEVI L , AR -1,2701 1 Smith Communications, LLC. EV Uellege Ave. fayatteville, 072791 Ph. 479-44�7717fsx.479-449-9G77 October 11, 2016 To the City of Fayetteville Smith Communications Is requesting that The Fayetteville City Council hear and consider an appeal to the Conditional Use Permit - CUP 16-5558 (3250 N Futrall Dr). Smith Communications is asking for removal of a condition of approval added by the commission to reduce the height of the tower from the proposed 150Ft, elevation to a limited Elevation of 120Ft. We would ask that this be placed on the next available regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Council. Thank you for your time and consideration of this issue. Dave Reynolds Smith Communications 520 N. College Ave Fayetteville, AR 72701 Adella Gray City of Fayetteville Alderman Ward 1 Position 1 Matthew Petty City of Fayetteville Alderman Ward 2 Position 2 Mark Kinion City of Fayetteville Alderman Ward 2 Position i CITY OF vil1e ARKANSAS TO: THRU: FROM: MEETING DATE: PLANNING COMMISSION MEMO Fayetteville Planning Commission Andrew Garner, City Planning Director Harry Davis, Planner October 10, 2016 UPDATED WITH RESULTS SUBJECT: CUP 16-5558: Conditional Use (3250 N. FUTRALL DR./FUTRALL DR. CELL TOWER, 211): Submitted by SMITH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. for property located at 3250 N. FUTRALL DR. The property is zoned P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contains approximately 5.56 acres. The request is for a wireless communication facility. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of CUP 16-5558 based on the findings contained within this report. OCTOBER 10, 2016 MEETING: At the September 12, 2016 Plannin_ Commission meeting, this proposal for a cell tower on the WRMC campus was tabled. For the September 26, 2016P/ann#nq, Commission, the applicant asked to be tabled until the October 1f1,-2016 meeting. The applicant has not submitted anything new at the time of writing this report, but is expected to have further information for the Planning Commission at the public meeting. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located adjacent to the Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC) parking lot at the southeast corner of Futrall Dr. and Gregg Ave. The property is zoned P-1, Institutional and contains approximately 5.56 acres. The surrounding land use and zoning is listed in Table 1. Direction North Fulbri ht Express South Parking_ lot _ East WRMC West Undeveloped Table I Land Use and Surrounding Land Use FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION: Civic Institutional Zonin None _ P_-1, Institutional P-1, Institutional C-3, Central Commercial; UT. Urban Thorouahfare Request: The applicant requests Conditional Use Permit approval to erect a 150 -foot tall flagpole tower with an area at the base for equipment shelters and wireless equipment. The site area is approximately 4,550 square feet and is currently proposed for Verizon Wireless to be the "anchor" tenant. Public Comment: Nearby property owner Mr. Pendergraft emailed in support of this project. DISCUSSION: Following ordinance requirements, notification was provided to all property owners within a 500 foot radius of the center of the proposed tower. The type and height of the proposed tower is in accordance with Chapter 163.13(B) (1 & 2). The tower is not located within 150 feet of a residential structure. The applicant provided all documentation required by Chapter 163.13 to process a conditional use request (see attached). The applicants have stated in their application that there are no existing towers or structures of sufficient height within a 1/2 mile of the site to allow for co -location by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested conditional use application for a 150 foot flagpole cell tower. This area is currently provided with cellular coverage. Further, the location is expected to have significant visual impact on the area. As discussed in the attached memo from the City Attorney, as cell phone coverage is very complete in this area of the City, this proposal does not enjoy the same federal priority of cell towers needed to fill in coverage gaps. It appears this facility is primarily designed to serve WRMC. As such, a much more appropriate and aesthetically attractive solution is to mount the antennas either on top of or on the side of one of the WRMC's buildings such as their new parking deck or designed into the side of their new facility on Appleby, which is yet to be constructed. Such installation would be far "superior from a community perspective" than a free standing 150 foot cell tower in the heart of the City's Uptown Commercial District and standing near Scull Creek Trail, the spine of our trail system and a piece of the Razorback Regional Greenway. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the request, staff recommends the following conditions: Planning Commission determination of stealth technology: Staff recommends in favor of the applicants proposal to utilize a white flagpole with internal antenna. Pursuant to Chapter 163.13(B)(4), new towers are to be camouflaged to the greatest extent possible when co -location is not feasible. A flagpole design is in keeping with this ordinance requirement, and prior construction of this type of tower has proven to be effective in reducing visual clutter (see supplementary comparison photos). At least three additional cellular carriers shall be provided space on the flagpole tower. The applicant has stated in the application that Verizon will require one space in the tower, leaving three spaces for future carriers. 2. Planning Commission determination of adequate vegetation for screening the facility. Staff will evaluate the remaining screening after the site has been developed. Any additional screening shall be permitted by the Urban Forester and shall fully screen the facility from adjacent property boundaries. 3. The applicant shall submit a copy of the proposed cellular tower to the Fayetteville Municipal Airport (Drake Field) administration for review and approval with G:IETCIDevelopment Services Review120161Development Reviewli6-5558 CUP 3250 N. Futrall Dr. (Futrell Dr. Cell Tower) 211103 Planning Commission110-10-2016 approved\Comments & Redlines116-5558 PLNG comments,docx Fayetteville Airport Zoning law. Written verification from airport administration is required prior to issuance of a building permit. Should the proposal not comply with the Airport Zoning, the Conditional Use Permit shall be null and void. The tower and associated equipment shall be located within the general area as shown on the attached site plans. Construction of the tower shall comply with Chapter 167, Tree Preservation and Protection. A grading permit shall be required if the property is located within an area of 15% (or greater) slope. 6. The structure and surrounding site should be designed to resist the forces of water. Any structure built along with the tower would be required to be elevated or flood - proofed (non-residential structures only) per Chapter 168. Any utilities below the base flood elevation would be required to be constructed per Chapter 168. Any construction within the Floodway in the area would require other requirements as enforced by the Floodplain Administrator. 7. The applicant shall comply with all applicable federal regulations. 8. Equipment used in conjunction with the tower shall not generate noise which can be heard beyond the site per Chapter 163.14 (A)(1). 9. Lighting on the tower shall only be installed if mandated by the FAA. Security lighting or motion -activated lighting may be used around the base of the tower provided that that the lighting is compliant with Chapter 176 Outdoor Lighting of the Unified Development Code. No lighting shall be installed at a height greater than 6' above surrounding grade. 10. Unless otherwise permitted by Chapter 163.14, the tower shall be no taller than 150' (including all antennas, arrays, or other appurtenances). 11. The utility equipment at the base of the tower shall be surrounded by a 6' tall wooden security fence as required by 163.13(B)(10). 12. Any connection to existing utilities to provide power to this site shall be located underground. If additional electric lines are required to be extended to provide service to this development, they shall be extended and shall be placed underground at the cost of the applicant. 