The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report STAFF REPORT Project Manager: Jennifer Reeves Date: 03 -23 -04 Email: jreeves @cstx.gov Item: Public hearing, discussion, and possible action on a Conditional Use Permit - Use & Site for the Wright StealthTelecommunications Tower consisting of approximatly 3.175 acres located on the north side of Krenek Tap Road just east of Dartmouth Drive.. Applicant: Mike Crain (Market Director), Fossil Creek Land Company Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the Conditional Use Permit as submitted. Item Summary: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a stealth telecommunications tower designed as an (80) eighty -foot flag pole. Staff is unable to support the proposed stealth design with the property in its current context. The subject property is developed with a single family home. Staff encouraged the applicant to propose some alternative designs that would fit in more with the surrounding environment. Comprehensive Plan Considerations: The subject property and surrounding properties are shown on the Land Use Plan as Single Family Medium Density, with the property to the south across Krenek Tap Road as Civic Center Property (known as the City Center property). The subject property is currently zoned R -4 Multi - Family, and developed as a single family residence. The property to the west is zoned R -4 Multi - Family and undeveloped. To the south across Krenek Tap Road is undeveloped Single Family, to the north is R -3 Townhouse developed as townhouse and duplex, and to the east is R -4 Multi - Family developed as an apartment complex. Again, with the subject property in its current context and the majority of the surrounding properties being undeveloped, staff is recommending denial of this request. Item Background: The subject property was annexed into the City of College Station city limits in 1971. The property is currently not platted, however the platting process has been initiated. WTF Considerations: In addition to the standard CUP guidelines (described below), the Commission shall consider the following additional factors when determining whether to recommend a CUP for a telecommunication facility: Created on 3/17/2004 4:34 PM R: I HTLTRI PZL TRI PRODI PZ20041 P0009358. DOC . • Height of the proposed tower, surrounding topography and tree 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. • Design of the tower, with particular reference to design characteristics that have the effect of reducing or eliminating visual obtrusiveness. • Proximity of the tower to residential structures and residential district boundaries. • Economic impact on adjacent and nearby properties. • Proposed ingress and egress. • Availability of suitable alternatives and /or existing support structures. Commission Action Options: The Commission acts as a recommending body to the City Council, whom has final authority over the Conditional Use Permit and associated site plan. The options regarding the use permit are: to recommend: 1. Approval as submitted; 2. Approval with conditions relating to specific site characteristics or with time limitations; 3. Denial with specified reasons for denial; or the Commission may 4. Table; or, 5. Defer action to a specified date. Supporting Materials: 1. Location Map 2. Application 3. Copy of Site Plan 4. Letter of Opposition NOTIFICATION: Legal Notice Publication(s):The Eagle; 03 -16 -04 and 04 -13 -04 Advertised Commission Hearing Date: 04 -01 -04 Advertised Council Hearing Date: 04 -29 -04 Number of Notices Mailed to Property Owners Within 200': 31 Response Received: One letter in opposition has been submitted as of date of the staff report. Created on 3/17/2004 4:34 PM 2 R: I HTL TR I PZL TRI PRODI PZ20041 P0009358. DOC Wright Cell Tower Conditional Use Permit Compliance with the Ordinance: (Include those questionable areas of the UDO that may not have been included in the application.) • Search Ring - Unclear as to the exact limits of the search ring: Alternatives: (Italics denotes that this alternative was presented in their application). • Alternative Designs for this particular site: o Staff informed Michael Crain several times that the proposed flag pole was not stealth at this location. o Staff suggested that the applicant move the tower to the rear of the property so that it was not easily visible from Krenek Tap Road. o Staff suggested the use of a different stealth application such as a tree to blend with the surrounding environment especially in the rear of the property. • Alternative Sites within their search ring: o Shell convenience store /gas station at the intersection of Dartmouth and S.W. Parkway. o Planters & Merchants State Bank located on Southwest Parkway just west of the Dartmouth intersection. o The apartment complex located on Dartmouth directly behind P &M State Bank & the Shell station owned by Heritage at Dartmouth. o The Haven apartment complex located on Dartmouth immediately across from Teal Street. o The duplex tract known as "Teal Street" located on Dartmouth just east of the Southwest Parkway intersection. o Waterwood Townhomes owned by Jim Stewart currently under construction on Krenek Tap Road. o E &M Jones Farm Place (Madison) property located at Central Park Lane and Krenek Tap Road. o Windsor Pointe Apartments located on the south side of Southwest Parkway, west of Central Park Lane intersection. o Eastmark Apartments located on the north side of Southwest Parkway, at the Central Park Lane intersection. o Scarmardo Office Building at S.W. Parkway and Ashford. • Alternative Sites that Michael Crain states in his Affidavit and that was provided with the (CUP) Application: o Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church property at 1007 Krenek Tap Road. Applicant was informed that the new Pastor was not interested in a lease with Sprint. (Not within their search ring) o Kapchinski Property on Krenek Tap Road. The affidavit states that "according to Mr. Kapchinski, he inquired to the City... and he was told no ". Did they pursue the issue further with the City? o Raw land North of Dartmouth and West of Krenek Tap Road. The affidavit states that numerous messages were left for the owner of the property but were not returned. We are currently working with the owner on an multi- family development; so, we know he's available. o Raw land South of Darthmouth and west of Krenek Tap Road. Site was determined to be too far from the desired coverage area. (Not within their search ring) (Provide in the affidavit) o Power pole near Krenek Tap Road and Highway 6 access road. This site was determined to be too far from the desired coverage area. (Not within their search ring) (NOTE) It appears that only (2) two of the sites proposed by Michael Crain are located in their search ring. Staff questions the accuracy of their search ring. In Michael Crain's affidavit ( #8) he states: "There are no alternative sites available within the search ring that will satisfy Sprint's radio frequency needs ". • Alternative Sites outside their search ring: o Central Park: (1) to locate a stealth design into one of the Softball Field light pooles. (2) Install the properosed stealth Design Glag pole where the existing Central Park flag pole exist. (was told it was out of their search ring/and it would be too much red tape, take too long) o After P &Z staff suggested that they try and work with the ice rink to incorporate a stealth design into one of their flag poles, introduced Mike Crain to Veronica Morgan to put him in touch L - with her applicant for the ice rink. (Mike said it was out of their search ring) • Affidavit provided by Carolyn E. Schaff: References that Mr. Elliot conducted a drive test of the geographic area immediately surrounding the proposed site. The drive test map provided with the affidavit shows a much larger area than the search ring. The drive test map encompasses the area from Texas Avenue to Highway 6, and from Harvey Road to Millers Lane. Staff suggests that they provide a more detailed search ring map that is super- imposed onto our GIS map. • Miscellaneous: o (Early February 2004) Glenn Brown met with Dr. Wright, and Pat Towery about the Cell tower location (staff was not aware of this meeting at the time and cannot provide any information from this