Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc Correspondences f ossIL CRK Primary: 832-928-0100 LAND COMPANY 7703 Painton Lane Office: 281- 516 -2883 Spring, TX 77389 FAX: 281 - 516 -2158 MEMO TO: Bridgette George City of College Station CC: FROM: Michael Crain fossil Creek Land Company DATE: February 19, 2004 RE: Explanation and details of use for a proposed Sprint Wireless Telecommunications Facility at 903 Krenek Tap Road Sprint Site designation: H059XC439A (Wright — College Station) The purpose of this letter is to explain the proposed use and details of a Sprint Wireless Telecommunications Facility proposed for 903 Krenek Tap Road. The proposed property location of this facility, whose physical address is 903 Krenek Tap Road, is located in an "R4 — Multi- Family Residential" zoning designation. • The property directly adjacent and in a Northerly direction from the proposed site is designated "R4 ". • The property in a Southerly direction approx. 165' away from the proposed site is designated "R4 ". • The property in an Easterly direction across Krenek Tap Road, approx. 116' from the proposed site is designated "R 1 ". • The property in a Westerly direction approx. 600' away from the proposed site is designated "R3 ". The proposed site will be used by Sprint PCS as a Wireless Telecommunications Facility and will be constructed with a single "Monopole" structure and will be of a "Stealth Tower" characteristic as defined in Section 11.2 Terms of the City of College Station, Unified Development Ordinance. Specifically, the structure will be "camouflaged" as an 80' tall flagpole. Natalie Ruiz - RE: Sprint Application Krenek Tap Road Page 1 From: "Towery, Pat A [NTK]" <Pat.A.Towery@mail.sprint.com> To: "Glenn Brown" <Gbrown @cstx.gov >, <NRUIZ @cstx.gov> Date: 6/25/2004 12:36:41 PM Subject: RE: Sprint Application - Krenek Tap Road Attached is the revised sketch which will indicate what Dr. Wright will agree to. Please note, the flagpole is inside of the compound. There is a concern about graffiti as well as liability. The access service road will be noted on the revised survey as a "relocatable" service easement. The power and Telco easements will remain fixed. Dr. Wright did agree to those terms. The site will be located 10' from the drainage easement to provide a future developer with design options. The site is being moved approximately 7 1/2 feet from the side property line. This is being done to accomplish more cover of the site by saving three huge oak trees that would have been removed if we had stayed with the original plan of putting the site on the property line. Before we proceed with the costs of the new survey and third party services, I need for the city to issue a written approval of this proposal. During our meeting, Glenn offered to pay a portion of the costs associated with moving the site. If the city will tell Sprint what the minimum requirements are that need to be addressed in our drawings to receive support from the staff for our next zoning hearing, Sprint will not do all of the normal testing, etc. until after a zoning approval; and Sprint will pay all of the costs associated with the move. Thank you so much for continuing to work with us! Pat Towery (-1 'ZS' Pat.A.Towery@mail.sprint.com • Sr. Property Specialist Ltik— / Houston Network Services - Sprint PCS Division a , �� V � l C ,, _ ce , Office - 281.618.8418 "Cell - 936.443.4855 i. o Ir Original Message (Q From: Towery, Pat A [NTK] Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 1:05 PM To: 'Glenn Brown'; 'NRUIZ @cstx.gov' Cc: 'Celia Hernandez'; 'Morgan Meyer'; Brock Bailey Subject: RE: Sprint Application - Krenek Tap Road I have a scheduled meeting with Dr. Wright on his property today at 2:30 to review what his attorney and development consultant has indicated we can do with this site. Natalie Ruiz - RE: Sprint Application - Krenek Tap Road Page 2 I will let you know the results of our meeting early in the week. Pat Towery Pat.A.Towery@mail.sprint.com Sr. Property Specialist Houston Network Services - Sprint PCS Division Office - 281.618.8418 * Cell - 936.443.4855 Original Message From: Towery, Pat A [NTK] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 10:13 AM To: 'Glenn Brown' Cc: Celia Hernandez; mcrain @fossilcreek.com; kelly.moran @wtcdg.com; Laskowski, Ed P [NTK]; 'Brock Bailey' Subject: RE: Sprint Application - Krenek Tap Road To utilize our limited time, we would like to schedule the June 10, 2004 appointment. Thanks! Pat Towery Pat.A.Towery@mail.sprint.com Sr. Property Specialist Houston Network Services - Sprint PCS Division Office - 281.618.8418 * Cell - 936.443.4855 Original Message From: Glenn Brown [mailto:Gbrown @cstx.gov] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 3:08 PM To: Towery, Pat A [NTK] Cc: Celia Hernandez Subject: Re: Sprint Application - Krenek Tap Road Pat, The City understands that you cannot meet the deadlines, and there will need to be flexibility. We can work around that. Our Development Services Staff will also send you the Krenek Tap Overlay Zoning District Ordinance that was approved by Council on April 29th, and we will discuss that with you when we meet. Regarding the meeting next week, Natalie Ruiz is going to be out of the office on Monday and Tuesday, and I really need her at the meeting. I have checked the staff calendars that should be a the meeting and a couple of possibilities are June 10 at 11:00 AM, and June 14 after 1:30 PM. Would either one of those times work for you? Let me know, and have a good weekend. Glenn Natalie Ruiz - RE: Sprint Application - Krenek Tap Road Page 3 Glenn D. Brown Assistant City Manager City of College Station PO Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 979 764 -3510 gbrown @cstx.gov »> "Towery, Pat A [NTK]" <Pat.A.Towery@mail.sprint.com> 6/3/2004 1:35:37 PM »> Glenn, First of all I want to tell you how sorry I am about the loss of your mother. My thoughts and prayers have been with you and your family. Thank you for the opportunity to work out the Sprint application for a wireless facility on Krenek Tap Road. As a result of the denial for Sprint's CUP request and the subsequent approval of the Krenek Tap Overlay District we have a tremendous amount of site design and planning to do in a very short period of time. In Tight of the Tolling Agreement between Sprint and the City of College Station (attached), our deadline for approval on a new design is August 9, 2004. For Sprint to meet that deadline, the application would have to be filed with the city by 10:00 on Monday, 6/7/2004 for a City Council meeting of July 22, 2004 because the next council meeting will not be held until August 12, 2004. Since the Monday deadline is absolutely not possible for Sprint or the city Brock Bailey has already spoken to Harvey Cargill about an extension which I anticipate receiving after we determine how far in the process we are closer to the August 9th date. So we can begin the process, I would like to schedule a meeting with you on Tuesday. The initial meeting will be with Brock Bailey in attendance so we can get a better handle on the obstacles that we need to overcome as well as the anticipated timeframe that an extension would be required. My goal is to be on the August 12, 2004 agenda which would give all of us about 10 days to work through the issues. However, I know that this is an aggressive goal and may not be met. Prior to the meeting, I really would like for Ms. Ruiz to send the information that I have previously requested on the Krenek Tap Overlay District and how the requirements may impact a site within our search ring. This request was made again by Mike Crain last Friday. Please let me know what your calendar(s) look like for Tuesday. While I am in College Station I need to meet with Dr. Wright as well and I need to have a strategy in mind prior to meeting with him. Thanking you for your continued cooperation in this matter, I remain Sincerely, Natalie Ruiz - RE: Sprint Application - Krenek Tap Road Page 4 Pat Towery Pat.A.Towery@mail.sprint.com < mailto :Pat.A.Towery@mail.sprint.com> Sr. Property Specialist Houston Network Services - Sprint PCS Division Office - 281.618.8418 * Cell - 936.443.4855 College Station. Embracing the past, Exploring the future. CC: "Celia Hernandez" <CHERNANDEZ @cstx.gov >, "Morgan Meyer" <Morgan.Meyer @bracepatt.com >, "Brock Bailey" <Brock.Bailey @bracepatt.com >, "Laskowski, Ed P [NTK]" < Ed.P.Laskowski @mail.sprint.com> `♦ The City of `I College Station Texas Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. P.O. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station, TX 77842 • (979) 764 -3500 www.ci.college-station.tx.us May 11, 2004 Michael L. Crain, Market Director Certified Mail & Return Receipt Fossil Creek Land Company 7703 Painton Lane Spring, Texas 77389 Via fax (281) 516 -2158 Re: Wright Cell Tower in College Station, 903 Krenek Tap Road. Dear Mr. Crain, As you are aware, the City Council of College Station denied your application for a conditional use permit for a new cell tower using a flag pole as stealth technology at 903 Krenek Tap Road. The Council agreed with the unanimous decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission and determined that this particular use of stealth technology did not meet the definition of the City's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The UDO defines stealth technology or facility as "design technology that blends the wireless telecommunications facility into the surrounding environment ". A flag pole at this location did not "blend" with the surrounding environment. In addition, staff suggested alternatives to your proposal as did the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff Planner Jennifer Reeves requested that you bring alternative stealth designs to the Commission meeting to be considered; however, no alternatives were presented. However, the City Council has directed staff to continue working with Sprint and yourself to find an acceptable alternative within your search ring. In reviewing the original conditional use permit application and the affidavits submitted to the City on April 29, 2004, I have the following questions regarding your application and the "search ring" you provided: (1) Question: What are the exact boundaries of your search ring? The map submitted with the original application and also referenced as Exhibit "A" is drawn to a fairly large scale. In order for staff to assist you in identifying alternatives, it would be helpful to overlay your exact search ring onto the City's GIS data that is available on our website. (2) Question: Are there areas outside the boundaries of your original search ring that may be acceptable to provide the service needed by Sprint customers? If so, please provide that information to staff overlaying the exact boundaries onto the City's GIS data that is available on our website. In your affidavit, you identify eight alternative locations that would not work for various reasons. (I am assuming that the power pole referenced in 6.3 and 7.1 are the same location.) Of those