13. The minimum distance from the base of the tower to any residential dwelling unit shall be the tower height or required setback, whichever is greater, unless all persons owning said residence or the land on which said residences are located consent in writing to the construction of the tower, pursuant to UDC Section 163.13(B)(3). 14. Only warning, site identification and FCC signs shall be permitted as provided by G:IETCIDevelopmenl Services Review120161Development Reviewl16-5558 CUP 3250 N Fulrall Dr. (Futrall Dr. Cell Tower) 211103 Planning Commission 110-10-2016 approvedlComments & Redlinesll6-5558 PLNG commenls.docx Chapter 163.13 (A)(3) and in no case shall any sign exceed 4 square feet. Signs shall be limited to the fence structure. 15. Co -location shall be permitted for additional carriers, allowing other wireless providers to locate on the facility. 16. When technology becomes available and economically viable to allow the height of cell tower to be reduced by 50 percent or more or to allow the site to be eliminated altogether, such facilities shall be upgraded or eliminated within 24 months of a request by the City. 17. At such time that the licensed carrier(s) abandons or discontinues operation of a wireless facility, the carrier(s) shall physically remove the wireless facility and all associated equipment within 90 days from the date of abandonment or discontinuation, pursuant to Chapter 163.13(G). 18. 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 Planning Department, pursuant to Chapter 163.13(H). 19. The tower and supporting equipment shelter shall be located outside of the required building setbacks for the P-1 zoning district. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Required YES JDate: September 12, 2016 ® Tablec O Approve w/ Conditions O Denied Motion to Motion to Motion: Hoskins Motion for Hoftrrlan reconsider Hoskins table 130tower project - project - Second: Selby - Fails Cook Passes Selby Passes Cook, Hoffman, Vote: 4-4-0 Autry, Brown 8-0-0 8-0-0 dissenting Date: October 10, 2016 O Tabled ® Approve wl Conditions O Denied Motion to Motion for Motion for Motion: Hoskins approve Hoskins 130' tower Quinlan 120' tower with with all staff with all staff Second: Selby conditions Selby conditions- Brown conditions - - Fails Fails Approve Vote: 4-4-0 Cook, iloffman, 4-4.0 Cook, Hoffman, 7-1-0 Autry, Qduinian Autry, Quinlan Cook dissenting 9r:r.5ek9.1I'l dissenting G:IETCIDevelopment Services Review120161Development Reviewl16-5558 CUP 3250 N Futrell Dr. (Futrall Dr Cell Tower) 211103 Planning Commission110-10-2016 approved\Comments & Redlinesll6-5558 PLNG comments.docx Section 163.02. AUTHORITY; CONDITIONS; PROCEDURES. B. Authority; Conditions. The Planning Commission shall: 1. Hear and decide only such special exemptions as it is specifically authorized to pass on by the terms of this chapter. 2. Decide such questions as are involved in determining whether a conditional use should be granted; and, 3. Grant a conditional use with such conditions and safeguards as are appropriate under this chapter; or 4. Deny a conditional use when not in harmony with the purpose and intent of this chapter. C. A conditional use shall not be granted by the Planning Commission unless and until: A written application for a conditional use is submitted indicating the section of this chapter under which the conditional use is sought and stating the grounds on which it is requested. Finding: The applicant has submitted a written application requesting a conditional use permit for a Wireless Communications Facility on property zoned P-1, Institutional. 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 § 163.13 (see attached) to grant the requested conditional use permit. (b.) That the granting of the conditional use will not adversely affect the public interest. Finding: Granting the requested conditional use for a 150' tall flagpole tower in this location may affect the public interest, where locating a large tower on this property may discourage future development and seriously impact Fayetteville's urban and natural skyline, possibly resulting in a development pattern that is contrary to the City's adopted land use policies. Staff firmly believes the proposed cell tower would adversely affect the public interest for aesthetics and gateway views. The proposed freestanding 150 foot cell G:IETCIDevelopmenl Services Review/2016/Development Reviewll6-5558 CUP 3250 N. Futrall Dr. (Futrall Dr. Cell Tower) 211103 Planning Commissionl10-10-2016 approvedlComments & Redlinesll6-5558 PLNG comments.docx tower is located in the heart of the city's Uptown Commercial District and standing near Scull Creek Trail, the spine of our trail system and one part of the Razorback Regional Greenway. Significant visual impacts along this northern gateway of the City would occur because of this tower. It is in the public's interest to have cell phone coverage, however, cell phone coverage is very complete in this area of the City. It appears this facility is primarily designed to serve WRMC. As such, a much more appropriate and aesthetically attractive solution is to mount the antennas either on top of or on the side of one of the WRMC's buildings, such as their new parking deck or designed into the side of their new facility on Appleby, which is yet to be constructed. Such installation would be far "superior from a community perspective" than a free standing 150 foot cell tower. (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 access easement should be granted across the subject property to access the tower facility prior to building permit. Traffic and pedestrian access will not be adversely impacted due to the very low volume of traffic generated from this type of unmanned facility. (b.) Off-street parking and loading areas where required, with particular attention to ingress and egress, economic, noise, glare, or odor effects of the special exception on adjoining properties and properties generally in the district; Finding: No parking or loading areas are required for this use. (c.) Refuse and service areas, with particular reference to ingress and egress, and off-street parking and loading, Finding: No refuse areas are required for this use. G:IETCIDevelopment Services Review120161Development Reviewll6-5558 CUP 3250 N. Futrall Dr. (Futrall Dr. Cell Tower) 211103 Planning Commission110-10-2016 approvedlComments & Redlines116-5558 PLNG comments.docx (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 cellular tower and the ground -mounted equipment. Any electric lines that must be extended or provided to the site shall be done so at the cost of the applicant, and all lines shall be located underground, at the cost of the applicant. (e.) Screening and buffering with reference to type, dimensions, and character; Finding: There is sufficient existing tree canopy to screen the base of the facility from adjoining properties and the street. However, the proposed location of the tower facility on the property will require the removal of trees. The resulting screening may be insufficient. If the application is approved, then staff will require screening to be planted to sufficient screen the base of the facility from any adjacent private or public properties, as required by 163.13(B)(11). (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 warning, site identification and FCC signs would be permitted on the subject facility. All required signs shall be located on the fence structure. No signs shall be located adjacent to the street. (g.) Required setbacks and other open space; and Finding: The location of the proposed ground equipment is outside of the required setbacks for the P-1 zoning district. (h.) General compatibility with adjacent properties and other property in the district. Finding: As discussed in Finding 3.b., the proposed cell tower is not compatible in this location. The 150 foot free-standing cell tower is located in a visually sensitive area in a northern gateway location within the heart of Fayetteville's Uptown Commercial Center. It will also stand near Scull Creek Trail, the spine of our trail system and one piece of the Razorback Regional Greenway. 163.13 Wireless Communications Facilities. (A) The following general requirements shall apply to all new wireless communications facilities. G:\ETC\Development Services Reviewl20161Development Reviewl16-5558 CUP 3250 N. Futrall Dr. (Futrall Dr. Cell Tower) 211103 Planning Commission 110-10-2016 approvediComments & Redlinosl16-5558 PLNG comments,docx (1) Noise Requirements. Equipment used in connection with a tower or antenna array shall not generate noise that can be heard beyond the site. This prohibition does not apply to air condition units no noisier than ordinary residential units or generator used in emergency situations where regular power supply for a facility is temporarily interrupted; provided that any permanently installed generator shall be equipped with a functional residential muffler. Finding: Equipment used in connection with the tower shall not generate noise which can be heard beyond the site per Chapter 163.13. (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 prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff would like to note that this tower does not provide coverage for an area that currently has no or little coverage. Upon reviewing the materials supplied by the applicant, it is clear that the intent of this tower is not to provide coverage, but to increase capacity and performance for users within buildings. Federal law only protects wireless carriers when they want to provide coverage for an area that currently has no coverage. The City Attorney has written a memo about this particular issue and it is attached to the packet. (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 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. All outdoor lighting shall meet lighting ordinance requirements and shall not be located higher than 6' above surrounding grade. (B) New Towers. New wireless communications towers shall meet the following requirements: (1) Type of Towers Allowed. New towers shall be limited to monopole type structures or alternative tower structures. G:/ETC/Development Services Review120161Development Review116-5558 CUP 3250 N. Futrall Dr. (Futrall Dr. Cell Tower) 211103 Planning Commission110-10-2016 approved/Comments & Red/in es116-5558 PLNG comments docx Finding: The applicant is proposing a camouflaged flagpole structure. (2) Tower or antenna height limitations. Towers or alternative tower structures are permitted to a maximum height of 150 feet. Finding: The maximum tower height (including antenna, lighting rod, and all other appurtenances) permitted by the Unified Development Code is 150 feet. The applicant is currently proposing a 150 -foot tall tower. (3) Fall Zone. The minimum distance from the base of any tower to any residential dwelling unit shall be the tower height or required setback, whichever is greater, unless all persons owning said residences or the land on which said residences are located consent in a sign writing to the construction of said tower. This setback is considered a "fall zone." In the event that an existing structure is proposed as a mount for a wireless communication facility, a fall zone shall not be required. Finding: There is no residential dwelling units located within 150' of the base of the tower, within the 'fall zone'. (4) Camouflaging or Stealth Technology for New Towers. If the applicant demonstrates that it is not feasible to locate on an existing structure, towers shall be designated to be camouflaged to the greatest extent possible, including but not limited to: use of a compatible building materials and colors, screening, landscaping and placement within trees. Finding: The applicant has indicated that there are no suitable locations for co - location within 1/2 mile. The applicant's proposal is for a flagpole style tower with antenna internally mounted. As discussed in findings throughout this report, staff finds that it is feasible and much -preferred from a community perspective to locate the antenna on WRMC buildings, such as their new parking deck. (5) Color of Towers. To the extent that any antenna extends above the height of the vegetation immediately surrounding it, they shall be a neutral color, painted or unpainted, unless the FAA requires otherwise. Finding: Staff recommends a white flagpole to minimize visual impact to the area. (6) Information Required to Process New Tower Requests. (a) Provide a map of the geographic area that your project will serve. (b) Provide a map that shows other existing or planned facilities that will be used by the wireless communication service provider who is making the application. Finding: Item (a) and item (b) are reflected within the report, as provided by the applicant and distributed with this agenda to the Commissioners. G:IETCIDevelopment Services Review120161Development Review116-5558 CUP 3250 N. Futrall Dr. (Futrall Dr. Cell Tower) 211103 Planning Commission110-10-2016 approved\Comments & Redlinesl16-5558 PLNG common Is. docx (c) Provide a map that shows other potential stand-alone locations for your facility that have been explored. Finding: Chapter 163.13 (F) of the Unified Development Code states that the City of Fayetteville should actively market its own property and existing structures as suitable co -location sites. There are no suitable nearby City owned properties. The applicant has examined other locations for a tower as indicated in the application materials (see attached). (d) Provide a scaled site plan containing information showing the property boundaries, proposed tower, existing land use, surrounding land uses and zoning, access road(s) location and surface material, existing and proposed structures and topography. The plan shall indicate proposed landscaping, fencing, parking areas, location of any signage and specification on proposed lighting of the facility Finding Item (d) is reflected within the report, as provided by the applicant and distributed with this agenda to the Commissioners. (e) Describe why the proposed location is superior, from a community perspective, to other potential locations. Factors to consider in the community perspective should include: visual aspects, setbacks and proximity to single family residences. Finding: In staff's opinion, the proposed location is not a superior location from a community perspective. The tower will have a significant visual impact in the area for people arriving to Fayetteville from the north and for the nearby properties and neighborhoods. Washington Regional Medical Center has signed a lease agreement with Smith Two-way Radio to allow for the construction of a tower on their property, but the applicant should instead co -locate on existing or newly constructed buildings within WRMC's campus. Such a strategy would not have such a drastic visual impact on the nearby community and still service the hospital's needs. (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. G; IETCIDevelopment Services Re view120161Development Review116-5558 CUP 3250 N. Futrall Dr (Futrall Dr. Cell Tower) 211103 Planning Commission110-10-2016 approvedlComments & Redlinesl16-5558 PLNG comments docx Finding: The applicant is representing an interested tenant, Verizon. (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 would allow co -location for three additional wireless carriers as stated within the applicant's request. (7) Required (after condition) and Balloon Test or Crane Test Photographs. The proposed tower shall be photographed from four locations taken 90 degrees apart and 300' from the center of the tower. The proposed tower shall be superimposed on the photographs. A balloon or crane test shall be performed to illustrate the height of the tower and photographed from the same four locations. The time period, not to exceed one week, within which the test will be performed, shall be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the City at least 14 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 this information. (8) Sight Line Representation. A sight line representation shall be drawn from four points 90 degrees apart and 100 degrees from the proposed tower. Each sight line shall be depicted in profile, drawn at one inch equals 40 feet. The profiles shall show all intervening trees and buildings. Finding: The applicant has provided this information. (9) Structural Integrity and Inspection of Towers (a) The applicant shall provide a certification letter that states the tower meets or exceeds design criteria and all local, state, and federal requirements regarding the construction, maintenance, and operation of the tower. (b) If a tower fails to comply with the requirements and criteria above and constitutes a danger to person or property, then upon written notice being provided to the owner of the tower, the owner shall have thirty (30) days to bring such tower into