meeting) o (February 11, 2004) Glenn Brown spoke with Michael Crane over the phone about to let him know that his primary contact with the city would be Bridgette George. In the same phone conversation Glenn explained why staff was not going to recommend in favor of the flag pole as meeting the definition of stealth. o (March 8, 2004) Staff review comments went back to the Sprint noting in the very beginning that staff would not be supporting the stealth design as a flag pole in the property's current undeveloped context. o (March 30, 2004) Staff spoke with Mike Crane two days before the meeting to see if they still intended to move forward with the flag design and Mike was said they did not want to change there proposal. Staff suggested that they come to the meeting with some alternative designs, that we had already received two letters of opposition. AGENDA ITEM #6 Wright Cell Tower CUP Presentation (SAM) The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a stealth telecommunications tower, designed as an (80) eighty -foot flag pole. Staff is unable to support the proposed stealth design with the property in its current context. The subject property is developed with a single family home. Staff encouraged the applicant to propose some alternative designs that would fit in more with the surrounding environment. (Comprehensive Plan) Considerations: The subject property is shown on the Land Use Plan as Single Family Medium Density, with the property to the south across Krenek Tap Road as the City Center property. The subject property is currently zoned R -4 Multi - Family, and developed as a single family residence. The property to the west is zoned R -4 Multi - Family and undeveloped. To the south across Krenek Tap Road is undeveloped Single Family, to the north is R -3 Townhouse, developed as townhouse and duplex, and to the east is R -4 Multi - Family that is currently being developed as Waterwood Condo's. (Photos taken & provided) Just to give the Commission an idea of the height of this pole. The existing Utility poles that you see are 45 -ft. tall. The proposed stealth tower essentially will be twice the height of the exiting utility poles. Again, with the subject property in its current context and the majority of the surrounding properties being undeveloped, staff is recommending denial of this request. As the Commission is aware that at your last meeting you recommended standards to create the Krenek Overlay (which the subject property is located in) the next item on tonight's agenda will be to zone the properties to apply the overlay standards. The Overlay is scheduled to go to City Council on the 29th of this month. Their have been two letters in opposition of this proposal by adjacent property owners. You should have received one in your packet and one at your seats tonight. would like to remind the Commission of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. FACT: 67 -ft. from back of curb 60 -ft. from back of sidewalk 57 -ft. from center of power line 50 -ft. from the outer phase of the overhead line Approximately 200 -ft. from the single family home. sprint Sprint PCS "" Proposal for Telecommunications Site: 903 Krenek Tap Road 411/2004 1 print. Sprint PCS" Goals For The Meeting • To inform all in attendance about Sprint PCS requests and requirements ■ Answer as many questions as time will permit • Obtain recommendation from The City of College Station Planning and Zoning Commission. 4/1/2004 2 1 4-sprint Sprnrt PCS" The Government Requires • To paraphrase, the Federal Communications Act of 1996 governs Sprint PCS obligations to its subscribers. A site is a necessary step in maintaining a commitment to competition, innovation, and safety • In order for Sprint PCS to be in compliance with the terms of our FCC license, Sprint PCS must furnish 911 and all other services to all Sprint PCS subscribers. A site in this area is necessary to fulfill Sprint's FCC licensing requirement 4/1/2004 3 sirint Sprint PCS" SPRINT PCS DEVELOPMENT SITE SELECTION PROCESS • The need for a new telecommunications site is often triggered by Sprint PCS subscribers calling Sprint PCS with complaints of dropped calls, poor coverage, or loss of other Sprint PCS Services • Radio frequency (RF) engineers determine through computer modeling and other investigative measures, that a site is needed in the area. 4/1/2004 4 2 • AMMINNIMM Sprint Sprint PCS" Radio Frequency Propagation Map t'ullc Station currently . e v r, r 4/1/2004 4 e 5 ■ Sprint Sprint PCS" SITE SELECTION PROCESS (continued) • Once an area has been identified, the RF Engineer issues a search area which clearly delineates the geographic area in which the antennas should be located to work with the rest of the system • Search areas are then issued to property specialists to find suitable locations 4/1/2004 6 3 • Sprint. Sprint Sprint PCS Search Area Map ..,- ‘....e. - Sunni PCS .. V *0 -11- I N , "" tO'' ., vs. • A. ,„.„,„,„„„„„„,,,,,„,, , • 4 1.14 4 ,104( . %,• \ ‘,..,,,,,,:. 4 ," ''': 44 , 04 1:::: .N. Swo .0 1 MR ea , \ I \ Sectors 3 / '''' 4.,, 2...• tad *V V ,„: ,7.----,i Nk ''' Izzitt I 1 5 o .71 ... eZ N, /1" .ar,,,,,. \''1,0 P .,. sman,nowwv awbAnt•n 0 c `"*"*4.1 \ ( 4 t , +0 4t, s 'Iti, %. ...... 0 e.,..,,,, TOVR,10 rvi• . <:4'.%'..k.,,,, ilrf ,...._.e. 0 \ . t' '' % . i - • # -. , ‘. ‘0•,... 0, ,,, sz 1 4' OWN* I ..Y5 . , !e •i.o -,,, .. AV -.....,... k .. 1/4 . \ / 4' i ,10P4. 4/ Itweased IN ii 1/4 41 ‘,,,, # > 00 0 41. 4 4 ,,,. " sz OP 6 .... it. ,34 S A O t 1p, •S a t- 4/1/2004 7 . 4111111.11.111101Wk Sprint Sprint PCS Radio Frequency Propagation Map Before 903 Krenek Tap College Station Currentl■ ; . . ) 4 ..; 4 .. , - , .• ..., ,,,c . , N 40 .., -J, 4 ... It 4 . If 4i.y. ii^4111 4 P ' k . 41. -...-A... . . . , ,.... .. , _ • .. ,,, 4/112004 1 . t.' .ti # , 8 • 4 • ° „a Sprint Sprint PCS' Radio Frequency Propagation Map After 903 Krenek Tap tic>xc;4se v* ;4....-.:,- :,.,-, 1 1 , 1 01‘ 4 0 liiit , . ...„,,. e ., :, , , \ 4iV: . . - ' ''' : 7 \ • ri l ,r o13ra . ." � :k._ it 4/1/2004 II ' , , s 9 ■ Sprint Sprint PCS" Equal Power Boundary Map Before 903 Krenek Tap Current Equal l'oN ■er Boundary , i=`: ..,:. ' '' ;4>, - - - f... t t '. h toy MY, 0 • 4 Is* * * 4 ' , 1 4 O \ 4/1/200 , -n... f. 10 5 i Sprint Sprint PCS Equal Power Boundary Map After 903 Krenek Tap Equal Power Boundary with FK )59XC43y a 9 as t , . .- 1r .4 '''',', --1;:ar. illikie\ f ' 4/1/2004 ; 11 al 'j,itaillIMIMMIEW Sprint Sprint PCS" Drive Test Data Map 903 Krenek Tap RX power dBm a \ 4 1 4 , r ; A• ,, R • ,.. ,,,,,A , , •os �a � 4 #.4 I I P, ' s' ' 1,s y a ' i I.1 =e:7 en.a...u.r...a � •••.mee ..a.pn� .� .. aep ta'arpryYr ♦ ♦♦ ..IO p(opp 4/1/2004 ■ t • • ca... re p:NY2> 12 6 ■ ° Sprint Sprint PCS" DETAILS of the REQUEST • An 80 ft. Stealth Flagpole telecommunications structure capable of holding multiple antenna arrays • Electronic equipment will be located inside fenced and landscaped compound and hidden from view. 4/1/2004 13 ■ .' .'' Sprint Sprint PCS" Proposed Site Layout .._._ h I R, - i r R -1 A 1 QLj "r""-- I ..o... I R.4 i _. ... 111014111114 RN 4/1,2o04 - 14 7 ■ Sprint Sprint PCS" Proposed Site Layout (cont) wry WT ss•oastec lyss• �.,..e ..i 111•1111116.1/0 " _.ate.. I is )15 ■ Sprint Sprint PCS" WE SEEK YOUR SUPPORT FOR THIS REQUEST • Homeowners and other Sprint PCS subscribers gain additional continuous coverage for the all - important 911 calls • Sprint PCS is able to provide the kind of quality PCS wireless service to it's existing customer base as well as market a better product locally • Sprint PCS is able to furnish 911 and all other services to the area for Sprint PCS subscribers, which is required to fulfill Sprint's FCC licensing requirement 4/1/2004 16 8 • Sprint Sprint PCS" Example of similar structure John Cooper School (The Woodlands) 180' 4/1/2004 25 . .® Sprint Sprint PCS" Example of similar structure Texas A &M University 120' n 4/1/2004 - - 26 13 • nalliNIMMINMEIE Sprint Sprint PCS" City Centre Conceptual Site Plan I � :„. : V-4 mss. , r' .,.,, / 4/ „2004 - . 27 ■ allillIEW Sprint Sprint PCS” Goals For The Meeting • To inform all in attendance about Sprint PCS requests and requirements • Answer as many questions as time will permit • Obtain recommendation from The City of College Station Planning and Zoning Commission. 4/1/2004 28 1 4