eight alternative locations, seven are shown to be outside of your original search ring. One location is more than 0.5 miles from the proposed site. Home of Texas A &M University 'Letter to Michael L. Crain May 11, 2004 Page 3 of 3 • The P. David Romei Arts Center located at Colgate and Dartmouth. • The Oak Forest Mobile Home Park located on Krenek Tap Road. Given the number of locations outside of your original "search ring ", I assume that there are many more alternative locations that could be determined. You should be mindful that exploring the viability of each site within your coverage area and identifying and explaining why each alternative is not viable is the applicant's responsibility. (4) Question: How did you determine that other alternative locations both inside and outside the original "search ring" were not viable? How aggressively did you pursue alternative locations determined to be within the desired coverage area? The examples provided in your affidiavit, more specifically locations 7.4 and 7.6, do not reference specific attempts to contact the property owners other than telephone messages. Do you have information in writing from these property owners? The City is currently working with the property owner of the land north of Dartmouth and west of Krenek Tap Road on a multi - family development. We would be happy to provide current contact information. (5) Question: How committed is Sprint to identifying acceptable alternative locations? After the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on April 1, 2004, staff introduced you to Veronica Morgan, a local engineer who is doing work in the Wolf Pen Creek area as well as Jim Stewart, the owner of Waterwood Townhomes. The purpose was to explore other locations in the area as viable alternatives. At that meeting, Ms. Pat Towery informed us that she was not interested in alternative locations. She emphatically stated that Sprint had over $60,000 invested in this site and was not relocating. The City of College Station is committed to working with Sprint and yourself to determine the best possible location and tower design to address your service needs in this particular area. Mr. Crain, please understand that we value the service that Sprint provides in our city and we are anxious to assist you in filling the gaps in coverage. It is in our best interest to work together to find a location that meets all of our needs. However, we must ensure that the requirements in the City's UDO are met and that all alternative locations and designs are explored. I feel that we have provided many alternatives to the original proposal and look forward to working with you on finding a location that complies with our UDO. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Assistant City Manager Glenn Brown, Staff Planner Jennifer Reeves or myself at (979) 764 -3570. I will be out of the office starting tomorrow and will return on Monday, May 24, 2004. Sincere e, /1s atal e omas Ruiz Deve opment Manage Cc: K. Brock Bailey, Bracewell & Patterson, LLP, Via fax (214) 758 -8376 Pat Towery, Sprint, Via fax (281) v illanning Case File #04 -62 t x; SPRINT PCS Division Houston 15413 Vantage Parkway West -11111./ Houston, TX. 77032 Phone (281) 618 -8418 Fax (281) 618-8486 PCS (936) 443 -4855 February 19, 2004 Bridgette George Assistant Development Manager City of College Station, Texas 1101 Texas Ave. South College Station, TX 77840 Ms. George, Regarding the requirement that applications for a Major WTF must include a grid plan showing future site placements for a period of not less than 5 years: Sprint projects its growth and site placement based on two primary factors including; census and demographics information from the 2000 Census and consumer feedback and complaints. As undoubtedly College Station faces, predicting future municipal growth and future growth areas are very difficult if not impossible to predict accurately. For Sprint to base future site placement on this would not only be prohibitively expensive but in a great number of cases would prove to be ineffective. The primary method Sprint has found that effectively addresses site placement is consumer feedback and complaints. As Sprint receives customer feedback, these remarks and locations are logged. As RF Engineers try and determine where best to place a site, these logs are reviewed and from a review of these logs and radio propagation studies, a "Search Ring" is issued that best fits with Sprint's existing network. Often, even radio propagation studies alone cannot take into account changes in traffic from midday to rush hour or seasonal changes of foliage. This utilization of consumer feedback makes future plans for site placement in any given municipality or area impossible to predict. Sincerely, 4e/ Patricia Towery Sr. Property Specialist Sprint PCS . MAY. 26. 2004 7:31P M` BRACEWELL PATTERSON DALLAS 1 - N0. 5426 P. 2 ACEWELL R L ATTERSONLLE ATTORNEYS AT LAW -- " -- --- - - -- .. ...... — - - -- -- - --... -_- 500 N. Akard Streer, Stare 4000 Dallas, Texas 75201 -3387 Phone: 214.758.1000 Fax: 214.758.1010 May 26, 2004 For Settlement Purposes Only Via Facsimile No. (979) 764 -3481 Mr. Harvey Cargill, Jr. City Attorney City of College Station Legal Dept. P. O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Re: SprintCom, Inc. ( "Sprint ") Wright Cell Tower, 903 Krenek Tap Road, College Station, Texas (the "Proposed Site ") Dear Mr. Cargill: Thank you for Natalie Thomas Ruiz's letter of May 11, 2004. I will try to respond to each of Ms. Ruiz's comments and questions. Please note that this letter is directed to you in an effort to resolve this matter and is not intended to become part of the record with respect to the Proposed Site. In this connection, I make the following comments: 1. In Ms. Ruiz's opening paragraph, she states that ". . . staff suggested alternatives to your proposal as did the Planning and Zoning Commission" (the "Commission "). It is my understanding that neither staff' nor the Commission suggested any workable alternative to the Proposed Site. Our client remains open to alternatives, but unfortunately, any suggestions made by staff or the Commission to date, while appreciated, have not satisfied Sprint's objectives in the area. 2. In her subparagraph (1), Ms. Ruiz inquires as to "the exact boundaries of [Sprint's] Search Ring." Sprint's search ring ( "Search Ring ") for this particular site is a part of the record. If the City of College Station (the "City ") requires an additional copy of the Search Ring, I am happy to provide one. Further, Ms. Ruiz states that the map submitted by Sprint is based on too large of a scale. It is Sprint's position that it submitted its map in accordance with the City's application checklist, which it interpreted to require a map showing all of DALLAS =0263.1 Houston Austin Corpus Christi Dallas Fort Worth San Antonio Washington, D.C. Northern Virginia London Almary TMAY, 26. 2004 7:31PM BRACEWELL PATTERSON DALLAS 1 -NO. 5426 — P. 3 • • CEWELL 1 ATTBiWO.I V L.L.P. ATTQRNgY$ AT LAW Mr. Harvey Cargill, Jr. May 26, 2004 Page 2 the wireless facilities in the area. Sprint can certainly provide the City with a map focused on a smaller geographic area if that would be helpful. 3. Ms. Ruiz next inquires in her subparagraph (2) as to whether or not there are any areas outside of the boundaries of Sprint's original "[S]earch [R]ing that may be acceptable to provide the service needed by Sprint customers ?" Again, the record speaks for itself in this regard. As a general rule, sites outside of the search ring will not adequately meet Sprint's needs. However, in this particular case, Sprint did investigate potential sites outside of its Search Ring in an effort to find an acceptable location. Unfortunately, to date, no acceptable candidates have been found. Ms. Ruiz points out that the Affidavit of Carolyn Schaff references a drive test of "a much larger area than the [S]earch [R]ing." This is an accurate statement. However, a search ring does not necessarily coincide exactly with areas of poor coverage, A search ring is designed to instruct the Site Acquisition team as to a geographic area for the placement of a wireless communications tower, subject to certain parameters, that would satisfy Sprint's coverage and capacity objectives. The fact that the drive test map attached to the Affidavit of Ms. Schaff incorporated an area outside the Search Ring is entirely consistent with Sprint's various experts' testimony regarding the Search Ring in this matter. The map demonstrates the extent of Sprint's coverage and capacity problems in the area, A wireless communications facility placed within the Search Ring would alleviate the poor coverage both within the Search Ring and in the area immediately surrounding it and would work with Sprint's existing system to meet its capacity needs. 4, Ms. Ruiz next inquires in her subparagraph (3) as to what steps Sprint took "to determine alternative locations as well as alternative stealth designs or technology ?" With respect to alternative locations, Sprint diligently canvassed the geographic area both in and in some cases around the Search Ring. Michael Crain detailed several alternative locations in his affidavit, which is of record. Further, Mr. Crain filed several Ietters with the City, which are also of record, explaining additional alternative Iocations and the reasons for each such location's failure or rejection as a viable candidate. With respect to alternative stealth designs or technology, Sprint openly attempted to discuss various options with staff in an effort to choose a design that staff could 'MAY.26.2004 7:32PM BRACEWELL PATTERSON DALLAS 1 NO. 5426 4 • ' ACEWELL ATTERSON L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Harvey Cargill, Jr. May 26, 2004 Page 3 support. It is my understanding that staff was unable to assist Sprint in this regard. Nevertheless, Sprint was, and remains, open to alternative stealth designs. Ms. Ruiz further alleges that staff recommended (i) relocating Sprint's Proposed Site to the rear of the tract of land upon which the Proposed Site is located, or (ii) redesigning the Proposed Site to utilize an alternative type of stealth technology such as a pine tree. Sprint attempted and failed to negotiate a lease with its landlord that would allow it to lease a site located farther from Krenek Tap Road than the Proposed Site. Further, it is my understanding that Sprint discussed the possibility of a stealth pine tree design with Glenn Brown at the City and was discouraged from pursuing such a design. Ms. Ruiz next provides Sprint a list of various "alternatives" that the City has identified within the Search Ring. These "alternatives" are listed below, along with our understanding as to why such locations failed as viable candidates: (a) Shell Convenience Store. (i) Mr. Crain investigated this candidate in July 2003. (ii) Mr. Crain determined that the area, based on his review of the visible footprint of buildings and gas pumps, would not accommodate a telecommunications facility. (b) Planters & Merchants State Bank. (i) Mr. Crain investigated this candidate in July 2003. (ii) Mr. Crain determined, based on his review of the acreage of the property as depicted on the Brazos County Appraisal District owner maps, and the visible footprint of the buildings, that this candidate had insufficient space and was unacceptable from a construction standpoint for the location of a wireless communications facility. (c) Scarmardo Office Building. (i) This candidate was outside of the Search Ring and was not explored in detail. MAY. 26. 2004 7:32PM BRACEWELL PATTERSON DALLAS 1 NO. 5426 —P. 5 • RA.CEWELL 1 S ATTERSON L, ATTOANIrE AT LAW Mr. Harvey Cargill, Jr. May 26, 2004 Page 4 (ii) Sprint's radio frequency engineers evidently advised Mr. Crain that this area was too close to an existing Sprint site and would conflict and compete with its signal. (d) The apartment complex behind P &M State Bank and the Shel1 station. (i) Mr. Crain investigated this candidate in July 2003. (ii) The portion of this candidate located within the Search Ring was evidently saturated with apartment buildings, parking and other related facilities and was determined by Mr. Crain to have insufficient space for the location of a telecommunications facility. (e) The Haven Apartment Complex. (i) Mr, Crain investigated this candidate in July 2003. (ii) Based on Mr. Crain's review of the Brazos County Appraisal District owner maps and the visible footprint of the existing apartment buildings, this property was determined to have insufficient space for the location of a telecommunications facility. () "Teal Street ". (i) Mr. Crain investigated this candidate in July 2003. (ii) This candidate was zoned R -2 and was not perceived to be a zoning match at that time. (g) Waterwood Townhomes. (i) Mr. Crain investigated this candidate in July 2003. (ii) This candidate was zoned R -1 and was not perceived to be a zoning match at that time. (h) Windsor Pointe Apartments, (i) Mr, Crain investigated this candidate in July 2003. ,MAY. 26. 2004 7:32PM i BRACEWELL PATTERSON DALLAS 1 NO. 5426--P. 6 • RACEWELL ATTERSON V LLP_ ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Harvey Cargill, Jr. May 26, 2004 Page 5 (ii) Mr. Crain evidently could not find a location on this tract that would provide an adequate buffer to shield the proposed facility from the homes surrounding the location. (i) Eastmark Apartments. (i) Mr. Crain investigated this candidate in July 2003. (ii) Mr, Crain determined there was insufficient space located within the Search Ring for the construction and operation of a telecommunications facility on this tract. (j) The P. David Romei Arts Center, (i) Mr, Crain investigated this candidate in July 2003. (ii) This tract of land is only partially located within the Search Ring and, at the time of Mr. Crain's research, was still under construction. It was therefore not a viable candidate at the time. (k) Oak Forest Mobile Home Park. (i) Mr. Crain investigated this candidate in July 2003. (ii) The only portion of this 24.78 area tract of land located within the Search Ring was occupied by a trailer hozne, and was unavailable for Sprint's use. 5. Ms. Ruiz next inquires in subparagraph (4) as to how aggressively Sprint pursued alternative locations. The record clearly demonstrates that Mr. Crain and representatives of Sprint thoroughly researched the potential candidates in the area that would satisfy Sprint's coverage and capacity objectives. 6. Ms. Ruiz asks in subparagraph (5) "[hJow committed is Sprint to identifying acceptable alternative locations ?" The record reflects that throughout the summer and early fall of 2003, Sprint thoroughly researched the geographic area in and around the Search Ring in an effort to locate an acceptable site for its telecommunications facility. Sprint is committed to working with the City but cannot continue to search when all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted. .MAY.26.2004 7:32PM BRACEWELL PATTERSON DALLAS 1 NO. 5426—P, 7 • • CEWELL 1 ATTERSON L.L.P. ATTORNRY3 AT LAW Mr. Harvey Cargill, Jr. May 26, 2004 Page 6 Ms. Ruiz references the Commission's meeting of April 1, 2004 and states that at that meeting, representatives of Sprint were introduced to Veronica Morgan and Jim Stewart. According to Ms. Ruiz, the purpose of this introduction was to explore other locations in the area as viable alternatives. Ms. Ruiz writes that Pat Towery, a representative of Sprint, stated that Sprint has "over $60,000 invested in [the Proposed Site] and was not relocating." Ms. Towery disputes the accuracy of Ms. Ruiz's quote. It is my understanding that Ms. Towery's statement, if any, was made in response to a suggestion by representatives of the City that Sprint purchase the 1 acre tract of land located directly west of Central Park Lane. It was evidently explained to Sprint's representatives that the City would seek a dedication of an extension of Central Park Lane and a beautification project over this piece of property, as a "gateway to the City of College Station." Ms. Towery was unwilling to consider such a plan or location. The City's proposal in this regard would have been cost prohibitive to Sprint, and would have been located outside of the Search Ring. The foregoing notwithstanding, Sprint is very interested in working with the City to find a mutually acceptable solution to this matter. I would like to discuss these matters further with you at your convenience. Finally, as you know, under the Telecommunications Act (47 U.S.C.A. § 332(c)(7) et seg.), Sprint has thirty (30) days (the "Statute of Limitations ") from the City's final decision in connection with this matter to commence an action in a court of competent jurisdiction. In an effort to avoid the cost and time associated with litigation, I would request that the City agree to toll the Statute of Limitations for aperiod of 60 days. Sprint is hopeful of reaching an amicable resolution of this matter with the City. It cannot, however, continue to negotiate altemative locations and designs, to the detriment of its current ripe and legitimate causes of action with respect to the Proposed Site. Please contact zne immediately in this regard. . MAY. 26.2004 7:33PM PATTERSON DALLAS 1 NO. 5426 ---P. 8 II 0 RACEWELL k, AITERSON ATTOkNEY5 AT LAW Mr. Iiarvey Cargill, Jr, May 26, 2004 Page 7 I look forward to working with you on this matter. Please contact me with any questions or comments. Very truly yours, Bra well & Patterson, L.L.P. f `A(E ( Brock Bailey KBB /jmh Enclosure cc: Ms. Pat Towery SprintCom, Inc. Jane Kee Good morning Page 1 From: Jane Kee To: artwright1008 @juno.com Date: 10/1/2003 9:01:28 AM Subject: Good morning I tried to give you a call this morning but couldn't get you, thus the email. Lee and I both spoke with our Director, Kelly Templin, and we all agree that we would not limit development on your property to a stricter standard just because the cell tower is there. Any development after the tower is in place will be entitled to all the rights allowed in that zoning district. Now, if the cell tower came in after the development, we would limit its location based on existing locations of homes. If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to call. Most of the planners will be out the rest of this week at a conference but will be back Monday. Jane Kee, AICP City Planner City of College Station College Station, Tx. 77845 (979)764 -3570 FAX (979)764 -3496 College Station. Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. CC: Jennifer Prochazka; Jennifer Reeves; Kelly Templin; Lee Battle; Molly Hitchcock N .4 ss t s " e .% . , . > . * # # 1 b ,• /4* >1 May 11, 2004 1 NIT Michael L. Crain, Market Director Fossil Creek Land Company 7703 Painton Lane Spring, Texas 77389 Re: Wright Cell Tower in College Station, H059XC439A. Dear o. Crain, As y iu're a are the City Council of College Station denied your application for a conditional use permit for . new cell tower using a flag pole as stealth technology at 903 Krenek Tap Road. The Coun • • eed with the unanimous decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission and determined that this particular use of stealth technology did not meet the definition of the City's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The UDO defines stealth technology or facility as "design technology that blends the wireless telecommunications facility into the surrounding environment ". A flag pole at this location did not "blend" with the surrounding environment. However, the City Council has directed staff to continue working with Sprint and yourself to find an acceptable alternative within your search rin I. In reviewing the original conditional use permit application and the affidavits sub • • e • o the City on April 29, 2004, I have the following questions regarding the "search g. (1) Question: What are the exact boundaries of your search ring? The map submitted with the original application and also referenced as Exhibit "A" is drawn to a fairly large scale. In order for staff to assist you in identifying alternatives, it would be helpful to overlay your exact search ring onto the City's GIS data that is available on our website. (2) Question: Are there areas outside the boundaries of your original search ring that may be acceptable to provide the service needed by Sprint customers? In your affidavit, you identify eight alternative locations that would not work for various reasons. (I am assuming that the power pole referenced in 6.3 and 7.1 are the same location.) Of those eight alternative locations, seven are shown to be outside of your original search ring. One location is more than 0.5 miles from the proposed site. In the affidavit provided by Carolyn E. Schaff she 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. Given this information, staff questions the limits of the search ring provided in your application and affidavit. (3) Question: How you determine that "there are no alternative sites available within the search ring that will satisfy Sprint 's radio frequency needs" given that you've only provided eight alternatives in such a large geographic area? Staff informed you on several occasions that the proposed flag pole did not meet the definition of stealth technology at this location. You were informed that staff not support such a design given the surrounding environment. In addition , could g PP g staff made the following suggestions on the existing site: • Relocate the cell tower to the rear of the site so that it is not clearly visible from Krenek Tap Road. An alternative type of stealth technology such as / / a pine tree could be used to help the tower blend with the surrounding environment. Staff proposed this alternative in February and March with no response. In reviewing the original search ring provided in your application and your affidavit, staff identified the following alternatives: • Shell convenience store /gas station at the intersection of Dartmouth and Southwest Parkway. • Planters & Merchants State Bank located on Southwest Parkway just west of the Dartmouth intersection. • Scarmardo Office Building at S.W. Parkway and Ashford. • The apartment complex located on Dartmouth directly behind P &M State Bank & the Shell station owned by Heritage at Dartmouth. • The Haven apartment complex located on Dartmouth immediately across from Teal Street. • The duplex tract known as "Teal Street" located on Dartmouth just east of the Southwest Parkway intersection. • Waterwood Townhomes owned by Jim Stewart currently under construction on Krenek Tap Road. • Windsor Pointe Apartments located on the south side of Southwest Parkway, west of Central Park Lane intersection. • Eastmark Apartments located on the north side of Southwest Parkway, at the Central Park Lane intersection. • The P. David Romei Arts Center located at Colgate and Dartmouth. • The Oak Forest Mobile Home Park located on Krenek Tap Road. Given the number of locations outside of your original search ring, I sume that there are many more alternative locations that could be determined. .. • - - - • - - _• •• - i .e ap py�sist you in (4) Question: How committed is Sprint t: nti ing acceptable alternative locatir%s? /,Lf After the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on April 1, 2004, staff (wh y d . introduced you to Veronica Morgan, a local engineer who is doing work in the Wolf Pen Creek area as well as Jim Stewart, the owner of Waterwood Townhomes. The purpose was to explore other locations in the area as viable alternatives. At that meeting, Ms. Pat Towery informed us that she was not interested in alternative locations. She emphatically stated that Sprint had over $60,000 invested in this site and was not relocating. Mr. Crain, please understand that the City of College Station values the service that Sprint provides in our city and we are anxious to assist you in filling the gaps in coverage. It is in our best interest to work together to find a location that meets all of our needs. However, we must ensure that the requirements in the City's UDO are met and that all alternative locations are explored. I feel that we have provided many alternatives to the original proposal and look forward to working with you on finding a location that complies with our UDO. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Jennifer Reeves or myself at 764 -3570. 7y) Sincerely, Natalie Thomas Ruiz Development Manager & : affi ik 6ff cirlib 0. I, -P� �, • 5 ( ,(_ e) c ?lt-i 7 ti 9001 \ . Li ,. A 1 ifi a ,! S I i 4\3\\\ ii 1 ::: 2004 I t ) L b -) L. Crain, Market Di ector V i IA. Fossil Cr Land Company Nil. / i 7703 Painton Lane w Spring, Texas 77389 % " ' , ■ r, 1 Re: Wright Cell Tower in College Station, H059XC439A. !/ , �. , �' ` l 1 A Dear Mr. Crain, ? \ As yo ' e aware the City Council of College Station denied your application for a conditional use permit for a new cell tower using a flag pole as stealth technology at 903 Krenek Tap Road. The Council agreed with the unanimous decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission and determined that this particular use of stealth technology did not meet the definition of the City's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The UDO defines stealth technology or facility as "design technology that blends the wireless telecommunications facility into the surrounding environment ". A flag pole at this location did not "blend" with the surrounding environment. However, the City Council has directed staff to continue working with Sprint and yourself to find an acceptable alternative within your search ring. In reviewing the original conditional use permit application and the affidavits submitted to the City on April 29, 2004, I have the following questions regarding the "search ring ; (1) Question: What are the exact boundaries of your search ring? The map submitted with the original application and also referenced as Exhibit "A" is drawn to a fairly large scale. In order for staff to assist you in identifying alternatives, it would be helpful to overlay your exact search ring onto the City's GIS data that is available on our website. (2) Question: Are there areas outside the boundaries of your original search ring that may be acceptable to provide the service needed by Sprint customers? In your affidavit, you identify eight alternative locations that would not work for various reasons. (I am assuming that the power pole referenced in 6.3 and 7.1 are the same location.) Of those eight alternative locations, seven are shown to be outside of your original search ring. One location is more than 0.5 miles from the proposed site. In the affidavit provided by Carolyn E. Schaff she 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. Given this information, staff questions the limits of the search ring provided in your application and affidavit. C24-a—&eiE d 1 (3) Question: How ,avyou determine that "there are no alternative sites available within the search ring that will satisfy Sprint's radio frequency needs" given that you've only provided eight alternatives in such a large geographic area? Staff informed you on several occasions that the proposed flag pole did not meet the definition of stealth technology at this location. You were informed that staff could not support such a design given the surrounding environment. In addition, staff made the following suggestions on the existing site: • Relocate the cell tower to the rear of the site so that it is not clearly visible from Krenek Tap Road. An alternative type of stealth technology such as a pine tree could be used to help the tower blend with the surrounding environment. Staff proposed this alternative in February and March with no response. In reviewing the original search ring provided in your application and your affidavit, staff identified the following alternatives: ,,, q(_ • Shell convenience store /gas station at the intersection of Dartmouth and Southwest Parkway. • Planters & Merchants State Bank located on Southwest Parkway just west of the Dartmouth intersection. .1-1 • Scarmardo Office Building at S.W. Parkway and Ashford. • The apartment complex located on Dartmouth directly behind P &M State Bank & the Shell station owned by Heritage at Dartmouth. • The Haven apartment complex located on Dartmouth immediately across from Teal Street. • The duplex tract known as "Teal Street" located on Dartmouth just east of the Southwest Parkway intersection. • Waterwood Townhomes owned by Jim Stewart currently under construction on Krenek Tap Road. • Windsor Pointe Apartments located on the south side of Southwest Parkway, west of Central Park Lane intersection. • Eastmark Apartments located on the north side of Southwest Parkway, at the Central Park Lane intersection. • The P. David Romei Arts Center located at Colgate and Dartmouth. • The Oak Forest Mobile Home Park located on Krenek Tap Road. Given the number of locations outside of your original search ring, I assume that there are many more alternative locations that could be determined. If you could provide us the exact location of the search ring, we will be happy to assist you in identifying other alternate locations. (4) Question: How committed is Sprint to identifying acceptable alternative locations? After the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on April 1, 2004, staff introduced you to Veronica Morgan, a local engineer who is doing work in the Wolf Pen Creek area as well as Jim Stewart, the owner of Waterwood Townhomes. The purpose was to explore other locations in the area as viable alternatives. At that meeting, Ms. Pat Towery informed us that she was not interested in alternative locations. She emphatically stated that Sprint had over $60,000 invested in this site and was not relocating. c A eL‘ _* . C� cu - Mr. Crain, please understand that the City of College Station values the service that Sprint provides in our city and we are anxious to assist you in filling the gaps in coverage. It is in our best interest to work together to find a location that meets all of our needs. However, we must ensure that the requirements in the City's UDO are met and that all alternative locations are explored. I feel that we have provided many alternatives to the original proposal and look forward to working with you on finding a location that complies with our UDO. Q � ,� If you have ;ny questions or need additional information, please contact Jetrrim Keeves or myself at) 764 -3570. ( Cit-;E— Sincerely (41q) Natalie Thomas Ruiz Development Manager 5wCP. • 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 Roa z ,,- o Windsor Pointe Apart ent cated on the south side of Southwest Parkway, e entral Park Lane intersection. GUI: o Eastmark Apartments located on the north side of Southwest Parkway, at the Central Park Lane intersection. • • Alternative Sites outside their search rin 6 '"1 67 - ' . 6�' '� ' o Central Park (was told it was o t of their search ring /anti it would be too much red tape) _-=,.• " d o After P &Z staff suggested that they try and work with the ice C ' ? �:� rink to incorporate a stealth design into one of their flag poles, introduced Mike Crain to Veronica Morgan to put him in touch with her applicant for the ice rink. (Mike said it was out of their search ring) • -; �- — 664- t • Miscellaneous: o 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 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. --kijejat12-C&A)e,(0. &;-,,vit.,,Lt7tLe- 64- 'vim ■ ,, , a , se e: Lee ,* 1/4e-tt-iiAtick Natalie Ruiz Wright Cell tower Page 1 From: Jennifer Reeves To: Natalie Ruiz Date: 5/4/2004 4:41:38 PM Subject: Wright Cell tower The following are existing Sprint towers: (02 -32) Cullpepper Plaza off of College behind Laser Tag (02 -34) Dominik /Haskins tower (97 -717) Longmire (99 -724) Grace Bible Church (02 -33) Southwood (Co- locate) I spoke with Mike Craine: (1) Mike said he could not think of any Sprint owned towers within one mile of the Wright Property, however he wasn't sure if they were co- located on any within one mile. (2) He felt pretty certain that he did not turn in any kind of data reference sheet to go with the Inventory of sites within College Station and the College Station ETJ. He said that was something that RF ( ?) or Pat would have to provide. Let me now if I have left something out or if I am not making sense. Reeves Jennifer Reeves Staff Planner City of College Station jreeves @cstx.gov (979) 764 -3570 (979) 764 -3496 FAX City of College Station Development Services 1101 Texas Avenue South P.O. Box 9960 College Station, Texas 77842 Attn: Susan Hazlett Re: Letter of 3 -11 -2004 Subject: Consideration of a CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — USE & SITE request for 903 Krenek Tap Road To Whom It May Concern: I am a property owner at 2517 Crosstimbers. Since I will out of the country during your public hearing on the above subject, I want to voice my objection to the construction of any communication towers so near a housing area. Not only does it become an "eye sore," it has a negative impact on adjacent property values. I do not wish to be subjected to the lowering of m property value in order for such a facility g YP Pe Y Y to be constructed near this multifamily area. I am s ur e there are other areas available that are not in the immediate vicinity of housing communities. Regards, avid Harwell Homeowner A Message Page 1 of 2 Jennifer Reeves - Questions regarding a Stealth Telecommunications Structure near Central Park From: "Michael Crain" <mcrain @fossilcreek.com> To: "Jennifer Reeves" < jreeves @ci.college- station.tx.us >, "Lee Battle" <Ibattle @ci.college- station.tx.us> Date: 8/27/2003 2:50 PM Subject: Questions regarding a Stealth Telecommunications Structure near Central Park Ms. Reeves and Mr. Battle, I have talked with you both in the past regarding the placement of a Stealth Telecommunications Tower in the area near Central Park off of Krenek Tap Road. The address we are looking at is 903 Krenek Tap Road. Mr. Battle, as you and I discussed a little over a week ago, this property and the adjacent property is zoned R4. The property across Krenek Tap owned by the Kapchinski's is zoned R1. The type of structure we our looking to present to the City is an 80' flagpole similar to the flagpoles in the picture attached. The base of the structure would not be a building, but rather a fenced compound with a masonry wall similar to the masonry finish of the adjacent property. I have several questions I have been unable to find the answer's to before Sprint and the landowner decide whether or not to pursue this project. I have attached a site plan to help address these questions. The questions are visibly addressed in the attached site plan and are also noted at the bottom of this email. I appreciate your time and efforts in helping me with this matter. Mike Crain Fossil Creek Land Company mcrain @fossilcreek.com • CS 281- 36 -6666 office / fax 281 -516 -2883 Questions to the City of College Station: • What is the requirement for any subsequent buildings, residences or structures as far as setbacks are concerned from the proposed 80' Flagpole (stealth cell- tower) once it has been approved and constructed? Please see the radius on the site plan attached. • Regarding the proposed driveway: The nearest existing driveway North of the proposed driveway is —125' away. The nearest existing driveway South of the proposed driveway is -110' away. Will the City allow a new driveway this distance away from either of the above referenced driveways? file: / /C: \Documents %20and %20Settings \jreeves \Local %20Settings \Temp \GW } 00001.HTM 8/29/2003 Wright - Central Park 903 Krenek Tap Road C'h) c 0 w co to drawing is not to scale and — a>' a is made for discussion iv m purposes only / 0 c O U existing driveway Z , U Adjacent Property R,. Zoned R4 A . Proposed Sprint ground mounted `��'�� proposed driveway equipment 30' long x 15 wide I 1C Lease area :10, o. 30' x 50' ,, / ! o . ��� la a . Y a 2 parking I c Proposed Sprint stealth spaces t telecommunications ---- .______ i t J :� 0 i -a u structure (flagpole) 80' in height I existing 30 power pole. l` g N O 9 electric and telco Ce (Pole # 2740-10) I Q 0. Subject Property i o a. Zoned R4 i w Y 9 I existing driveway Questions to the City of College Station: What is the requirement for any subsequent buildings, residences or structures as far as setbacks are concerned from the proposed 80' Flagpole (stealth cell- tower) once it has been approved and constructed? Regarding the proposed driveway: The nearest existing driveway North of the proposed driveway is -125' away. The nearest existing driveway South of the proposed driveway is -110' away. Will the City allow a new driveway this distance away from either of the above referenced driveways? Regarding setbacks of Telecommunications structures from an R1 zoning district: Can the Krenek Tap Road R.O.W. be a part of the 80' required setback away from the R1 zoned property P P q Y P P Y across Krenek Tap? Drawing Prepared by: Site 903 Krenek Tap Rd Prepared for: Address: College Station, TX FOSSIL CREEK LAND CO. Submitted to: Sprint Spectrum 7703 Painton Ln dba Sprint PCS Spring, TX 77389 Wright Properties (281) 536 -6666 Date Prepared: 8/22/03 Message Page 2 of 2 • Regarding setbacks of Telecommunications structures from an R1 zoning district: Can the Krenek Tap Road R.O.W. be a part of the 80' required setback away from the R1 zoned property across Krenek Tap? file: / /C:\ Documents% 20and% 20Settings \jreeves\Local %20Settings \Temp \GW } 00001.HTM 8/29/2003 immilwa■ --'1111111111= Jennifer Reeves - Fwd Sprint COI Tower on Krenek Tap - Page 1 From: Natalie Ruiz To: Jennifer Reeves Date: 5/7/2004 2:39:03 PM Subject: Fwd: Sprint Cell Tower on Krenek Tap I found this while I was cleaning out my e -mail. Just FYI for your timeline. Natalie Thomas Ruiz, AICP Development Manager City of College Station Phone (979) 764 -3570 Fax (979) 764 -3496 nruiz @cstx.gov www.cstx.gov College Station. Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. »> Glenn Brown 2/11/2004 4:25:17 PM »> Two things. First when I met with Mike Crain, Dr. Wright, and Pat Towery yesterday, Ms. Towery requested the name of one staff person that could be their point of contact. When I spoke with Mike Crain a few minutes ago I told Bridgette should be their contact person. Secondly, after I explained why the staff was not going to recommend in favor of the flag pole as meeting the definition of stealth, I did offer a meeting with Kelly, if that would be helpful. I did stress to him that they could proceed with this request even without a positive staff recommendation. He will have a conference call with his clients tomorrow afternoon, and will let me know Friday what their plans are. Glenn D. Brown Assistant City Manager City of College Station PO Box 9960 College Station, TX 77842 979 764 -3510 gbrown(cr�,cstx.gov Sprint PCS - NEPA RF Compliance 1 5200 Santa Fe Trail Drive, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 - Office (913) 890 -2519 - Fax (913) 523 -0436 Date: February 17, 2004 To: City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue College Station, TX 77842 Attn: Mr. Glenn Brown From: David Kirk, Sprint PCS Site Address: Krenek Tap @ Dartmouth Drive, College Station, TX 77840 Site Description: monopole Site Owner: Sprint PCS The purpose of this letter is to demonstrate compliance with FCC standards in regard to the electromagnetic emissions from the antennas located on the monopole at site H059XC439 at the following address: Krenek Tap @ Dartmouth Drive, College Station, TX 77840. The FCC, in regulating electromagnetic radiation, applies a modified version of the standards developed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) to include the NCRP standard for Specific Absorption Rate or SAR, for PCS bands. These standards, when converted over to the more familiar power density specification, set a maximum power density level for public areas at 1.00mW /cm (milliwatts per square centimeter) for general population exposure and 5.00mW /cm for occupational exposure. For a measure of safety, this level is set 50 times lower than levels the standards committees felt could potentially be harmful for constant exposure. PCS technology uses very low power transmitters especially when compared with TV and Radio broadcasting which can be hundreds of thousands of times more powerful than a PCS station. Our antennas are designed to concentrate the majority of their signal power out of the front of the antenna in a very thin beam. Signal strength coming from the back of an antenna and from positions well below an antenna is typically hundreds of times lower than the signal in the main beam at the front of the antenna. Through software modeling techniques we can calculate the power density from a Sprint PCS installation at a variety of locations around the proposed site. The site in this instance is a monopole installation using a 65 degree beam width antenna. Sprint PCS evaluates all sites, to determine the percent of exposure incurred by the general public as well as occupational exposure resulting from the operation of our antennas. This is an issue we take very seriously, and much effort and manpower goes into maintaining NEPA compliant sites. In addition to this, regular audits are conducted to ensure accuracy and completeness. We have developed several proprietary software programs exclusively used to determine Power Density levels and to compute Maximum Exposure limits. It is also our policy that when a site is changed in any manner that would impact exposure levels, a new analysis is performed. All data is saved and available to the FCC upon request. The following contains information on the current FCC standards, the type of modeling Sprint PCS uses to ensure compliance to the standards, and the results of the study for this particular site. Current FCC - adopted Exposure Limits In FCC 96 -326, the FCC adopted new exposure guidelines. The guidelines are given in terms of m W /cm and the maximum limits are termed 'Maximum Permissible Exposure' (MPE) for both occupational and general cases. Because these guidelines are based upon the same SAR limits as those in the IEEE /ANSI and NCRP guidelines, they also include the safety factors of 10 and 50 for occupational and general public scenarios respectively. The graph in Figure 1 -1 shows the current FCC MPE guidelines. The two arrows indicate the cellular ( -850 MHz) and PCS (1900 MHz) frequencies. The exposure limits for PCS, expressed in terms of "power density ", are 1.0 and 5.00mW /cm for general public and occupational cases, respectively. Figure 1 -1: FCC Exposure Limits Current FCC Rules/Regulations The current regulations are contained in CFR Title 47, Sections 1.1307 and 1.1310. A brief summary of the current regulation is as follows: In general, all facilities, operations and transmitters regulated by the Commission must comply with the exposure limits put forth in the NEPA rules of Title 47, Part 1, Section 1.1307 and 1.1310. Applications to the Commission ... must contain a statement confirming compliance with the limits unless ... categorically excluded. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request. In the case of multiple fixed transmitters, any action necessary to bring the facility into compliance is the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters contribute more than 5% of the exposure limit applicable to that transmitter. Spherical Modeling The concept of the spherical model is to assume that the EIRP of the actual antenna is being applied to a point source (true isotropic radiator). This is really only valid in the center of the main beam of the antenna but it guarantees a worst -case view everywhere else. The power density is then calculated by dividing the EIRP by the surface area of the sphere (4 ?r for the distance r away from the antenna. In general, we will consider the shortest distance between the antenna and a six (6) foot area above the roof or ground where a person might stand. Additionally, we must multiply the EIRP by a power reflection coefficient to account for the fact that reflections from the roof or ground could add constructively with the incident wave at the point in question. The equation for power density is the following: Where: S is power density in mw /cm EIRP is in watts PRC is the power reflection coefficient (we will use 2.56 for most applications, as specified by the EPA) Rd is the radius, direct distance from antenna (bottom) to point of interest, meters Cylindrical Modeling The concept of the cylindrical model is to take the power actually delivered to the antenna, Pt (NOT EIRP) and assume it is equally distributed over the surface of a cylinder of the same length as the antenna. If the antenna is a directional antenna then we reduce the surface area of the cylinder by BW /360 (BW is the 3 -dB beam -width in degrees). This is a good near -field model. Additionally, if the antenna is mounted above the level, the average power density in a 6 -foot tall area immediately above the rooftop level (or where a person might be standing or located), is reduced according to how far above/below the person is in relation to where the antenna is mounted. The equation for the power density is the following: Where: S is the power density in mw /cm P is the actual (or worst case assumed) power delivered to the antenna, watts K(H is the correction factor for antenna mounting height H is the antenna mounting height, feet L is the length of the antenna, meters Rh is the horizontal distance along roof from antenna to point of interest, meters BW is the 3 -dB beam -width of antenna K(H 0.99013 - 0.14656 *H 0 <= H < 6 0.17532 - 0.01076 *H 6 <= H < 10 0.06772 10 <= H K(H makes corrections for antennas mounted lower than the roof level and for antennas shorter than 6 feet. Exposure Modeling Using Spherical and Cylindrical Modeling, it is the policy of Sprint PCS to perform sufficient analysis on each site to assure that the above mentioned FCC Rules and Regulations are being met. Sprint PCS proprietary software is used to model RF exposure conditions on rooftops and in any other areas that our antennas are used. In this situation, the antennas are mounted on a monopole. The following are a summary of the results obtained from our in -house modeling tools for this site: Antenna #1: Front of Antenna Cylindrical Model Transmit Power 74.01 Watts Frequency 1947.5 MHz Antenna Height 0 Feet Length of Antenna 6 Feet Beam -width 65 Degrees General Occupational Exposure Limit 1 5 mw /cm Percent Distance 100% 11.5875 2.3175 Feet 50% 23.1751 4.635 Feet 33% 34.7626 6.9525 Feet 5% 231.7509 46.3502 Feet Figure 1 -2: Result for H059XC439 (Front of Antenna #1) Figure 1 -3: Percent of MPE vs. Horizontal Distance for H059XC439 (Front of Antenna #1) The results of the analysis show in Figure 1 -3 that to incur 100% of the Maximum Permissible Exposure levels an individual would have to be directly within 11.5875 feet of the front of the antenna in it's main beam. This could only occur if an individual climbed in front of the antenna or placed a bucket truck less than 12 feet from the front of the antenna. Figure 1 -3 shows how rapidly the power density levels fall off (in percent of FCC maximum) as the distance increases. Antenna #1: Back of Antenna Cylindrical Model Transmit Power 0.23 Watts Frequency 1947.5 MHz Antenna Height 0 Feet Length of Antenna 6 Feet Beam -width 65 Degrees General Occupational Exposure Limit 1 5 mw /cm Percent Distance 100% 0.0359 0.0072 Feet 50% 0.0719 0.0144 Feet 33% 0.1078 0.0216 Feet 5% 0.7185 0.1437 Feet Figure 1 -4: Result for HO59XC439 (Back of Antenna #1) Figure 1 -5: Percent of MPE vs. Horizontal Distance for HO59XC439 (Back of Antenna #1) The results of Figure 1 -5 show that to incur 100% of the Maximum Permissible Exposure levels an individual would have to be directly within 0.0359 feet of the back of the antenna. In other words, the person would have to be behind the antenna and closer than 0 inches. Maintenance Safeguards Routine maintenance near the antennas is no cause for concern. If for some reason the antennas need to be moved or handled then the regional RF Manager at Sprint PCS should be notified or you may call at 1- 888 - 859 -1400 to facilitate a power down. Summary As can be seen from the data, these antennas are mounted on a monopole above ground level. An individual would have to come within less than 12 feet of the front of Antenna #1 (worst case) or within 0 inches of the back of Antenna #1 to reach anywhere close to FCC maximum exposure limits. Since these antennas are mounted above ground level, with limited access, this is unlikely to occur. Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields is of great concern to Sprint PCS and we evaluate all sites for compliance to current FCC rules and regulations. We are continually striving to improve the quality of our modeling techniques through continuous improvement of our software tools and training procedures. We recognize our role as an industry leader to place the health and welfare of the public and occupational workers in high regard and we will continue to do so through mandatory modeling and measurements as required. We determine the hazard that is present and inform occupational workers through training and appropriate signage. Please don't hesitate to call if you should have any questions or are in need of any further information regarding the RF emissions from this site. Sincerely, C 1/4-c( David Kirk Sprint PCS, Manager, Regulatory Compliance Jennifer Reeves Cell Tower on Krenek Tap Road Page 1 From: "Jim Stewart" <jbstewart6 @comcast.net> To: <JREEVES @cstx.gov> Date: 3/31/2004 4:20:14 PM Subject: Cell Tower on Krenek Tap Road Jennifer: I am writing to express my deep concern for the request to erect an 80' cell tower on Krenek Tap Road on the tract of land adjacent to the Waterwood Townhomes property. While I understand that the tower will look like a tall flag pole (sometimes called a "stealth" tower), there is nothing stealthy about an 80' tall pole, which would dwarf everything around it. We that are associated with the development of Waterwood Townhomes have and are doing our best to put forward a project that is quality in every way, and a number of staff from the City of College Station have expresssed enthusiasm for what we have done - particularly with regard to the exterior elevations. We always believed that Central Park was an asset to our project; in turn, we wanted our project to be an asset to Central Park, as well as to make a positive contribution to the types of quality developments the City has indicatd it wants to see along Krenek Tap. I understand that the City is in the process of creating an overlay district for the properties along Krenek Tap Road, and I have no problem with the development criteria spelled out in the overlay district proposal (with the exception of the proposal to limit the height of wrought iron fences to only 4' high). I welcome additional developments along Krenek Tap that are going to complement what we have done, as well as what the City has already done and will do in the future. So it seems quite out of place to plant smack in the middle of this overlay district (along with its restrictive criteria) an unsightly 80' tall pole that will stick out like a sore thumb. I ask the City staff to recommend denial of this request for a conditional use permit; this would speak volumes regarding the City's commitment to quality developments along Kreenk Tap Road. Sincerely Jim Stewart Managing Partner, Waterwood Townhomes, LP • sr 11 11 JERR Er , February 16, 2004 Site ID #/Name: HO59XC439- A/Wright- College Station To Whom It May Concern: Jeppesen conducted an aeronautical study on February 16, 2004 for Sprint Spectrum, LP. The study was to determine a proposed structure's effect, if any, on navigable airspace. Jeppesen's ASAC study was conducted in accordance with Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations, FAR (14 C.F.R. Subchapter E, Part 77) and Part 17 of the Federal Communications Commission, FCC Rules and Regulations (47 C.F.R. Part 17). The proposed construction site is located in the Houston, TX BTA. The NAD 83 site coordinates are Latitude 30° 36' 39.78" North, Longitude 096° 17' 54.13" West. The site has a surface elevation of 273 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The structure has a proposed height of 100 feet above ground level (AGL), which includes the additional height of any antennas, etc. This gives an overall structure height above mean sea level of 373 feet AMSL. The site is located 20,443 feet or 3.36 nautical miles on a True Bearing of 072.59 degrees from the approach end of Runway 22 at Easterwood Field Airport, the nearest landing surface for regulatory compliance purposes. The surface elevation at this point is 317 feet AMSL. The site is located 22,159 feet or 3.65 nautical miles on a True Bearing of 068.34 degrees from the airport reference point (ARP) of this public use, instrumented airport. FAR Part 77 prescribes various airspace surfaces and slopes established at and around airports. Part 77.13 prescribes slopes and surfaces, which if exceeded, require the sponsor of the structure to provide the Federal Aviation Administration with Notice of Proposed Construction. FCC Rules Part 17 also specifies this requirement. Additionally, Part 77 Subpart C prescribes various airspace surfaces and slopes, which if any are exceeded, require the FAA to provide public notice inviting comments prior to issuing a determination. Subpart C also prescribes surfaces and slopes, which if exceeded, will identify the proposed structure as a Hazard to navigable airspace. STV 51509 -04 Page 1 1903 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 250, Atlanta, Georgia 30349 678.924.8000 -Fax 678.924.8006 - www.asacinc.com Q11(;e6LArt* Wright Cell Tower Conditional Use Permit Compliance with the Ordinance: (Include those questionable areas of the 66(114- UDO that may no not _ have been included in the application.) gth,a- V"-cke.2,_ tt tftc, Cv/cLetd2e-,-. l _D 4.6eet,‘c..L.A.A.7 . q<et-k-cLok-. '6 Alternatives: (Italics denotes that this alternative was presented in their application). 'A • 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 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. 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 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 ' • / ' l ' • d am— ci,Q E a i- � - • The City of `I College Station, Texas \ / Embracing the Past, Exploring the Future. S � P S Legal Department P.O. Box 9960 • 1101 Texas Avenue • College Station, TX 77842 • (979) 764 -3507 • FAX: (979) 764 -3481 www.ci.college-station.tx.us MEMORANDUM TO: Jane Kee, City Planner latalie Ruiz, Development Coordinator Olivia Burnside, Director /OTIS FROM: Harvey Cargill, Jr., City Attorney DATE: May 4, 2004 RE: Cell Tower CO Enclosed is an article that previously has been sent to P &Z and the Development Services Department and explained by Roxanne over a year ago. The present cell tower ordinance is designed to ensure that we gain sufficient information so that College Station not "have the effect of prohibiting the providing of cell tower service" to its customers. Please review the file as to the recently filed affidavits and applications. It is important to supplement the process of April 29th by presenting to the City Council any additional pertinent information that is found. Please call if you have any questions. HC:jls cc: Tom Brymer Glenn Brown Roxanne Nemcik Carla Robinson jslo:Iharveylmemos12004105 -04 -04 cell tower menUEMYle of Texas A &M University Home of the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum Article 6. Zonin• Districts Section 6.3. Specific Use Standards C U t,, N ° f IN eL.5ra No+ S ure 7. Stealth Antennas Any antenna meeting the stealth antenna definition of this ordinance and locating on an alternative mounting structure may attach to the exterior of any non - residential building within any zoning district with approval of the zoning official. 8. Application Procedures a. Site Plan Requirements An application for administrative a for a WTF shall include the followi g items (in addition Conditional n tote e p plan and other information required for a standard CUP application): b. An inventory of the applicant's existing and future towers that are either within the City, the City's ETJ, or within at least 1 mile of the City's boundary where the ETJ does not extend that far. The inventory shall include specific information about the location, design, and height of each tower. The owner must have on file with the development department a master list of all existing tower structures owned or controlled by the owner. Such list must specify the name, address and telephone number of the owner of record, the tower locations by address and legal description, tower height, the number of antenna arrays on the tower, and the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all other users of the tower structures. The zoning administrator may share such information with other applicants or organizations seeking to locate antennas within the City. c. Site plan drawn to scale clearly indicating the location, height, and design of the proposed tower, equipment cabinets, transmission buildings and other accessory uses, access, parking, fences, and r�o�- Svr� i landscaped areas. --)d. The linear separation distance from other transmission towers within a $.0 l . bn. _ r+.lsrad� vs one -mile radius of the proposed tower site. The linear separation distance from all residentially -zoned properties, residential struc and applicable thoroughfares as outlined in Section 6.3. tures la Proximity to Major Thoroughfares, within 500 feet of the o, tower. prop, e. A visual impact analysis, presented as color photo simulations, showing the proposed site of the WTF. At least four views shall be submitted looking toward the site (typically north, south, east and west) including views from the closest residential property and from III adjacent roadways. The photo - realistic representation shall depict a "skyline" view showing the entire height of the proposed tower or WTF III to to scale, and the structures, trees, and any other objects contributing • the skyline profile. A �� Alf". Se a�• - Plans for the antenna and the antenna tower shall be prepared and , �(Am (1 :� �. i 4 - by a licensed professional engineer and designed to withstand IN 1,..., ;Ail r <v� « -� sustained winds of at least 80 miles per hour. All telecommunication facilities must meet or exceed the current b'AQPfa0`c� n k bu'Ia� standards and regulations of the FAA, the C A RC y,. ; 4- ? O \ of the Federal Government with the authority regulate gulat other agency 111 p telecommunication facilities. An applicant for a permit shall submit n.,c v SeAle3 affidavit confirming compliance with applicable regulation an s A ► A�F�o (bp t s Ap qa,-J / 6 15 k c cty t o 9 Unified Development Ordinance V � 10 r A mi l/ II 6/13/03 City of College Station, Texas Article 6. Zonis• Districts Section 6.3. Specific Use Standards h. Grid plan (propagation map) of the service area for existing and future structures for a period of not Tess than 5 years. The submission should include a map showing the "search ring" that was required for siting illb ' the proposed facility. 9. Collo .'ation Requirements No new tower shall be built, co add t onal wireless tlecommun cations the tower is capable of supporting facilities. The applicant must submit a letter addressed to the City declaring an intent and willingness to construct a proposed tower that would allow additional service providers to locate on the new tower. 10. Documentation of Need and Alternatives No new communications tower shall be permitted unless the appt authority - `es to the reasonable satisfaction of the approving ,ting tower, building, structure, or alternative technology can .\ Ite the applicant's proposed antenna. The applicant rmation related to the availability of suitable existing towers, :ures or alternative technology that can accommodate the proposed antenna. The zoning official or approving authority ;t information necessary to demonstrate that reasonable 3 do not exist. The applicant must submit: nes, addresses, and telephone numbers of all owners of other � = support structures within a one-half mile a I or usable antenna supp )f the proposed new tower site, including City -owned property. I 1 1 affidavit attesting to the fact that the applicant made diligent, successful, efforts to obtain permission ermission to install or collocate the lility on existing towers or antenna support structures located , one -half mile radius of the proposed tower site. The affidavit )ell out the efforts taken by the applicant. ription of the design plan proposed by the applicant to the City. s licant must demonstrate the need for towers and why I' , , � technological hnnolot ogical design alternatives, such as the use of microcell, cannot r be utilized to accomplish the provision of the applicant's telecommunications services. 11. Conditional Use Permits as outlined in I � Major WTFs must apply for a conditional use permit (CUP) Section 6.3.Q.3, Permittable Locations, under the procedures set forth in it � Section 3.13, Conditional Use Permit. In addition to the standard I I guidelines, the following naddon When determining le whether to grant a CU Planning & Zoning Com I 1 1 for WTFs: a . Height of the proposed tower, surrounding topography and surrounding tree coverage and foliage as they relate to: 1 ' (1) Skyline e p pea s dominate whether or blend in with the u I � structure app the �, environment. (2) Shadow impact, whether or not the proposed tower will cast e shadows that would prevent the reasonable use or enjoy surrounding properties. [I i I II 1 City of College Statl I 6 -16 6/13/03 Unified Development Ordinance The dimensions of the facilities (equipment area) will be 30' x 50'. The surrounds of this facility will also be of a "Stealth Technology or Facility" characteristic as defined in Section 11.2 Terms of the City of College Station, Unified Development Ordinance and will be designed to blend with the surrounding development and future development by using masonry like material on the exterior walls, wrought -iron entrance gate into the facilities and landscaping as required per Section 7.5 (landscaping and tree protection) of Article 7 of the City of College Station, General Development Standards. The facilities will be designed to allow for 1 additional Wireless Carrier to collocate upon the structure and within the facilities as further attested to and explained in the attached statement from Sprint PCS. Typically there will be 2 vehicles and employees per month that access and visit this site. The visits are made primarily for adjustments to equipment and for general maintenance of the facilities. Exceptions to this would be rare, but may include such things as power outages or heavy storms that may require an additional visit to check or further adjust equipment. Feel free to contact me with further questions or concerns. SPRINT PCS Division Houston Sprin 15413 Vantage Parkway West Houston, TX. 77032 Phone (281) 618 -8418 Fax (281) 618 -8486 PCS (936) 443 -4855 February 19, 2004 Bridgette George Assistant Development Manager City of College Station, Texas 1101 Texas Ave. South College Station, TX 77840 Ms. George, Regarding allowing and cooperating with other wireless carriers to allow collocation on Sprint owned towers: .s1..3.u4lii}vi. ll,v: This letter is intend d to assure the City of College Station that all Wireless Transmission Facilities built by Sprint PCS in College Station, will be built for collocation as required by article 6 section 6.3.Q.9. of the City of College Station, Wireless Telecommnication Facility / Unified Development Ordinance. We welcome and actively encourage other telecommunication companies to collocate on these structures. Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to call if you would like to discuss these issues further. Sincerely, 4a Patricia Towery Sr. Property Specialist Sprint PCS SPRINT PCS Division Houston 15413 Vantage Parkway West Houston, TX. 77032 Phone (281) 618 -8418 Fax (281) 618 -8486 PCS (936) 443 -4855 February 19, 2004 Bridgette George Assistant Development Manager City of College Station, Texas 1101 Texas Ave. South College Station, TX 77840 Ms. George, Regarding the requirement that applications for a Major WTF must include a grid plan showing future site placements for a pericfn:ot less than 5 years: Sprint projects its growth and site placement based on two primary factors including; census and demographics information from the 2000 Census and consumer feedback and complaints. As undoubtedly College Station faces, predicting future municipal growth and future growth areas are very difficult if not impossible to predict accurately. For Sprint to base future site placement on this would not only be prohibitively expensive but in a great number of cases would prove to be ineffective. The primary method Sprint has found that effectively addresses site placement is consumer feedback and complaints. As Sprint receives customer feedback, these remarks and locations are logged. As RF Engineers try and determine where best to place a site, these logs are reviewed and from a review of these logs and radio propagation studies, a "Search Ring" is issued that best fits with Sprint's existing network. Often, even radio propagation studies alone cannot take into account changes in traffic from midday to rush hour or seasonal changes of foliage. This utilization of consumer feedback makes future plans for site placement in any given municipality or area impossible to predict. Sincerely, Patricia Towery Sr. Property Specialist Sprint PCS f ossft CREEK Primary: 832-928-0100 ,` 7703 Painton Lane ry LAND COMPANY Spring, TX 77389 Office: 281 FAX: 281 - 516 -2158 M[MO TO: Bridgette George City of College Station CC: FROM: Michael Crain fossil Creek Land Company DATE: February 19, 2004 RE: "Documentation of Needs and Alternatives" for a proposed Sprint Wireless Telecommunications Facility at 903 Krenek Tap Road Sprint Site designation: H059XC439A (Wright — College Station) The purpose of this letter is to depict and detail the research that took place prior to choosing the property located at 903 Krenek Tap Road for a proposed Sprint Wireless Telecommunications Facility "WTF ": During the initial "Search Area Scrub" it was quickly determined that there are no towers or structures available for collocation within or near the search area with the exceptions noted directly below. The following City owned property and structures within or near Central Park were considered: 1. Existing -50' Softball Field Light in Central Park near Central Park Drive and Krenek Tap. 2. Existing -65' Flagpole in Central Park 3. Existing -72' Power Pole along Hwy. 6 Access Road near Krenek Tap Page 1 of 4 Needs and Alternative Letter for proposed WTF at 903 Krenek Tap Road fossii CREEK Primary: 832 - 928 -0100 LAND COMPANY Spring, TX 77389e Office: 281 FAX: 281 - 516 -2158 MEMO TO: Bridgette George City of College Station CC: FROM: Michael Crain fossil Creek Land Company DATE: February 19, 2004 RE: Explanation and details of use for a proposed Sprint Wireless Telecommunications Facility at 903 Krenek Tap Road Sprint Site designation: H059XC439A (Wright — College Station) The purpose of this letter is to explain the proposed use and details of a Sprint Wireless Telecommunications Facility proposed for 903 Krenek Tap Road. The proposed property location of this facility, whose physical address is 903 Krenek Tap Road, is located in an "R4 — Multi - Family Residential" zoning designation. • The property directly adjacent and in a Northerly direction from the proposed site is designated "R4 ". • The property in a Southerly direction approx. 165' away from the proposed site is designated "R4 ". • The property in an Easterly direction across Krenek Tap Road, approx. 116' from the proposed site is designated "R1 ". • The property in a Westerly direction approx. 600' away from the proposed site is designated "R3 ". The proposed site will be used by Sprint PCS as a Wireless Telecommunications Facility and will be constructed with a single "Monopole" structure and will be of a "Stealth Tower" characteristic as defined in Section 11.2 Terms of the City of College Station, Unified Development Ordinance. Specifically, the structure will be "camouflaged" as an 80' tall flagpole. Page 1 of 2 Explanation Letter for proposed WTF at 903 Krenek Tap Road • The dimensions of the facilities (equipment area) will be 30' x 50'. The surrounds of this facility will also be of a "Stealth Technology or Facility" characteristic as defined in Section 11.2 Terms of the City of College Station, Unified Development Ordinance and will be designed to blend with the surrounding development and future development by using masonry like material on the exterior walls, wrought -iron entrance gate into the facilities and landscaping as required per Section 7.5 (landscaping and tree protection) of Article 7 of the City of College Station, General Development Standards. The facilities will be designed to allow for 1 additional Wireless Carrier to collocate upon the structure and within the facilities as further attested to and explained in the attached statement from Sprint PCS. Typically there will be 2 vehicles and employees per month that access and visit this site. The visits are made primarily for adjustments to equipment and for general maintenance of the facilities. Exceptions to this would be rare, but may include such things as power outages or heavy storms that may require an additional visit to check or further adjust equipment. Page 2 of 2 Explanation Letter for proposed WTF at 903 Krenek Tap Road > _ ��_w.�, <� lei L ,®- I , fir - -LA-- ,;, a� C>6 4 t),q (4,)^.-air eqnJ2-st__, 6(20-02eeJ cyv),_c2- I if C\g oi-P dtSee--01 Et - c t)(-1 q e Ct0 e ,- - t t-e_Ar,r7EL, t/ ,1_1' . � ( A -/ V —4-se-3)-utizze,,,- // —qotks,&Q-, , _ /1,4 0,-6e '7 .Lv Oik.oc,Q61C142k--- ET\ ec,22e,e_die_ . ' 6-`-42 i1 • e( (124k9-40 , f otOkc, fossiL CREEK t Primary: 832-928-0100 LAND COMPANY Spring, TX 77389e Office: 281-516-2883 FAX: 281 - 516 -2158 MRAO TO: Bridgette George City of College Station CC: FROM: Michael Crain fossil Creek and Company DATE: February 19, 2004 RE: Explanation and details of use for a proposed Sprint Wireless Telecommunications Facility at 903 Krenek Tap Road Sprint Site designation: H059XC439A (Wright — College Station) The purpose of this letter is to explain the proposed use and details of a Sprint Wireless Telecommunications Facility proposed for 903 Krenek Tap Road. The proposed property location of this facility, whose physical address is 903 Krenek Tap Road, is located in an "R4 — Multi - Family Residential" zoning designation. • The property directly adjacent and in a Northerly direction from the proposed site is designated "R4 ". • The property in a Southerly direction approx. 165' away from the proposed site is designated "R4 ". • The property in an Easterly direction across Krenek Tap Road, approx. 116' from the proposed site is designated "R1 ". • The property in a Westerly direction approx. 600' away from the proposed site is designated "R3 ". The proposed site will be used by Sprint PCS as a Wireless Telecommunications Facility and will be constructed with a single "Monopole" structure and will be of a "Stealth Tower" characteristic as defined in Section 11.2 Terms of the City of College Station, Unified Development Ordinance. Specifically, the structure will be "camouflaged" as an 80' tall flagpole. Page 1 of 2 Explanation Letter for proposed WTF at 903 Krenek Tap Road fossft CREEK Primary: 832.928.0100 LAND COMPANY Spring, T X 77389e Office: 281 FAX: 281 - 516 -2158 MEMO TO: Bridgette George City of College Station CC: FROM: Michael Crain Fossil Creek Land Company DATE: February 19, 2004 RE: "Documentation of Needs and Alternatives" for a proposed Sprint Wireless Telecommunications Facility at 903 Krenek Tap Road Sprint Site designation: H059XC439A (Wright — College Station) The purpose of this letter is to depict and detail the research that took place prior to choosing the property located at 903 Krenek Tap Road for a proposed Sprint Wireless Telecommunications Facility "WTF ": During the initial "Search Area Scrub" it was quickly determined that there are no towers or structures available for collocation within or near the search area with the exceptions noted directly below. The following City owned property and structures within or near Central Park were considered: 1. Existing —50' Softball Field Light in Central Park near Central Park Drive and Krenek Tap. 2. Existing —65' Flagpole in Central Park 3. Existing —72' Power Pole along Hwy. 6 Access Road near Krenek Tap Page 1 of 4 Needs and Alternative Letter for proposed WTF at 903 Krenek Tap Road Even though the sites noted are not in the search area, efforts were made to pursue City Owned Property, (a) to avoid filing for a Conditional Use Permit and (b) to utilize the only structures near the search area. After a meeting with Charlie Shear it was determined that trying to pursue a lease such as this on park property, and as Mr. Shear informed us, because of Texas State Law governing Public Park property, this would be a very long drawn out process. As Mr. Shear further stated, the process would likely have many legal hurdles and possible setbacks that could stop the process altogether, including a public vote to approve the encumbrance of the park property with this lease. If final approval from the City did come, the structure would be required to be dedicated to the City and the structure would become City owned property. Because of the risky nature of this proposal and expense involved with proposals and Sprints legal fees, and because of the timelines to reach approval, this was determined to not be a viable option for Sprint. The Power Pole near Krenek Tap was determined by Radio Frequency Propagation studies to be too far from the desired coverage objective. The City of College Station Public Service Center near King Cole Drive was also determined by Radio Frequency Propagation studies to be too far from the desired coverage objective. Regarding other locations and properties considered: The eastern portion of the search area included several undeveloped properties. Contacts were made to these property owners to ascertain interest as noted below. 1. Kapchinski Property: a. After conversing with Mr. Kapchinski it was determined that The City of College Station was in negotiations to purchase the property along Krenek Tap Road. Mr. Kapchinski inquired to the City as to the possibility of Sprint leasing a small portion of the property for this purpose, it was quickly determined that this would not work. No further action was taken. 2. Beautiful Savior Lutheran Church): a. Discussion began with church at this location, however it was determined that a new Pastor was coming in and it was not something they wished to pursue. Page 2 of 4 Needs and Alternative Letter for proposed WTF at 903 Krenek Tap Road 3. Raw land south of Dartmouth and west of Krenek Tap: a. 7.4 acres of undeveloped land: The property was outside of the search area and determined to be too far away from the desired coverage area. 4. Raw land north of Dartmouth and west of Krenek Tap: a. 8.98 acres of undeveloped land: The owner of record for this property is David Bradley Dean of Frisco, TX. Numerous attempts to contact went unanswered. Pursuit of the current landlord more feasible logistically. Property is zoned R4 and similar to chosen site otherwise. The central and northern portion of the search area was largely high- density residential including 3 separate apartment complexes and more than 6 square blocks of duplexes with an R -3 zoning designation (Southwest Crossing and Eastmark Phase 2). Because of the limited space availability on these properties and the number of individual families that would be in very close proximity it was not feasible to pursue a lease site through these properties. This included the area west and east of Southwest Parkway and primarily north of Dartmouth Drive. The far western portion of the search area was almost exclusively single family residential with a zoning designation of R1 & R2. This included the area west of Southwest Parkway and south of Dartmouth Drive. Numerous visits and hours of research into this area were made by Property Specialists and RF Engineers, and various methods were utilized to ascertain the viability of this location including, radio propagation studies, which tests signal output/input from a specific location, and as shown on the included maps. Fossil Creek Land Company researched this area from June 2003 to present and prior to that SBA Sites began research for this site beginning from the Search Area issue date of 12/23/2002. Based on radio propagation studies, the lack of collocation or other viable raw land options in or near the search ring, the subject sites "Stealth" nature helping to mitigate any negative impact on residences, and the fact that we having a willing landlord makes the current location the only clear choice. Thank you for your consideration and time in this matter. Page 3 of 4 Needs and Alternative Letter for proposed WTF at 903 Krenek Tap Road