Loading...
Item 04City of Southlake Department of Planning Case No. ZA04-090 S T A F F R E P O R T March 11, 2005 CASE NO: ZA04-090 PROJECT: Specific Use Permit for a Telecommunications Antenna located on Lot 1R, Block 1, Carroll High School Addition REQUEST: Zone Systems, Inc. is requesting approval of a specific use permit for a telecommunications tower and antenna. ACTION NEEDED: 1. Conduct public hearing 2. Consider specific use permit approval ATTACHMENTS: (A) Background Information (B) Vicinity Map (C) Plans and Support Information (D) Site Plan Review Summary No. 2, dated January 14, 2005 (E) Surrounding Property Owners Map (F) Surrounding Property Owners Responses (G) Full Size Plans (for Commission and Council Members Only) STAFF CONTACT: Ken Baker (481-2036) Dennis Killough (481-2073) BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNER: Carroll Independent School District APPLICANT: Zone Systems, Inc. PROPERTY SITUATION: 1501 W. Southlake Boulevard LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 1R, Block 1, Carroll High School Addition LAND USE CATEGORY: Public / Semi Public CURRENT ZONING: “S-P-1” Detailed Site Plan District P&Z ACTION: January 20, 2005; Approved to table (5-0) until February 17, 2005. February 17, 2005; Approved to table (5-0) until March 17, 2005, noting the applicant has agreed to hold another SPIN meeting. STAFF COMMENTS: Attached is Site Plan Review No. 2, dated January 14, 2005. An optional flag pole style tower has been included in Attachment C, Page 3. N:\Community Development\MEMO\2004cases\04-090SUP.doc Case No. Attachment A ZA04-090 Page 1 Case No. Attachment B ZA04-090 Page 1 Case No. Attachment C ZA04-090 Page 1 Case No. Attachment C ZA04-090 Page 2 Case No. Attachment C ZA04-090 Page 2 Case No. Attachment C ZA04-090 Page 3 Case No. Attachment C ZA04-090 Page 4 Case No. Attachment C ZA04-090 Page 5 ZONE SYSTEMS INC 1620 HANDLEY, SUITE A, DALLAS, TEXAS 75208 February 10, 2005 Southlake City Planning and Zoning Commission 1400 Main Street Southlake, Texas 76092 RE: ZA04-090 Specific Use Permit Verizon Wireless Carroll High School Dear Chair and Commissioners: We have investigated three items since the last hearing on this SUP request. The first item is the antenna structure itself. We have changed our antenna style to a flagpole style structure. We have used this type of pole in a number of other locations. They are seen as a flag pole or as a simple pole with no outward attachments. Most people do not notice them or do not recognize them as mobile telephone antenna structures. The flag pole type structure will be a light brown color to match the color of the school buildings. Flag pole type antenna structures throughout the area are white in color and tend to be rather bright on a sunny day. The light brown color will make the pole less obvious. The second item for investigation was the location of the pole on the school property. The objective of this mobile telephone cell site is to server the residential areas to the south and east of this property. In order to do that the antennas need to be as far southeast as possible. The antenna site is generally in the center of the school campus in order to be away from homes east and south of the campus. Moving the antenna farther north will impair the service that is to be provided to the south and east by the antenna. The antenna will have the least visible impact to all sides of the school by its location in the center of the campus. We wish to maintain the current location in order for the antennas to function efficiently. The third item of investigation is the review of alternative structures. We have located all structures that are anywhere near to this site. There are two. The two structures are shown on the attached maps. They are both monopoles maintained by other cellular companies. They are identified as Greenbriar and Bear Creek on the maps. They are located near Davis Boulevard. They are immediately north of a site shown as Indian Knoll that contains Verizon Wireless’ nearest antenna facility to the southwest of Carroll High School. These two sites are too close to the Indian Knoll site to be used as an alternative to the proposed site at Carroll High School. The propagation analysis map clearly shows that the two sites already have good coverage. The location of antennas on either of these sites would interfere with the Indian Knoll site and not provide the needed coverage to the east. There are two attached maps. Each provide locations of all Verizon sites that now serve this part of the city. One map is a road map and one is the propagation or coverage map providing the radio coverage of the existing sites that serve this area. Please call me if you have any questions and I will answer them or get the answer if I do not know the Case No. Attachment C ZA04-090 Page 6 answer. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Peter Kavanagh Case No. Attachment C ZA04-090 Page 7 Case No. Attachment C ZA04-090 Page 8 Case No. Attachment C ZA04-090 Page 9 Case No. Attachment C ZA04-090 Page 10 Case No. Attachment C ZA04-090 Page 11 Case No. Attachment C ZA04-090 Page 12 Case No. Attachment C ZA04-090 Page 13 Case No. Attachment D ZA 04-090 Page 1 SITE PLAN REVIEW SUMMARY Case No.: ZA04-90 Review No.: Two Date of Review: 1/14/05 Project Name: Site Plan for Telecommunications Tower SUP Carroll High School APPLICANT/CONSULTANT: Zone Systems (for Verizon Wireless) OWNER: Carroll ISD John Brumley Harry Ingalls 1602 Handley Drive, Suite A 3051 Dove Rd. Dallas, TX 75208 Grapevine, TX 76051 Phone: (214) 941-4440 Phone: (817) 949-8260 Fax: CITY STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED PROJECT RECEIVED BY THE CITY ON 1/04/05 AND WE OFFER THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS. THESE STIPULATIONS ARE HEREBY MADE CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AMENDED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NEED FURTHER CLARIFICATION, PLEASE CONTACT DENNIS KILLOUGH AT (817) 481-2073. 1. No indication of the number of users this site shall accommodate has been indicated. A telecommunication tower must be 1) used by two or more wireless telecommunications providers; or 2) designed and built so as to be capable of use by two or more wireless telecommunications providers and the owner of the antenna must certify to the City that the tower is available for use by another wireless telecommunications provider on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. 2. Label the type of construction material and finish to be used on the tower and equipment cabinets/structures. Towers shall be maintained with either a galvanized steel finish or, subject to any applicable standards of the FAA, be painted a neutral color so as to reduce visual obtrusiveness. Highly reflective surfaces shall not be permitted. No glare shall be emitted to adjacent properties. 3. Label the distance to the nearest buildings. Insure that adequate clearance exists between the tower and buildings. 4. Provide a tree survey meeting the requirements of the Tree Preservation ordinance of the area to be affected by construction. Existing mature tree growth and natural land forms on the site shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. In some cases, such as towers sited on large, wooded lots, natural growth around the property perimeter may be sufficient buffer. Mitigation of any tree removal shall be in accordance to the Tree Preservation Ordinance, as amended. Informational Comments: Case No. Attachment D ZA 04-090 Page 2 * After receiving the appropriate zoning approval, no tower, antenna, or other appurtenance shall be installed without first obtaining a building permit issued by the Building Official. * The applicant should be aware that the following issues must be addressed either prior to issuance of a building permit and/or during the operational period of the tower: a) All towers shall meet or exceed current standards and regulations of the FAA, the FCC, and any other agency of the federal or state government with the authority to regulate towers and antennas. If such standards and regulations are changed, then the owners of the towers and antennas governed by this ordinance shall bring such towers and antennas into compliance with such revised standards and regulations within six (6) months of the effective date of such standards and regulations, unless a more stringent compliance schedule is mandated by the controlling federal agency. Failure to bring towers and antennas into compliance with such revised standards and regulations shall constitute grounds for the removal of the tower or antenna at the owner’s expense. b) Applicants shall provide the city with certification of compliance with ANSI and IEEE Standards regarding human exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (“NIER”). c) For antennas, towers and/or supporting structures which are to be located in residential neighborhoods and that are to be equipped with high intensity white lights, the applicant shall provide the city with certification from the FCC of EA approval. d) To ensure the structural integrity of towers, the owner of a tower shall ensure that the tower is constructed and maintained in compliance with standards contained in applicable local building codes (“Uniform Building Codes, UBC”) and applicable standards for towers, published by the Electronics Industries Association Standard 222, (“EIA-222") “Structural Standards for Steel Antenna towers and Antenna Support Structures.” e) A tower inspection report (based upon applicable UBC and EIA-222 standards) shall be prepared by an engineer licensed in the state of Texas and filed with the Building Official in accordance to the following schedule: a) monopoles--at least once every ten (10) years; b) lattice towers--at least once every (5) years; and c) guyed towers--at least once every three (3) years. However, the Building Official may require an immediate inspection should an issue of safety be raised. f) If, upon inspection, the tower fails to comply with such codes and standards and constitutes a danger to persons or property, then upon notice being provided to the owner of the tower, the owner shall have thirty (30) days to bring such tower into compliance with such standards, unless the applicant can demonstrate a hardship and thus establish the need for additional time. If the owner fails to bring such tower into compliance within said thirty (30) days, the city shall remove such tower at the owner’s expense. Case No. Attachment D ZA 04-090 Page 3 g) The applicant shall provide the city with a certificate of insurance, issued by an insurance company licensed to do business in the state of Texas indicating that the applicant carries comprehensive general liability insurance with limits of liability thereunder of not less than: bodily injury: $500,000 for injury to any one person and $1,000,000 for all injuries sustained by more than one person in any occurrence; property damage: $1,000,000 for damage as a result of any one accident. The applicant shall provide the city with a renewal certificate within then (10) business days of each renewal. Any insurance required to be provided by the applicant herein may be provided by a blanket insurance policy covering this property and other locations occupied by the applicant, provided such blanket insurance policy complies with all of the other requirements as to the type and amount of insurance required. The applicant may also fulfill the requirements under this section through a program of self-insurance, subject to approval by the city, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. If the applicant elects to self-insure, then the applicant shall furnish the city with a letter stating that there is a self-insurance program in effect that provides for the same, or greater, coverage than required of the applicant herein. The applicant agrees to furnish the city with certificate of insurance certifying that the applicant has in force and effect the above specified insurance. The certificate and renewal certificates shall provide that insurance shall not be canceled or changed unless 30 days’ prior written notice is just given to the city. h) Each backhaul provider shall be identified and have all necessary franchises, permits, and certificates. The identity of other providers who co-locate to the site and their backhaul providers shall be provided as well. i) No lettering, symbols, images, or trademarks large enough to be legible to occupants of vehicular traffic on any adjacent roadway shall be placed on, or affixed to, any part of a telecommunications tower, platform, antenna or ancillary structure. j) All construction shall comply with all ordinances of the city not in conflict with this section. k) In addition to the usual application fees for rezoning or specific use permit requests, the applicant shall reimburse the city the actual cost of professional services, provided by an engineer or other professional, that may be required to review the application and provide expertise. l) If high voltage is necessary, signs shall be posted every 20' on any exterior fencing which state, “Danger--High Voltage.” The operator shall also post “No Trespassing” signs. m) Any signal interference complaints associated with telecommunications towers or related equipment shall be addressed in accordance with FCC rules and procedures. n) The owner of a tower and/or related telecommunications facilities shall notify the Building Official when the tower or other structures have ceased operating as part of a telecommunications system authorized by the FCC. Within six (6) months of the date the tower ceases to operate as part of an authorized telecommunications system, the tower Case No. Attachment D ZA 04-090 Page 4 must either be removed from the site, or a certificate of occupancy must be obtained to allow another permitted use of the tower. If within six (6) months, the owner fails to remove the tower or obtain proper authorization for the use of the tower, the Building Official shall revoke the certificate of occupancy for the tower and notify the city attorney to pursue enforcement remedies. o) Tower owner(s) shall bear all demolition costs. * Denotes Informational Comment N:\Community Development\REV\2004\04-090SUP1.doc Case No. Attachment E ZA04-090 Page 1 Surrounding Property Owners Specific Use Permit – Telecommunications Antenna Owner Zoning Land Use Acreage 1. Myers Meadow - HOA “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 4.898 2. 7- Eleven Inc. “C-3” Retail Commercial 0.994 3. Southlake Safeco Ltd “C-3” Retail Commercial 1.312 4. Southlake 114 Investors “C-3” Retail Commercial 0.809 5. Southlake Blvd Presbyterian “CS” Retail Commercial 5.024 6. Realty Income Texas Prop Lp “C-3” Retail Commercial 0.970 7. Southridge Lakes - HOA “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 3.443 8. Bologna, Anthony & Susan “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.582 9. Nuese, David & Sandra “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.350 10. Rabbani, Mahmood & Mahnaz “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.435 11. Harless, William & Mary “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.391 12. Rodgers, Craig & Kathy “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.390 13. Whitacre, Charles & Vaunda “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.383 14. Jain, Anuj & Bhanu “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.382 15. Kapich, Jack & Kellly “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.345 16. Wendell, Berry & Jamie “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.361 17. Geroge, Daniel & Susan “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.532 18. Lambeth, Jeffrey & Felicia “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.569 19. Stelling, Richard & Jennifer “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.401 20. Saeec, Quaiser & Samrin “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.333 21. Griffeth, Suzanne Marie “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.444 22. Bruce Family Trust “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.535 23. Williams, Richard & P. “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.430 24. Pahner, Wilfred M III “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.379 Case No. Attachment E ZA04-090 Page 2 25. Candler, Michael “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.314 26. Dominici, James & Maria “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.518 27. Sivula, Antii & Kirst “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.553 28. Roberts Sean & Deena “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.563 29. Schafer, Thomas “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.359 30. Armstrong, Edward & Lagel “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.732 31. Finn, Robert & Tammy “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.432 32. McGovern, Richard & Brenda “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.331 33. Gilmore, Edward & Lagel “R-PUD” Medium Density Resid. 0.301 34. Seitz, Kerry & Suzanne “SF-20A” Medium Density Resid. 0.560 35. Swieter, Kenneth & Danielle “SF-20A” Medium Density Resid. 0.463 36. Mamerow, Bernard & H “SF-20A” Medium Density Resid. 0.461 37. Hammond, Robert & Pamela “SF-20A” Medium Density Resid. 0.461 38. Howell, Glenna Jinx “SF-20A” Medium Density Resid. 0.462 39. Vassios, Michael & Lisa “SF-20A” Medium Density Resid. 0.464 40. Little, Steven & Leigh “SF-20A” Medium Density Resid. 0.457 41. Vanyo, Arole & Gordon “SF-20A” Medium Density Resid. 0.459 42. Robinson, Kenneth “SF-20A” Medium Density Resid. 0.459 43. Simcho, David “SF-20A” Medium Density Resid. 0.459 44. Rogers, Dennis & Sheila “SF-20A” Medium Density Resid. 0.480 45. Castro, Wilfredo & Terri “SF-20A” Medium Density Resid. 0.526 46. Siegler, Steve & Andrea “SF-20A” Medium Density Resid. 0.469 47. Tan, Simon & Jennie “SF-20A” Medium Density Resid. 0.478 48. Park, Louis & Tina “SF-20A” Medium Density Resid. 0.476 49. Lewandowski, Mark & Audra “SF-20A” Medium Density Resid. 0.733 50. May, Clentis & Wanda “S-P-2” Medium Density Resid. 1.020 51. Akard, Larry “S-P-2” Medium Density Resid. 1.009 52. May, Wanda Jean “S-P-2” Medium Density Resid. 1.954 53. Greenwood, Robert Curtis “S-P-2” Medium Density Resid. 0.980 54. Davis Donald “S-P-2” Medium Density Resid. 1.000 55. Ott Real Estate Inv Ltd “O-1” Retail Commercial 1.349 56. Bradner Central Co. “C-2” Retail Commercial 2.260 57. Carroll Isd “S-P-1” Public / Semi- Pubic 55.030 Case No. Attachment F ZA04-090 Page 1 Surrounding Property Owner Responses Specific Use Permit – