Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportstL w4t D~ STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS No. 2 Project: BORISKIE TOWER (CUP)-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (0-193) PLANNING 1. No comments. Reviewed by' MOLLY HITCHCOCK ENGINEERING 1. No comments. Reviewed by: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr Date: November 8, 2000 Date: November 8, 2000 NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City will constitute a completely new review. Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 1 STAFF REVIEW COMMENTS No. 1 Project: BORISKIE TOWER (CUP)-CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (0-193) PLANNING 1. Please include a north arrow with the key map. 2. Some of the property lines shown on the site plan are not platted. Please clarify from where the parent tract dimensions are derived. 3. Please call out the size of the access and utility easement by the tower site. 4. Please call out the abutting Wolf Pen Creek. 5. Please clarify in the General Notes that a portion of the property does lie within the 100-year floodplain, but that the fenced tower site does not. 6. Please show the leased tower site in greater detail (locations of the existing and proposed buildings, fence and gate description, etc.) 7. Please include a note that the tower shall maintain a flat finish or that it will be painted in accordance with any applicable standards of the FAA. Reviewed by Molly Hitchcock Date: October 25, 2000 ENGINEERING 1. There are no adverse effects with regard to the floodplain. The existing ground conditions will not be affected. Reviewed by: Thomas V. Vennochi Jr. Date: October 24, 2000 NOTE: Any changes made to the plans, that have not been requested by the City of College Station, must be explained in your next transmittal letter and "bubbled" on your plans. Any additional changes on these plans that have not been pointed out to the City will constitute a completely new review. Staff Review Comments Page 1 of 2 result in decreased city maintenance costs. The variance to the 50-foot right-of-way requirement is being requested for a portion of the proposed public street (Townplace Drive), where there is a curve in the property line when the street nears the cul-de-sac. This variance would enable the right-of-way to remain parallel to the remainder of the property line a portion of the proposed right-of-way is less that the required 50 feet (the minimum right-of-way width is 48.56 feet). Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat (with staff review comments) and with the requested variance to the public water line requirement. Ms. McCully said that staff would be reluctant to recommend approval of the variance request for the right-of-way because it does not show any public benefit and the variance could potentially cause some confusion in the future perhaps with the surveying of the property. Commissioner Warren asked if there was concern with emergency access if the neck of the cul-de-sac was narrowed. Ms. McCully responded that this would not be of concern because the pavement width would remain the same, the right-of-way would be the only difference. Transportation Planner Hard explained that there would be no utilities included in the questioned section of right-of-way, therefore there would be not public safety concerns at this time. He saw no proof of hardship that would constitute a variance, and he believed that slight redesign would allow for the required right-of-way. Ms. Debbie Keating, Project Engineer (Urban Design Group) explained that she was representing the owner (Blake Cathey). She said that the majority of the property line between the subject property and the commercial tract is a straight line, but as it approaches near the cul-de-sac there is a slight curve in the line that begins. The right-of-way was laid out to be parallel with the majority of the common property line. There will be an uneven 50' right-of-way any way it is designed. It would either be parallel with the common property line or a little more than 50' to make it 50' away from the curb. Benito Flores-Meath, 901 Val Verde, asked the Commission if there would still be a barrier to eliminate the availability to cut through the cul-de-sac to access Holleman. The Commission said that this was still shown on the plat. Commissioner Horlen moved to approve the preliminary plat with all staff comments and approve the variance of the water line, but not approve the variance to the right-of-way requirements. Commissioner Floyd seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF, transmission tower) to be located at 24-1 State Highway 6 (just south of the golf academy. (99-722) Senior Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the proposed tower location is on an 11.91 acre tract at 2401 State Highway 6, just south of the golf academy. The parent tract is unplatted and undeveloped except for an existing oil well. The proposed 100' high tower will be located on the northeaster side of the tract. The property is currently zoned A-O (Agricultural-Open). It is adjacent to A-O on three sides and R-1 Single Family to the far south. The nearest developed residential property is more than 1000' from the proposed tower site. The Land Use Plan shows mixed use in this area. Major WTF's are allowed in this zoning district with a conditional use permit. This is the first WTF to request a use permit since the new telecommunications ordinance was adopted in December 1997. The P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 7 of 12 ordinance is designed to minimize the impact of these facilities on adjacent properties and the community and includes height limitations, aesthetic standards and additional setbacks for residential areas, major thoroughfares, and other commercial towers. The ordinance also requires a larger notification area of 500' from the parent tract. The applicant is also requesting the use of a mobile cell tower at this location until the permanent tower can be constructed. In addition to the standard guidelines for Conditional Use Permit's (from Section 14 and described below), the following additional factors shall be considered by the Commission when determining whether to grant a use permit for a telecommunications facility: a. height of the proposed tower, surrounding topography and surrounding tree coverage and foliage as they relate to: (1) skyline impact, examining whether the proportions of the structure appears to dominate or blend in with the surrounding environment. (2) shadow impact, whether or not the proposed tower will cast shadows that would prevent the reasonable use of enjoyment of surrounding properties b. design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing of eliminating visual obtrusiveness. c. proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries. d. economic impact on adjacent and nearby properties. e. proposed ingress and egress. f. availability of suitable alternatives and/or existing support structures. Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the existence of conditional uses. The Commission may permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when after public notice and hearing the Commission finds that: (Staff comments are in italics) 1. "The proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the ordinance for the type of use proposed." This use meets all of the minimum ordinance requirements. 2. "That the proposed use meets the purpose and intent of the ordinance and is in harmony with the development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan for Development of the City." This use is in line with the Land Use Plan. 3. "That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring property." The public hearing is an opportunity for the Commission to measure the potential impact on surrounding land uses. "The Commission may impose additional reasonable restrictions or conditions to carry out the spirit and intent of the ordinance and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use. These requirements may include, but are not limited to, increased open space, loading and parking requirements, additional landscaping, and additional improvements such as curbing, sidewalks and screening." Unless the public hearing brings to light any new information indicating potential negative impacts, Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: A mobile cell tower, no taller than the one approved, be allowed to operate at this location for not longer than 60 days while the permanent tower is constructed. Commissioner Kaiser asked if there was a policy to unify multiple users for each tower. Mr. Battle explained that the ordinance does encourage co-location (multiple antennas on each tower), although this would not meet the needs of every service provider in all situations. Most of the current towers MZ Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 8 of 12 within College Station now have two or more antennas on them. The City also requires that all new towers have the ability to hold additional antennas to encourage the co-location. Commissioner Warren asked why this was encouraged and not required. Mr. Battle said that it is not required because of the technical aspects. There is a required separation between towers, which helps encourage co-location. There is also the provision for stealth design towers, which are towers that in a hidden design (such as a flag pole, etc.). Commissioner Kaiser asked if its staff's policy to help applicants locate existing towers or possible tower sites to suit their needs. Mr. Battle said that there is technical expertise needed to determine towers uses and locations, and the city does not have the appropriate staff to determine this. The applicants usually inform staff of a target area to meet their needs. Staff does require the applicant to provide reasons why co-location was not considered. Acting Chairman Mooney asked for the distance between the existing tower behind Raintree and this proposed tower site. Mr. Battle said that the ordinance states 3500' distance between towers, but the existing tower in question is owned by the City of College Station and holds the equipment for police and fire communications and the ordinance does not apply to "public safety facilities". Commissioner Kaiser asked if co-location could utilized on a City owned tower (like the one in question). Mr. Battle said that this was an option and discussion was held between the applicant and the City's Communication's Department, and there seemed to be conflict with either the structure of the tower (the ability to hold additional equipment) or technical conflicts. Commissioner Floyd asked if there were any zoning classifications that would not be appropriate. Mr. Battle said that major WTF's are not allowed in residential areas or some of the special districts. Acting Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. George Crain, 1110 Klamath Lane (Houston), was present on behalf of SprintCom, Inc. He explained that the design engineers at Sprint find an area where there is a need for another tower. Their first choice is to look for an existing tower in the area of need so they could co-locate. The search area for this tower fell on the proposed property and across Highway 6. They did not want to put a tower in the Wolf Pen Creek area or the mall area. They contacted the City regarding co-location with the public safety tower and the process began to see if the existing tower would hold both the city's equipment and the proposed new equipment. A structural engineer analysis was performed on the existing tower and found that the tower would not hold the existing equipment (with the possibility for expansion equipment for the City) and the equipment Sprint was proposing. They determined that the raw land site would be the most feasible for the applicant. He said that a letter was included with the application, which stated that Sprint would build any tower suitable for co-location (this is Sprint policy). Mike Brogen, 1308 Frenchman's Drive (DeSota, Texas) explained that he is the regional Sprint Site Development Manager. He explained that traffic usage drives the location of the search range for the towers. Post Oak Mall was not interested because it would take too many of the parking spaces. Arthur Bright, 7701 Sherman Court, explained that he is not opposed to or in favor of this tower because he would see this tower in his back yard. He asked for clarification of what the Conditional Use Permit process is. Mr. Battle explained that conditional use permit process pertaining to WTF P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 9 of 12 towers. Mr. Bright also asked if this land was purchased by Sprint or if it would be leased to them. Mr. Battle explained that the tower would operate on a small portion of the larger tract and the property would be leased to Sprint. Charles Hamilton, 7714 Appomattox, expressed his concern with this tract for the availability for future development. He is not opposed to the tower but had concern with the possibility of this tower holding back possible future residential developments and force commercial, since towers cannot exist in residential zoning districts. Commissioner Kaiser said that this was a good point since during the Raintree rezoning request previously it seemed that the residents of Raintree were in support of residential development in this area. Commissioner Floyd felt that this would be considered reverse order. He believed that if the property was currently zoned single family, then the tower would not be considered, but since the tower would be pre-existing single family could still be considered. Judy Galey, 2601 Brookway Cr., approached the Commission with questions regarding the tower height in comparison to the existing city tower. Mr. Crain said that the existing city tower is 325 feet high and the proposed tower would be 100 feet. Ms. Galey asked how much higher the tower would be compared to the oil pumps that would be near the proposed tower. Mr. Crain that he measured the tree that was shown in one of the photos near where the tower would be and it is 50 feet in height. Acting Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Parker moved to approve the conditional use permit with the condition that the mobile cell tower, not taller than the one approved, be allowed to operate at this location for no longer than 60 days while the permanent tower is constructed. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0). AGENDA ITEM NO. 9: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit, use only, for First United Methodist Church to be located on the east side of Wellborn Road, between Rock Prairie and Mortier Roads. (99-725) Staff Planner Jimmerson presented the staff report and stated that the proposed church would be developed on approximately 3.334 acres. The building is intended to be used weekdays and weekends during the day and evenings for various church related activities. The property is currently zoned C-3 Planned Commercial. It is adjacent to C-3 to the north on Wellborn Road, C-2 to the south on Wellborn Road, and R-I to the east. The Land Use Plan shows this area as Retail Regional. Religious facilities are allowed in any zoning district with a conditional use permit. The site plan will need to return to the Commission for approval before proceeding with building permits. The applicant is aware that the Commission may impose additional site restrictions and requirements, in addition to the conditions of the rezoning, to mitigate impacts of the use, when the site comes before the Commission. She commented that there was one response from the neighborhood and they believed that this would complement the Edelweiss Subdivision. There were also two other church use permits approved for this area. Staff recommended approval of this use permit. P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 10 of 12 STAFF REPORT Item: Public hearing and consideration of a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT and SITE PLAN for the extension of the BORISKIE TOWER (CUP), a Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF, transmission tower) located at 2401 HWY 6. (0-193) Applicant: BORISKIE PARTNERSHIP Item Summary: On the Earl Rudder Freeway frontage road there is an existing 100 ft. tower on the 11.91-acre tract between the Lone Star Golf Academy and the Raintree Subdivision. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to increase the size of this tower 50 feet so additional antennas may be co-located on the tower. The resulting height would be 150 ft., the maximum height allowed for a major WTF within the city limits. The property is currently zoned A-O Agricultural Open. It is unplatted and undeveloped except for an oil well. It is adjacent to A-O on three sides and R-1 to the far south. The nearest developed residential property is more than 1000 ft. from the tower site. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan and the East Bypass Study show this area to be Mixed Use. Earl Rudder Freeway is classified as a Freeway and Expressway on the Thoroughfare Plan. Item Background: The original Conditional Use Permit for this tower was granted in October 1999. The ordinance regarding WTF's is designed to minimize the impact of these facilities on adjacent properties and the community. Regulations include height limitations, aesthetic standards, and additional setbacks for residential areas, major thoroughfares, and other commercial towers. The ordinance also requires a larger notification area of 500 ft. from the parent tract. Staff Recommendations: In addition to the standard CUP guidelines (described below), the Commission shall consider the following additional factors when determining whether to grant a CUP for a telecommunication facility: 1. height of the proposed tower, surrounding topography and surrounding tress coverage and foliage as they relate to: a. skyline impact, examining whether the proportions of the structure appears to dominate or blend in with the surrounding environment and b. shadow impact, whether or not the proposed tower will cast shadows that would prevent the reasonable use of enjoyment or surrounding properties. 2. design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness. 3. proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries. 4. economic impact on adjacent and nearby properties. 5. proposed ingress and egress. 6. availability of suitable alternatives and/or existing support structures. Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the existence of conditional uses. The Commission may permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when after public notice and hearing the Commission finds that: (Staff comments are in italics) 1. "The proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the ordinance for the type of use proposed." Staff conducted a technical review and found general compliance with development regulations with the exception of the items listed below in the staff recommendation. 2. "That the proposed use meets the purposed and intent of the ordinance and is in harmony with the development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan for Development of the City. The request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. "That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring property." The public hearing is an opportunity for the Commission to measure the potential impact on surrounding land uses. The Commission may impose additional reasonable restrictions or conditions to carry out the spirit and intent of the ordinance and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use. These requirements may include, but are not limited to, increased open space, loading and parking requirements, additional landscaping, and additional improvements such as curbing, sidewalks and screening." Unless the public hearing bring to light any new information indicating potential negative impacts, Staff recommends approval. Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the Conditional Use Permit and associated site plan. The options regarding the use permit are: 2 1. Approval as submitted; 2. Approval with conditions relating to specific site characteristics or with time limitations; 3. Denial with specified reasons for denial; 4. Table; or, 5. Defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Infrastructure and Facilities 4. Copy of Site Plan 5. Copy of Visual Impact Analysis Photographs 6. Copy of minutes from the October 21, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Streets: Access is taken from Highway 6 through a private access easement and gravel drive. Flood Plain: None on site. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 11-22-00 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 12-7-00 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 500': 21 Response Received: None as of date of staff report. 3 41111111..1. 41.1.1111.111011.1111 EMOOMMill■e• STAFF REPORT Item: Public hearing and consideration of a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT and SITE PLAN for the BORISKIE TOWER (CUP), a Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF, transmission tower) located at 2401 HWY 6. (0 -193) Applicant: BORISKIE PARTNERSHIP Item Summary: On the Earl Rudder Freeway frontage road there is an existing 80 ft. tower on the 11.91 -acre tract between the Lone Star Golf Academy and the Raintree Subdivision. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to increase the size of this tower 70 feet so additional antennas may be co- located on the tower. The resulting height would be 150 ft., the maximum height allowed for a major WTF within the city limits. The property is currently zoned A -O Agricultural Open. It is unplatted and undeveloped except for an oil well. It is adjacent to A� -0 on three sides and R -1 to the far south. The nearest developed residential pfoperty is more than 1000 ft. from the tower site.�� - Comprehensive Plan Considerations: , . ( Bypass Study s how this area fo be Mxed Use. Yp Y • The Land Use Plan and the East B Earl Rudder Freeway is classified as a Freeway and Expressway on the Thoroughfare Plan. Item Background: The original Conditional Use Permit for this tower was granted in October 1999 for 100 ft, though the tower was only built to 80 ft. The ordinance regarding WTF's is designed to minimize the impact of these facilities on adjacent properties and the community. Regulations include height limitations, aesthetic standards, and additional setbacks for residential areas, major thoroughfares, and other commercial towers. The ordinance also requires a larger notification area of 500 ft. from the parent tract. Staff Recommendations: In addition to the standard CUP guidelines (described below), the Commission shall consider the following additional factors when determining whether to grant a CUP for a telecommunication facility: 1. height of the proposed tower, surrounding topography and surrounding tress coverage and foliage as they relate to: a. skyline impact, examining whether the proportions of the structure appears to dominate or blend in with the surrounding environment and b. shadow impact, whether or not the proposed tower will cast shadows that would prevent the reasonable use of enjoyment p(surrounding properties. S Created on 10/27/00 2:18 PM ``�� 1 Catalogl 2. design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness. 3. proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries. 4. economic impact on adjacent and nearby properties. 5. proposed ingress and egress. 6. availability of suitable alternatives and /or existing support structures. Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the existence of conditional uses. The Commission may permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when after public notice and hearing the Commission finds that: (Staff comments are in italics) 7. "The proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the ordinance for the type of use proposed." Staff conducted a technical review and found general compliance with development regulations with the exception of the items listed below in the staff recommendation. 8. "That the proposed use meets the purpose and intent of the ordinance and is in harmony with the development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan for Development of the City. The request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 9. "That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring property." The public hearing is an opportunity for the Commission to measure the potential impact on surrounding land uses. The Commission may impose additional reasonable restrictions or conditions to carry out the spirit and intent of the ordinance and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use. These requirements may include, but are not limited to, increased open space, loading and parking requirements, additional landscaping, and additional improvements such as curbing, sidewalks and screening." Unless the public hearing brinb?to light any new information indicating potential negative impacts, Staff recommends approval with Staff Review Comments. Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the Conditional Use Permit and associated site plan. The options regarding the use permit are: 1. Approval as submitted; Created on 10/27/00 2:18 PM 2 Catalogl 1 IG v 2. Approval with conditions relating to specific site characteristics or with time limitations; 3. Denial with specified reasons for denial; 4. Table; or, 5. Defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Infrastructure and Facilities 4. Copy of Site Plan 5. Copy of minutes from the October 21, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Streets: Access is taken from Highway 6 through a private access easement and gravel drive. Flood Plain: None on site. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 11 -xx -00 Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 11 -16 -00 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 500': xx Response Received: None as of date of staff report. Created on 10/27/00 2:18 PM 3 Catalogl STAFF REPORT Item: Public hearing and consideration of a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT and SITE PLAN for the extension of the BORISKIE TOWER (CUP), a Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF, transmission tower) located at 2401 HWY 6. (0 -193) Applicant: BORISKIE PARTNERSHIP Item Summary: On the Earl Rudder Freeway frontage road there is an existing 80 ft. tower on the 11.91 -acre tract between the Lone Star Golf Academy and the Raintree Subdivision. The applicants are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to increase the size of this tower 70 feet so additional antennas may be co- located on the tower. The resulting height would be 150 ft., the maximum height allowed for a major WTF within the city limits. The property is currently zoned A -O Agricultural Open. It is unplatted and undeveloped except for an oil well. It is adjacent to A -O on three sides and R -1 to the far south. The nearest developed residential property is more than 1000 ft. from the tower site. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The Land Use Plan and the East Bypass Study show this area to be Mixed Use. Earl Rudder Freeway is classified as a Freeway and Expressway on the Thoroughfare Plan. Item Background: The original Conditional Use Permit for this tower was granted in October 1999 for 100 ft, though the tower was only built to 80 ft. The ordinance regarding WTF's is designed to minimize the impact of these facilities on adjacent properties and the community. Regulations include height limitations, aesthetic standards, and additional setbacks for residential areas, major thoroughfares, and other commercial towers. The ordinance also requires a larger notification area of 500 ft. from the parent tract. Staff Recommendations: In addition to the standard CUP guidelines (described below), the Commission shall consider the following additional factors when determining whether to grant a CUP for a telecommunication facility: 1. height of the proposed tower, surrounding topography and surrounding tress coverage and foliage as they relate to: a. skyline impact, examining whether the proportions of the structure appears to dominate or blend in with the surrounding environment and b. shadow impact, whether or not the proposed tower will cast shadows that would prevent the reasonable use of enjoyment or surrounding properties. 1 2. design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness. 3. proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries. 4. economic impact on adjacent and nearby properties. 5. proposed ingress and egress. 6. availability of suitable alternatives and /or existing support structures. Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the existence of conditional uses. The Commission may permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when after public notice and hearing the Commission finds that: (Staff comments are in italics) 7. "The proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the ordinance for the type of use proposed." Staff conducted a technical review and found general compliance with development regulations with the exception of the items listed below in the staff recommendation. 8. "That the proposed use meets the purposed and intent of the ordinance and is in harmony with the development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan for Development of the City. The request is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 9. "That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring property." The public hearing is an opportunity for the Commission to measure the potential impact on surrounding land uses. The Commission may impose additional reasonable restrictions or conditions to carry out the spirit and intent of the ordinance and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use. These requirements may include, but are not limited to, increased open space, loading and parking requirements, additional landscaping, and additional improvements such as curbing, sidewalks and screening." Unless the public hearing bring to light any new information indicating potential negative impacts, Staff recommends approval with Staff Review Comments. Commission Action Options: The Commission has final authority over the Conditional Use Permit and associated site plan. The options regarding the use permit are: 1. Approval as submitted; 2. Approval with conditions relating to specific site characteristics or with time limitations; 3. Denial with specified reasons for denial; 2 4. Table; or, 5. Defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Infrastructure and Facilities 4. Visual Impact Analysis photographs 5. Copy of Site Plan 6. Copy of minutes from the October 21, 1999 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES Streets: Access is taken from Highway 6 through a private access easement and gravel drive. Flood Plain: None on site. NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s): The Eagle; 11 -xx O Advertised Commission Hearing Dates(s): 11 -16 -00 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 500': xx Response Received: None as of date of staff report. 3 J01 MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS October 21, 1999 6:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM NO. 8: Public hearing and consideration of a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for a Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF, transmission tower) to be located at 24-1 State Highway 6 (just south of the golf academy. (99-722) Senior Planner Battle presented the staff report and stated that the proposed tower location is on an 11.91 acre tract at 2401 State Highway 6, just south of the golf academy. The parent tract is unplatted and undeveloped except for an existing oil well. The proposed 100' high tower will be located on the northeaster side of the tract. The property is currently zoned A-O (Agricultural-Open). It is adjacent to A-O on three sides and R-1 Single Family to the far south. The nearest developed residential property is more than 1000' from the proposed tower site. The Land Use Plan shows mixed use in this area. Major WTF's are allowed in this zoning district with a conditional use permit. This is the first WTF to request a use permit since the new telecommunications ordinance was adopted in December 1997. The ordinance is designed to minimize the impact of these facilities on adjacent properties and the community and includes height limitations, aesthetic standards and additional setbacks for residential areas, major thoroughfares, and other commercial towers. The ordinance also requires a larger notification area of 500' from the parent tract. The applicant is also requesting the use of a mobile cell tower at this location until the permanent tower can be constructed. In addition to the standard guidelines for Conditional Use Permit's (from Section 14 and described below), the following additional factors shall be considered by the Commission when determining whether to grant a use permit for a telecommunications facility: reducing of eliminating visual obtrusiveness. c. proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries. d. economic impact on adjacent and nearby properties. e. proposed ingress and egress. f. availability of suitable alternatives and/or existing support structures. a. height of the proposed tower, surrounding topography and surrounding tree coverage and foliage as they relate to: (1) skyline impact, examining whether the proportions of the structure appears to dominate or blend in with the surrounding environment. (2) shadow impact, whether or not the proposed tower will cast shadows that would prevent the reasonable use of enjoyment of surrounding properties b. design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of Section 14 of the Zoning Ordinance authorizes the existence of conditional uses. The Commission may permit a conditional use subject to appropriate conditions and safeguards, when after public notice and hearing the Commission finds that: (Staff comments are in italics) P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 1 of 12 I . "The proposed use meets all the minimum standards established in the ordinance for the type of use proposed." This use meets all of the minimum ordinance requirements. 2. "That the proposed use meets the purpose and intent of the ordinance and is in harmony with the development policies and goals and objectives as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan for Development of the City." This use is in line with the Land Use Plan. 3. "That the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, welfare, and safety of the surrounding neighborhood or its occupants, nor be substantially or permanently injurious to neighboring property." The public hearing is an opportunity for the Commission to measure the potential impact on surrounding land uses. "The Commission may impose additional reasonable restrictions or conditions to carry out the spirit and intent of the ordinance and to mitigate adverse effects of the proposed use. These requirements may include, but are not limited to, increased open space, loading and parking requirements, additional landscaping, and additional improvements such as curbing, sidewalks and screening." Unless the public hearing brings to light any new information indicating potential negative impacts, Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: A mobile cell tower, no taller than the one approved, be allowed to operate at this location for not longer than 60 days while the permanent tower is constructed. Commissioner Kaiser asked if there was a policy to unify multiple users for each tower. Mr. Battle explained that the ordinance does encourage co-location (multiple antennas on each tower), although this would not meet the needs of every service provider in all situations. Most of the current towers within College Station now have two or more antennas on them. The City also requires that all new towers have the ability to hold additional antennas to encourage the co-location. Commissioner Warren asked why this was encouraged and not required. Mr. Battle said that it is not required because of the technical aspects. There is a required separation between towers, which helps encourage co-location. There is also the provision for stealth design towers, which are towers that in a hidden design (such as a flag pole, etc.). Commissioner Kaiser asked if its staff's policy to help applicants locate existing towers or possible tower sites to suit their needs. Mr. Battle said that there is technical expertise needed to determine towers uses and locations, and the city does not have the appropriate staff to determine this. The applicants usually inform staff of a target area to meet their needs. Staff does require the applicant to provide reasons why co-location was not considered. Acting Chairman Mooney asked for the distance between the existing tower behind Raintree and this proposed tower site. Mr. Battle said that the ordinance states 3500' distance between towers, but the existing tower in question is owned by the City of College Station and holds the equipment for police and fire communications and the ordinance does not apply to "public safety facilities". Commissioner Kaiser asked if co-location could utilized on a City owned tower (like the one in question). Mr. Battle said that this was an option and discussion was held between the applicant and the City's Communication's Department, and there seemed to be conflict with either the structure of the tower (the ability to hold additional equipment) or technical conflicts. Commissioner Floyd asked if there were any zoning classifications that would not be appropriate. Mr. Battle said that major WTF's are not allowed in residential areas or some of the special districts. P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 2 of 12 Acting Chairman Mooney opened the public hearing. George Crain, 1110 Klamath Lane (Houston), was present on behalf of SprintCom, Inc. He explained that the design engineers at Sprint find an area where there is a need for another tower. Their first choice is to look for an existing tower in the area of need so they could co-locate. The search area for this tower fell on the proposed property and across Highway 6. They did not want to put a tower in the Wolf Pen Creek area or the mall area. They contacted the City regarding co-location with the public safety tower and the process began to see if the existing tower would hold both the city's equipment and the proposed new equipment. A structural engineer analysis was performed on the existing tower and found that the tower would not hold the existing equipment (with the possibility for expansion equipment for the City) and the equipment Sprint was proposing. They determined that the raw land site would be the most feasible for the applicant. He said that a letter was included with the application, which stated that Sprint would build any tower suitable for co-location (this is Sprint policy). Mike Brogen, 1308 Frenchman's Drive (DeSota, Texas) explained that he is the regional Sprint Site Development Manager. He explained that traffic usage drives the location of the search range for the towers. Post Oak Mall was not interested because it would take too many of the parking spaces. Arthur Bright, 7701 Sherman Court, explained that he is not opposed to or in favor of this tower because he would see this tower in his back yard. He asked for clarification of what the Conditional Use Permit process is. Mr. Battle explained that conditional use permit process pertaining to WTF towers. Mr. Bright also asked if this land was purchased by Sprint or if it would be leased to them. Mr. Battle explained that the tower would operate on a small portion of the larger tract and the property would be leased to Sprint. Charles Hamilton, 7714 Appomattox, expressed his concern with this tract for the availability for future development. He is not opposed to the tower but had concern with the possibility of this tower holding back possible future residential developments and force commercial, since towers cannot exist in residential zoning districts. Commissioner Kaiser said that this was a good point since during the Raintree rezoning request previously it seemed that the residents of Raintree were in support of residential development in this area. Commissioner Floyd felt that this would be considered reverse order. He believed that if the property was currently zoned single family, then the tower would not be considered, but since the tower would be pre-existing single family could still be considered. Judy Galey, 2601 Brockway Cr., approached the Commission with questions regarding the tower height in comparison to the existing city tower. Mr. Crain said that the existing city tower is 325 feet high and the proposed tower would be 100 feet. Ms. Galey asked how much higher the tower would be compared to the oil pumps that would be near the proposed tower. Mr. Crain that he measured the tree that was shown in one of the photos near where the tower would be and it is 50 feet in height. Acting Chairman Mooney closed the public hearing. Commissioner Parker moved to approve the conditional use permit with the condition that the mobile cell tower, not taller than the one approved, be allowed to operate at this location for no longer than 60 days while the permanent tower is constructed. Commissioner Kaiser seconded the motion, which passed unopposed (6-0). P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 3 of 12 P&Z Minutes October 21, 1999 Page 4 of 12