compliance within thirty (30) days, the City may terminate that owner's conditional use permit and/or cause the removal of such tower (at the owner's expense). (c) By making an application hereunder, the applicant agrees to regularly maintain and keep in a reasonably safe and workmanlike manner all towers, antenna arrays, fences and outbuildings owned by the applicant which are located in the City. The applicant further agrees to conduct inspections of all such facilities not less frequently than every 12 months. The applicant agrees that said inspections shall be conducted by one or more designated persons holding a combination of education ad G:IETCIDevelopmenl Services Reviewl20161Development Review116-5558 CUP 3250 N. Futrall Dr. (Futrall Dr. Cell Tower) 211103 Planning Commission110-10-2016 approvedlComments & Redlinesl16-5558 PLNG commen(s.docx experience so that they are reasonably capable of identifying functional problems with the facilities. Finding: The applicant has provided this information. (10) Security Fencing and Anti -climbing Device. Through the use of security fencing, towers and equipment shall be enclosed by wood board fencing not less than six (6) feet in height. The tower shall also be equipped with an appropriate anti -climbing device. The facility shall place signs indicating "No Trespassing", "High Voltage" or other pertinent information on the outside of the fence, unless it is decided that the goals of this ordinance would be better served by waiving this provision in a particular instance. Barbed wire fencing or razor wire shall be prohibited. Finding: The applicant shall construct a 6' wood privacy fence with an evergreen buffer around the equipment at the base of the tower. The applicant has indicated in their application that they will install a "No Trespassing" sign and a sign indicating ownership of the facility. (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: The location of the facility is within an area that is currently heavily screened by existing trees and shrubs, however the location of the compound will required removal of trees on the property. Additional screening may be required to provide adequate screen between the facility and neighboring properties. Staff will determine if additional screening will needed after the facility has been constructed. The species and location shall be approved by the Urban Forester. (12) Setback from Property Lines. Wireless communications facilities shall meet current setbacks as required by zoning. Finding: The proposed facility and accessory structures shall comply with P-1 setback requirements. BUDGET/STAFF IMPACT: None Attachments: • City Attorney's memo • Applicant's letter and application packet • Site plan • One Mile Map • Close Up Map • Current Land Use Map G:IETCIDevelopmenl Services Review12016IDevelopment Reviewl16-5558 CUP 3250 N. Futrall Dr. (Futrall Dr Cell Tower) 211103 Planning Commission110-10-2016 approvedlComments & Redlines116-5558 PLNG comments.docx DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY TO: Mayor Jordan Don Marr, Chief of Staff Paul Becker, Finance Director Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director Andrew Garner, Planning Director FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: August 23, 2016 Kit Williams City Attorney Make Pennington Assistont Cu)' Athrr'ney Patti Mulford Pm are:, a1 RE: Cell Tower request near Washington Regional Medical Center (Gregg and Futrall) near Trail Smith 2 Way Radio is about to propose building a cell tower near the Scull Creek Trail at the intersection of Gregg Avenue and Futrall primarily to install Verizon antennas to provide improved 4 G service to Washington Regional Medical Center and its staff. Such proposal appears to violate § 163,13 Wireless Communications Facilities (B) New towers (6) Information required to process new tower requests. "(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; (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: (i) A survey of all existing structures that may be feasible sites for co -locating wireless communications facilities;" Since this new facility is primarily designed to serve WRMC, a much more appropriate and aesthetically attractive solution is to mount the antennas either on top of or on the side of one of Washington Regional Medical Center's buildings such as their new parking deck or designed into the side of their new facility on Appleby which is yet to be constructed. Such installation would be far "superior, from a community perspective" than a free standing 150 foot cell tower in the heart of our Uptown Commercial District and standing near Scull Creek Trail, the spine of our Trail system. Since cell phone coverage is very complete in this area of town, this proposal does not enjoy the same federal priority of cell towers needed to fill in coverage gaps. I hope that Washington Regional will work with the City to co -locate any necessary antennas (for their staff) on an appropriate place on one of their buildings. If so, such placement of the antennas upon a WRMC building can be approved administratively rather than requiring a conditional use permit approved by the Planning Commission (which rejected the last proposed cell tower). "(C) Co -location. The Zoning and Development Administrator, following an administrative review without the requirement of an issuance of conditional use permit, may approve the following antenna installation. (1) Locating on Existing Structures. Installation of an antenna or antenna array on an existing structure other than a tower (such as a building, light pole, electric transmission tower, water tank, or other free-standing non-residential structure).. .." CONCLUSION Hopefully, we can maintain our excellent relations with WRMC and obey our long standing Wireless Communication Facility code by having new cell phone antennas placed in the best location from a community perspective which would also be the most cost effective and efficient placement for WRMC and the cell phone companies. 2 Verizon Wireless Network Real Estate Department One Verizon Drive bruiistnp: B4F06-N Little Rock, AR 72202 August 24, 2016 RE: Cell Tower located at Washington Regional Medical Center Dear, City of Fayetteville __ i/eI'l 'on wit less The purpose of this letter is to confirm in writing, That Smith Communications and Verizon Wireless are working together on this project and Verizon Wireless will be using the proposed facility to directly address the need to improve its service in and around the Washington Regional Area. Sincerely, Rick D. Cossey Engineer Ili Spec. -RE /RG South Central Region One Verizon Drive Little Rock, AT 72202 CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS CONDITIONAL USE FOR .STAFF USE ONLY FEE: 8100.00 0uleApplication Submitted: SIGN FEE: $5.00 i)ute Accepted as Complete: S -T -R: Case /Appeal Number: PP#: Public Hearing Dale: Zone: Please till out this foam completely, supplying all necessary information and documentation to support your request Your application will not be placed on the Planning Commission agenda until this information is furnished. Applicatiota. Indicate one contact person for this request: x Applicant Representative Applicant (persun making request): Representative (engineer, surveyor, realtor, etc.): Name: Smith Communications Name: Dave Reynolds Address: 520 N College Ave. Address: 520 N College Ave. Fayetteville, Ar 72701 Favetteville, Ar 72701 E-mail: Dreynoldsi Sinithradio.com E-mail: Dreynolds a!Smithradio coin Phone: ( 479 ) 443-2222 ( ) Phone: ( 479 ) 443-2222 t l Fax: ( 479 ) 443-5677 Fax: ( 479 ) 443-5677 Site Address / Location: 3250 N Futrall Drive - Fayetteville AR Current Zoning District: P -1 Assessor's Parcel Number(s) for subject properly: 765-15881-030 TYPE OF CONDITIONAL USE BEING REQUESTED (check one) Duplex in RSF-4 zoning district Tandem lot Dance hall fled & breakfast Home occupation Wireless Conununication facility Odor -emitting or explosive handling facility Change of non -conforming use Manufactured Home/Home Park Detached Second Dwelling Unit Additional parking Other ?0)0 Yrige / FINANCIAL INTERESTS The following entities and / or people have financial interest in this project: Smith Communications - Washington Regional Medical Center APPLICANT /REPRESENTATIVE: I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements and answers herein made all data, information, and evidence herewith submitted are in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correct. I understand that submittal of incorrect or false information is grounds for invalidation of application completeness, determination, or approval. I understand that the City might not approve what I am applying for, or might set conditions on approval. Communications Date: 7/10/2016 PROPERTY OWNER(S) /AUTHORIZED AGENT: Uwe certify under penalty of perjury that I am/we are the owner(s) of the property that is the subject of this application and that I/we have read this application and consent to its filing. (If signed by the authorized agent, a leller fironi each property owner muse be provided indicating that the agent is authorized to act on his/her behalf.) Owners (attach additional info if necessary): Name (n•irrtcdj_ David Itti vrsr7lcls - Smith Communications Date: 7/10/2016 Name (Irrintcd). Signature: CUP Checklist: Address: 520 N College Ave Fayetteville, AR 72701 Phone: (479 )443-2222 Address: Phone: ,Vovernber 2010 Page 2 �`�-'. �. �,_.t•,. - i � -_-` ^'�• _ RNs ', _� - . _ r :r... _ _ _ \ %:: _f. f YYRM / . .. r k' • Vin!.' +3.(. , • ar . \-'j'y ad -. ... — � •• �. .' " ", het - _ _... _ _.. a.}'}. i •�/ f yai'i^N5 ��y'� r - • a� ?�tYC�VC1 aA Iti± ewrtra �, �e 4 4sp .. i • £ ,.. ter. - t, pp p C] R I<UL I HfC.+ MB?ELM L ' •'k. .555 r = .4 4:r * . , t Y : «..y a am 7� # f DEAN»SEC%L.OMON _ ` MEES'. ,3. f tt ,� IT P T SS - �' .�",,,� j • - ''`'7�~,,., i w'g• �qr�,l ,1 .ice_* - ..� ' ` , � — • -..� 4ASBELI=� r '�" y � • d R' - . tf f A WATER -.TOWER • ka a ~• -■ c*f i —% fa 1 ■t , ftfr ty�~ r of r ., SMITH Lederett S+� SMIfiM VA S. ., 'Led;nqfi #+ t �► rte.. *fie + .rot_ _ `F a Smith Communications Proposal for NEW Wireless Communications Facility Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC) Smith Communications, LLC. is presented a package to the City of Fayetteville Planning Department to construct a new 150 Ft. flagpole type tower on the Western side of the WRMC campus. This land a very large parcel containing the main hospital and its associated administrative / support areas, parking areas outpatient services facilities. This property also contains a section of the Fayetteville Trail System that runs along Scull Creek and currently runs between the west parking areas and the main hospital facilities with the two now being connected with a pedestrian bridge. The Surrounding Properties have a wide mixture of zoning classifications; To the South side of Appleby we have an mix of residential type properties RMF-24 , RT -12 , and RSF- 4 To the East of the proposed location In the main hospital campus Zone P-1 and further East the adjoining property is an area of RO consisting of primarily medical support and doctors offices. To the West is Gregg St., and West of Gregg St. Is a large area or property recently Zoned as UT - & a small section of C-3 near the intersection of Gregg and Fulbright Expressway. Bordering to the Northern edge of the property is N Futrall Drive and directly adjoining that to the North is the Fulbright Express Way with Shiloh Drive north of that. The property north of that is currently C-1 , C-2 , C-3 , and area of RSF -4. As presented, We feel that this facility would meet all the technical aspects and design standards as required by the City of Fayetteville and its ordinances as they pertain to CUPs and Wireless Communications Facilities. We ask for no variance or exception to any provision of such. Cell Towers are always and different from other projects filled with unusual issues, and often conflicting rules and criteria. Smith Communications understands that for the staff reviewing and verifying the application and materials it can be difficult and confusing, and the committee members often have strong and emotional concerns from citizens that must be balanced against the requests and rights of the applicant to pursue the development of the wireless facility. With this in mind, we are proud to bring this project forward with the strong belief that that this tower location is compatible and consistent with the current and future land uses and is proposed in the available location to meet these needs while providing an excellent piece of infrastructure so that the community may depend on having the best possible wireless services while in the WRMC area of Fayetteville. Smith Communications Proposal for NEW Wireless Communications Facility Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC) With this in mind, we are proud to bring this project forward with the strong belief that this tower location is compatible and consistent with the current and future land uses making this location superior from a community perspective. To meet these needs while providing an excellent piece of infrastructure so that the community may depend on having the best wireless services while in the WRMC area of Fayetteville. Smith has considered several diffrentfactors in placement and design of the tower we have considered the design of the tower its self. The tower is proposed as a "flagpole type" design. This design is a stealth type tower with the antennas to mount internal to the tower to allow for a very clean and neat appearance. This style of tower has been used and approved in several location inside Fayetteville over the past several years, and throughout many different zoning districts residential or commercial and works as a well accepted compromise between the monopole type tower and the aesthetic / visual impact concerns a monopole type tower often generates. Some of the other issues considered in the placement and design of the facility were the proximity to residential structures particularly single family residences with the closest being South of Appleby Rd on Dorchester St. (900ft away) with a section of the hospital building itself between the SFR-4 and the tower blocking a large part of the facility from its view. Also considered in the location planning were the building setback distances to property lines of the parent parcel and we are well outside of the setback areas, and have a large amount of existing trees and other vegetation to act as visual buffering to the existing public areas and are also proposing to plant trees and understory plants to provide further screening as needed. This facility is designed for colocation and Smith Communications will develop a MULTI -CARRIER communications tower site in a geographically superior spot. We can allow co -location of several wireless carriers, and provide a structure for future carriers. While helping carriers by providing a viable service platform so they may also improve their service to there . These are our reasons on why this site would be superior location for a communications tower to serve the City of Fayetteville Smith Communications Proposal for NEW Wireless Communications Facility (a)- WRMC Efforts to Co -Locate on Existing Towers or Structures As part of the City of Fayetteville Cell Tower Ordinance the Applicant must: Describe our 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." There are no poles or towers that currently exists in this area of Fayetteville. The surrounding tower sites are all currently in use The closest being located behind Meeks near the intersection of Gregg and Township at a distance of .94 miles, (AT&T, VZW) and a second, third, fourth, and fifth nearest sites are the Fulbright, McGuire St., Johnson B and Township tower sites, at distances of 1.2 to 1.5 miles from the proposed site. (AT&T & VZW on all surrounding sites sites - T -Mc and Sprint on 3 out of the 5) Another form of co -location that is very common in Fayetteville, and has been explored in this situation, is to mount the antenna and other equipment on and existing building rooftop. In this instance the WRMC Buildings are the only 3 — 5+ story buildings in the area. The WRMC Buildings rooftops would not provide an adequate facility. Previously WRMC has removed 3 existing short (30ft each) radio towers from its rooftop to allow for safer traverse of Helicopters — Air Ambulances, and moved these radio services elsewhere. Also In the newest addition to the WRMC complex is a second helipad on the roof top of the new building, further complicating the ability to place any antennas on the rooftop for obvious safety reasons. Further because of the size and diffrent roofline heights of the different sections of the buildings and the distances across rooftop would greatly effect the design and performance of the system. This model will greatly limit the effective operation of the network in the surrounding area. This facility is proposed in an area that currently unserved or underserved by existing structures and will in fact become a cellular co -location facility for future growth in population and demand for services existing in that area today, and will grow in the future. This location, as depicted in the attached maps and submitted materials will provide help to provide needed communications infrastructure needed to provide service the WRMC and Medical Park Area currently lacking adequate service. Fayetteville has no other available communications towers that can provide the proper coverage to this area. These are the reasons we can not co -locate on an existing tower. +-. M.I ,rR 0 �T { ti! -r !!1•Y]V5r+Q� r ('I [ ; -. 7A ' L . ... +� V � 7' '�'"y�w`: ' '!�'..i .�x"^xr [.,i �� •Y Rr Fi �� Cr �. .{. is.r-+N J i,� jai . • tr` �� � • �: ' — -. �€>•7 fe aer •.Jr • •' .,�P I I , KT -5 It a Y a^�y l - • .Y 5 r� ice. s • , , .. 1 � 1�*ti"- �- ��t!� - t �,:.ir �e-' r ��y •Fd[iao-51'.,��, t �' i � '� ►-"T,: i :.� `"s �` 3 I `^' ''+`� �','°�..�..�i v 4.•, p '5 4 - `a •- , ^F'`. +.-.c 5 CJ Ate! SC3 t�UON rr n i j 1 PKa E Sp'ii no v �e�a �. .r .:ii.. .... a r' ,•v -.C n t_ r � yt �+ � - -. _ - _ - .. � e�-'i�— �',•.t.-. - tii+1i ,."fir - - �.Y ��:7 N� _7r;4•:p � Smith Communications Proposal for NEW Wireless Communications Facility Washinaton Regional Medical Center (WRMC) As required by § 163.29, Smith Communications is providing the following information in response to the Wireless Communication Facilities (new build) Submittal Materials Checklist. The proposed new build, located at the WRMC Site will not include any ancillary equipment as shown in the tower drawings. Antennas will be installed on this tower by service providers once approval for construction (CUP and BP) have been secured. Noise generating equipment that can be heard beyond the approved site is limited to commercial HVAC equipment. Commercial HVAC equipment, essential for continuous operation of the vital electronic equipment, maintains the ambient temperature range required by the electronic equipment manufacturers. Maintaining an acceptable ambient temperature range provides for longer equipment life while minimizing system failures and operational downtime. and commercially available emergency generators. No additional lighting will be provided as a part of the Tower construction. No security lights are required or warranted. The Federal Aviation Administration, FAA, has determined that no top or side lights will be required for aircraft safety. The Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, The no hazard condition results, in part, from the geographical location of the planned site as well as the physical height of the proposed tower. Operating frequencies, transmitted power, and temporary construction equipment were also taken into consideration by the FAA prior to issuing the Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation. Security of the tower and its associated building, as well as public safety will be accomplished utilizing a perimeter fence. The fence will completely enclose the lot and measure 8 vertical feet up from the ground. The type of fencing proposed is a privacy type fence constructed mainly of wood. Some metal hardware will be required for fence construction. Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility Cad Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC) Map of the Geographic Area the Project Will Serve c1 t. 4 ₹ hl w'1 . r x HiVSCN A - . 1 'p - *�•'L A � Vii, ---, e r. t T AItCGu tre 5T: � L.Lmss`LV�URIGi 11 i+�""_ sz �1 h.._ 1 i - � t �.il�„•,.1r,4�3 r ytY �M 9�eti, �'' ..... _,.f-„1'rP L i . •�' .•.�'_� : .. ; J , _ bid -„}.... . j 7? ..ti yy _. . >. •r M E E K S. �.� f 3 _ � � ' Y - TO NSHIP t' �N4 . L° {, �,� � .. 115�'11,�1... _1 if � � Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC) Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility A Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC [creenlnbuilding coverage ::;. Light Red Outdoor coverage +t Oh JdHN5dhuti _ ,. �r a Ff yy7 . � t y � ci s • ` ,ti. ..ter- - 5I IC e r 4 4 r. roc M c �s��Ty♦ • ., ,y a Y'_ 4 HOLCOMB'El_tylf /�r}'� rJ� �5- iJ Ae�woe ; t t _ - r1fj f :gey �t i t n , tjy `,. (� •�..,' 'i} r^►,..• ! , es -`r7 Jy.�,�n���� �a 1�r� "� �s•Rf "'�"1i.i •�.a,l-^,*y„� iJ't.+V i. Vd4gVg_t��` wa.�r . ..,. -. Yr •• iCMl5CH" '�, tif+��f of r.' ��Tt}lVHP !� s1' 'pr--(. „i C r f. er— Jrs, .tom -;'' ¢- ' i � { ; • l i L +a4'^r, y VZZTEP_ WEn: w , ,: 3 4 _ } } .::.,' 1^ �+ = � • `'� �� 1 * (�j I[� �5++ -�� Jh6 ., rj •-s-.'� �a .-r - • t'�ll �;f 11- '' lf� x +e'�}' m•' •J=4 'i' ,s! , Goo L'a -7/ f -.�• �._ sP i'ws. ' r ,rte`-�> - . i '2 .° +lry ...., ... +.. _ Smith Communications Wireless Communications FacilityR Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC) Single Family Residence within 500 Feet - - &L. .- - : ✓ - it Ik# -- • Vii ,v7rR ivy II - -≥. - S. '-I... A •-+' �* j� i .. ,. Ai. ...ten•, 4k' ,Y i I i . - . M I 1 - : Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC) SITE BOUNDRY SURVEY e L Q y ._ r` •;?- Gr gAve. ROW Veries [iT7T "j' �Q � j ,p se5}�Y m z�vs g� Y��� +a`•v.,�+� nl yr a t I �ls � � ''.a ���k � i� �`�'��{ �b � �c����Z?�{� x':=.y ���, 7- g� t f5k • ��•x x � ,�� 7 q8 ? '�L�L ����;� `'�� §Rm ����'- ��e;:��a� & i y!£' xZ pg"� °t�gy�[ e.r:eed"Yr� ` �1C�'. { { �b�� �$!3 �` 5`�;� car I s �;�_�_�� �d x�5�1� �'`�����?�� rosy: aaef { xyy �����a���ai¢![la {feed rt'k[f{ 1. - i <+t� sof 4 ¢el�Y iza uuL`j .ayy'"� � y'��v �3� a, .1����.t { :� � 7�![ �z� IG} ¢� �H[,,,{w ` a rBf.���a �cg s,�. �# ¢'� ��y6ti �k �`�� � can E¢�G 8������e�;S^ ��� j°a�! {,yl, r x��c. T�•.. j a ° § I ° 3 � � C ��{:S �� arr�. •'ippp� !3• ^ut 7► 6 0� � B yS iG � �,��� " wW C1 -', )Y `i�`? IX:� �'tY 7x4 x�e � � °��� �zG a�qm: F C ¢ Y,��- 5 Z� 'L p �•r:; `.,�-`g+�k yy Er a 7 } pppp P® 1y 1i gg $4$ 1 1 g1 :Ir��af1 1453+�₹� gmEa a��°tY B,el'`s'7 �h'� - iE 5 ilk ue = � x�{_ v g'�`7 �7 it sa a`�f 21 a5 i { k waa s t��SiII�� �� ee� Smith Communications ( ,,J. ) Wireless Communications Facility Washington Regional Medical Center WRMC) SIGHT PLAN 1 I rl r���-a•'� i` i iP '✓ I, �tw ..y...-.�_-..T y... S. a..Y4,ice,+— off •+mss .. '�.� �a w •sw. w -r 1Y. f w , .r Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility @ Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC) LANDSCAPE PLAN(Abb.) 1? deor�• nr.+_aa 4v xr r•I.r -. - ud.ue.e 's Lollm e TIiES C9NOPY.NQ7SS: CwrmUZadng. P-1 RTopocsd(Ne: Cad To.wrSr. Toll S. Arm: 411,542 Sq. Ft / 9.45 Aaas (100%) Ossgn Orel i 301,034 Sq. FL /691 Aare. (73%) E dng Canopy 152024 Sq. FL / 3.49 Acrec (36%) Canopy to be Removed: 2,843 Sq. FL / 0.07 Aaes (0.69%) Canopy to Ramair: 140,181 Sq. FL / 3.42Aa. (36%) NEW TREES FOR SCREENING NOTES: Comm!Zwg' : P-1 Propaced U.. Cal Taeer Sib 7 NEW LOB LOLLY PINE TREES 30 NEW JUMPER BUSHES .,-- alca—.tuaces ;C ..a=�..s.no-..ry••O%&I _u.r�.,avw b liQuti _x.0. LtMQtA'er1:tRG {aJCtl 4II z.u.r.f.P r✓ macs* MMEJe. nt4.c .ra,i xsf: rr..,.vsar�e.afla Jr4Juur a. 1mft.JJrr vnA ftw...�rn+c.aaw..4 ftS lCftasrx.rraw aQasara K4aW1;Awf 1 Je9.6C1K7tft aACw yCNmarelEt4Z ...r L "Cwu ar s.nr'n,.m r.�>+fast--�—C7,�a's1uu •JtLLV •cria= v.rtyeDY,yv 2.r.G.ras ....,_. T.. 1i.111J1{1d PaeJMa J.iiOeJl°RdMI1BOaO M1Ta11i1mJf/OR IIJA+l J.7KJ• L tLL m 1*'4' e'i l ml01 4 M.' fl fl0 .,b.a* . T' -y ,may rtK�9x valS•A'•A... iV3'004 1 tP4NLJIC4 R uwl.eJewsrAas.p•pa,oAAreanr 'vwa .'ve.r. n r++rorre. sa w4."�ruw°ar .arm,°-rerw.�rne.,n. m qJ�r� ftaa[tstM c1t�m r+m RoC4C,ycimllfe+aro 104.1 o�erwa� V�peJ o r.ee nneweeexa7TawaLnerlpwrJ Qr+oln.cr,�o. aee.areOlL r.oe.,wrs�oeAJa.cJx�.nor e:I.Tr.se,rxo,o arse new. TJJ;r ma .aa1m-..e ..wi me ma eTa•J rerto. LWU1*LDAOIRM.r/R.'il.710070. m1t . M.000IO t eAwpWI0�OObLIWLniO0Wml WIeO1Ro,Om,OT.w1C7M 74.• 7eT7C l AMImlnJ]OOI�O'OOemcrOMACImrveaa>•I/�JaIWHmw,.eaa_ .�R0 a1.7 ern......3.m'I 1a..*MA[+S..a mow✓I 14.4.4077 NlN.AIRTJ.OOlL0n_I0.771001O. na ,walaa 7S0. a Ia.bl O M'v71toOMIOI�1llILAIJ..6.J.G\fOY�ll RigAm.Q f.Y.V �CWeI .cJaloJvnrL. nc ..aweofton0AIW11 Lasr.orsQ+e� Il rc i. o�FAna MYARoe IWLIWTm.RllalnC an.101.J0< a. ONRIIe OFM1RJR IRQa!'JOfI.ID aYMIW.M1N!ffN1Y 74. l..ra010 PgC4K 0LCYiNalM 6lA.On/aa M]aOAM TYYIOA.D Q 0 EOI•IOVTJMYL . T. ISHA6�9300eI1KTDi a IO CCDv mlO' eRGmfa.OMUO Ile I W IIIY I Ae'Q rK M14<LL A000iAiJal./laV /R.eO JLM0�1� IOI Ja10 '•RIB 1'Idl II�AMYARLIJVi a:LA])T/IOYM aIYATaYTJ FIIiia N a1NTRTi nIC11AiA*107 lYe1Yf0074 1Mt1 Aza4.tATIOi JIaJT.W7Yt,lOaOagY16 Oq FAT06elPl}Ni OYM6.YA/WlT N TTEE F7/rjTECTfrON J. 0, Smith Communications ( - Wireless Communications Facility Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC) Grading- Plan w ,ti Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC) CURRENT ZONING MAP - coning C-1 R „ RSF-5 - RSF-1 RSF-2 F.SF-4 R-7 �:S F . _;iv '" t5` I RSF-8 - RSF-1E :: D R MF-5 RMF-12 RhAF-?8 RI,IF-24 P-1 RMF-4u UT G-2 DC -mot UT LF r s___ ____ MSC Cs {L NC t PZD R -A P Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC) LAND USE MAP 2030 Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility @Washington Regional Medical Center IWRMC) Efforts to Reduce Visual Impact of the Tower Employment of Stealth Design - Proposed facility will include a 150 Ft. Flagpole type tower. This type of tower has proven its self as an effective balance between functionality of the wireless carriers and practical use of camouflaging techniques lessen visual impact specifically to the surrounding property owners / residence and to the overall community at large Painted white with a matte finish is also a factor in the limiting of the visual aspects. When painted in this manner it produces a "Clean & Finished Look" — Generallya person would notice the structure and then, because of the type of structure and the painted finish, dismiss it. This makes the tower more innocuous so that a person becomes use to its presence much easier that a different style of tower. Screening the facilities base and eauipment Fencing and Landscaping are proposed to help screen the view of persons along the Scull Creek Trail 2. Building Setback Distances • The facility is positioned on the property so that it may take full advantage of distancing its self from major street traffic. The location chosen provides a distance well in excess of the building set backs for a WCF project this zoning district. 3. Compatibility with Current and Future (2030) Surrounding Land Uses • A WCF is is permissible in all zoning districts with a CUP but we feel this or000sed facility is located correctly. A WCF project in this zoning district(P-1) is generally considered favorable and is the same zoning as most City of Fayetteville owned property where WCF development is encouraged to happen. Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC PROPOSED 150 Ft Flagpole type tower Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facilityc WRMC Smith Communications Wireless commun' tifons Facility c WRMC -1, ,fix ,1r "hh''1!*I : ,� . •rim 'I. ..7 _ R ~ +rte r ' ��[$'t �. tlk �XS' '�'�at •t ? ;I 4! al r •' +,n •^•` - -. `✓ _ '?1 1-u , � .err'' i >r �• , .r i:. . ti` .� i:.l e S LIIII\l_1\ —�.�.,�,.__* rr��,rnv,�"� SST E F ____ TJ .: t •' a _ 'rt .. - _1 - -- " ma y yet. ;�., 1. �z L v -, s • •..� .. s - A' — tL •4 `Y w r dy t4�r fr •r - •--;Z. J Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility @ WRMC PHOTO SIMULATIONS -- LOC # 3 ROUNDABOUT - WITH Crane `,. Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility @ WRMC F•, PHOTO SIMULATIONS -- LOC # 3 ROUNDABOUT - NO Crane ,__ v •�,��r A �: Y pia ^� •�� � ,+��f4�. Esc .... F �'4nfr 1 � 1 . '$ -r 3` 4 Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility @ WRMC PHOTO SIMULATIONS -- LOC # 4 GREGG & FULBRIGHT - NO Crane STOP ' - .sue _ s ,,,- PHOTO SIMULATIONS -- LOC # 5 VAN ASH & ROOSEVELT — NO Crane A Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility @ WRMC EXISTING - TOWNSHIP TOWERS (Water Tower — Monopole — Flagpole) r I ` ; � •gyp, � �i �`y �;,. t - � ., _ i- ti;- - . :- I • - � �' .3 '. x� • Y y y•' air ter' t � 4. r r- :. S•' 1T r °•ter, - �1 r � . y, 4l r - is rl�i' :A •'p r. '- $1- I ��y f � � � � ',�'._ v ,. _ r � �, �.7► ']Y ;:;-; ,F.'r• +E " .a'•. , 4 F. .µms, :� "c"'_ . .M1 i" T • Ifs Fr fix.. a^� `t � � t Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility @ WRMC PHOTO SIMULATIONS -- KOHL'S With Crane te " '!y,y- � '(f°5 .:. .2• -• 'y , ., '•F "+ q F " r y t -• iiif. � `-" r- ' 1 , /41rk r,•4 r.r .-` " ,II . �9�r� •rtT r;:t r r �}�irr✓!'₹' i tom '� t r � {' :'!JC"-.' .:...,ri`'�I'=iX°`4',+ • � & L.aFw- zf 4W 1 ` " Its L.. ,. . l ' t�gt� Srnth Communications PHOTO SJMUL T ONS -- KOHL'S °f _y Wireless Communications Facility © 3RRNIC •-- NO Crane �',. ,_ _ :;�_., ,- w-•,,, �•_�s 9- �`, _ -•�� .r�ri �r�¢ �f �'�.f.��*I"�F �"; ray, ���+r!�'r-`.t�.'a C•� � � ^, l .%Ty+ T l .,Y,t. '. .J•r•!.?k .l. ,, , _ i , _ ": , r� ^ s � .. .. x 4� fF f�• ,(i `'r*. Tar y,� ^"'v�.�'#1 k.,,yy.,�; ' t,. r. ''M6 w 1t1 �;;1 ''���d �. �,�¢t,�4�'� •� :� t ,�.� i ,..V. .. ��r� .., _.�. a - - � _ a Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility Washington Regional Medical Center(WRMC) PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET MAP & LIST Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility Cad Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC) 500 FEET BUFFER Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC) PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET PIN OWNER NAME ADDRESS 765-15780-000 765-15886-000 FRISCO RAILROAD <null> 765-15782-000 765-15736-102 765-15881-030 WASHINGTON REGIONAL MEDICAL 1125 N COLLEGE AVE,FAYETTEVILLE 72703 765-15776-000 765-15779-000 765-15881-031 765-15885-010 765-15777-000 ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMM PO BOX 2261, LITTLE ROCK 72203 765-15884-000 1155 PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 4245 FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702 Smith Communications Wireless Communications Facility Washington Regional Medical Center (WRMC) Line of Site Drawings Smith Communications WRMC Facility Line of Site Drawing SOUTH LOOKING NORTH SCALE1* =.0, 150ft, 50ft-30ft t WEST LOOKING EAST -U • GRASS And TREES I z W Smith Communications WRMC FacRity Line of Site Drawing EAST LOOKING WEST SCALE := 1"=40' 150f t. 50ft-30f rte Smith Communications WRMC Facility Line of Site Drawing S[: II I H Le=i[]?<INL NIJR 1 H SCA E 1 , 150f t, 1 Pnct. 90ft, :] ftij 11� 1 y 'II CUP 165558J FUTRALL CELL TOWER Close Up View Subject Property Ii: Legend rI Planning Area ' Fayetteville City Limits Feet Shared Use Paved Trail 0 35 70 140 210 280 _ ' Design Overlay District Building Footprint 1 inch = 100 feet Il'[I1t1 lJ P-1 CUP 16-5558 FUTRALL CELL TOWER One Mile View NORTH 0 0 125 025 0.5 Miles • rte. (-I Subject Property /1 - if tu //////// !FAII-E4 `ll k , DRAKE Zoning EXTRACTION Legend RESIDENTIAL SINOLE-FAMILY MFG --� COMMERCIAL Planning Area ! Fayetteville City Limits ° rT�regaaeeowsrwcnc aL rU •••-•• Shared Use Paved Trail AflltliX ULnFAMILY LVR ��i... •�,MT�,n.i„n, rrrr�r Trail(Proposed) sc'm Design Overlay District - PLANNEDZONING DISTRICTS - — • Planning Area •-"• I i----- •- INDUSTRIAL � - - Building Footprint e INsnrunouaL = Fayetteville City Limits CUP 16-5558 Current Land Use FUTRALL CELL TOWER NORTH �.., ` Subject Property •yjq A" rT It a ■4 r r .. -• �-• f Lrg4nd .wM SlfPain Planned 1nyA CIie4 :VLlfflifi $IfMlF PI' l.°CP"e Feet cc,ktrO, ux�4arsmw.. "•"�" 0 35 70 140 210 280 �GUU�165658 c.i�•Cy Umh I__ID : -'- x r Hospital CITY OF 'ttM1e ARKANSAS Planning Commission - DRAFT MINUTES 16-5558 October 10, 2016 5:30 PM 113 W. Mountain, Room 219 MINUTES Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Ryan Noble, Tom Brown, Leslie Belden, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan. Call to Order: 5:30 PM, Kyle Cook In Attendance: Members: Kyle Cook (Chair), Ron Autry (Vice Chair), Matthew Hoffman (Secretary), Tracy Hoskins, Janet Selby, Tom Brown, Ryan Noble, and Allison Thurmond Quinlan. Absent: Leslie Belden Staff: Andrew Garner, Jonathan Curth, Quin Thompson, Harry Davis, and Corey Granderson City Attorney: Kit Williams Consent Agenda: 1. Approval of the minutes from the September 26, 2016 meeting. 2. ADM 16-5616: Administrative Item (SOUTH OF 3203 N. WARWICK DR./HUNTINGDON APTS., 216): Submitted by COMMUNITY BY DESIGN for property located SOUTH OF 3203 N. WARWICK DR. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER ACRE, and contains approximately 1.13 acres. The request is for an extension to the original approval of LSD 15-5074. Motion: Commissioner Hoffman made a motion to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Quinlan seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 8-0-0. Mailing Address: 113 W. Mountain Street www.fayetteville-ar.gov Fayetteville, AR 72701 Old Business: 3. CUP 16-5558: Conditional Use (3250 N. FUTRALL DR./FUTRALL DR. CELL TOWER, 211): Submitted by SMITH COMMUNICATIONS, INC. for property located at 3250 N. FUTRALL DR. The property is zoned P-1, INSTITUTIONAL and contains approximately 5.56 acres. The request is for a wireless communication facility. Harry Davis, Planner: Read the staff report. David Reynolds, Applicant: Thanks the Planning Commission for tabling the item at the last meeting. Since the last meeting, Smith Two-way has contacted WRMC and asked them to provide more information about the need for a cell tower on their campus. Reynolds has also been in contact with an engineer associated with Verizon and how a tower lower than 145 feet would not be suitable for this location and will cause Verizon to walk away from the development. Reynolds then shows maps that indicate the penetration levels of cellular service at various heights. He then explains the difference between coverage and capacity and how it has changed over time. Today's coverage has voice and data over the same transmission. With current technology, cell service must be located in the areas where people are. Public Comment: No public comment. Matthew Hoffman, Commissioner: Asks applicant if the areas that are not covered by the proposed tower are covered by other existing towers. Reynolds: Answers yes, but explains how the towers would work together to manage groups of people at various places within the city. Some of the existing towers have capacity and coverage problems and this tower would help solve them. Hoffman: Explains that a redundant system would not be a good argument for this cell tower and how there are more places where the proposed tower overlaps with other towers than spaces that are not overlapped. Reynolds: Re -explains how this would help with capacity coverage issues. Ron Autry, Commissioner: Begins by explaining his past professional work with wireless communications. Autry understands how data and voice have now been combined into one transmission from cell towers. He goes into a few different examples from across the United States about the difference between coverage versus capacity and how most examples have gone against the argument of capacity and coverage are the same and how more cell towers are needed to provide more coverage. He discusses how this proposed tower would not increase the area coverage for the area versus existing towers. Autry also discusses his knowledge about how cell coverage works in relation to trees and buildings. He asks Reynolds if this cell tower would penetrate 100% of the building. Reynolds: Answers yes, except the areas that are not fully covered are under another internal wireless system to be done as a separate project within the building. Autry: Provides further information about cell service in the hospital. He also goes into different stories about using smaller towers and services that would be better with a smaller impact on the landscape but have the same effect. Reynolds: Explains how the Razorback stadium is setup up with many smaller antennas that provide the same service. The proposed site and area for the proposed cell tower does not have the same characteristics that a stadium has and therefore needs a cell tower rather than the smaller and more numerous systems. Autry: Rejects the argument that a smaller system could not be used and how these systems are getting more and more attainable as time goes by. Hoskins: Asks if cell service is line -of -sight. Reynolds: Answers not exactly, as you will get better service if you can see a tower, but you can get signal in this room. The higher the frequency, the better the service. Hoskins: Asks if the smaller the tower, the more there would need to be. Reynolds: Answers yes and explains further. Hoskins: Asks if the gap between the circles on the map is a dead zone. Reynolds: Explains how it isn't an exact diagram of coverage, but is a basic geographical distance between towers. Hoskins: Asks if the main issue here is coverage. Reynolds: Explains further coverage and capacity and how they are intertwined. Hoskins: States that he was interested in the story about the stadium and will support one large tower rather than several smaller towers. Autry: States that he does not have any connectivity issues in this area under Verizon service. He explains how this system is incredibly complex and how this proposed tower affects the area. Autry then goes into paging and how that works within the hospital. Tom Brown, Commissioner: Asks if the pink area is what will get coverage on the map. Reynolds: Answers yes. Brown: Asks more about this location and if the power can be boosted in the existing towers_ Reynolds: Explains the location and how the power cannot be increased. He also goes into the other locations considered for this tower. Allison Quinlan, Commissioner: Reiterates the pink area purpose and to compare the maps, ending by explaining her position. Hoffman: Concurs with Quinlan. Hoskins: Asks about a 120 foot tall tower now and if another would be built later. Reynolds: States the project before you would die and that a cell tower would be proposed at a different location. Hoskins: Asks if a cell tower at 150 feet would be approved now, would Reynolds come back to ask for another tower in the area. Reynolds: Answers no. Janet Selby, Commissioner: Surmises that a bigger tower would be better than two smaller ones. Quinlan: States that the areas that are said to be helped by this tower are not within the most improved area. Hoffman: Argues that the pink area would be serviced by the smaller tower. Autry: Argues that he cannot see an end to more proposals for cell towers regardless of height in the area. Hoskins: Argues that the larger tower would off-load data pull from other towers. Reynolds: Agrees and says that co -location would also be a huge benefit for this area in conjunction with a cell tower. Hoskins: States that the larger cell tower would be better rather than several smaller ones. Kit Williams, City Attorney: Explains that a new statute would allow for a Certificate of Need to be provided by cell providers that would allow said providers to develop without Planning Commission approval to be built in City right-of-way. The cell tower is considered a utility and therefore protected more by the state and Federal governments. He argues this proposal may protect us from more towers in the future in this area due to increased coverage, but it is not certain. Due to an absent Commissioner, votes against the cell tower would need to be well - made. Williams agrees with Hoskins' interpretation of this proposal. Williams then briefs the Commission briefly about some changes to cell towers that may happen in the future. Kyle Cook, Commission Chair: States that he does not have a problem with a few smaller towers. Autry: States that more cell towers will be made in Fayetteville in places like Rupple Road. Motion to approve by Hoskins, seconded by Selby. Hoffman: Due to preserving skyline and landscape of Fayetteville and this being a gateway, votes against the proposal. Quinlan: Due to existing coverage, votes against the proposal. Noble: Votes in favor of the proposal. Selby: Votes in favor of the proposal. Autry: Due to technology, Fayetteville gateway, and preserving the skyline, votes against the proposal. Hoskins: Votes in favor of the proposal. Brown: Votes in favor of the proposal. Cook: Due to a smaller tower being more preferable, votes against the proposal. Motion fails. Williams: Asks the applicant if they would want to be tabled and be heard when all Commissioners are present. Hoskins motions to approve the project at 135 feet, seconded by Selby. Hoffman: Asks if Hoskins would change to 120 feet. Hoskins: Answers no. Result_the same, motion fails. Quinlan motions to approve at 120 feet, seconded byBrown. Motion gasses only Cook dissenting. Motion #1: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve CUP 16-5558. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion for a 150' tower failed with a vote of 4-4-0. Commissioners Hoffman, Quinlan, Autry, and Cook voted no'. Motion #2: Commissioner Hoskins made a motion to approve CUP 16-5558. Commissioner Selby seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion for a 135' tower failed with a vote of 4-4-0. Commissioners Hoffman, Quinlan, Autry, and Cook voted 'no'. Motion #3: Commissioner Quinlan made a motion to approve CUP 16-5558 with all conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion for a 120' tower passed with a vote of 7-1-0. Commissioner Cook voted 'no'.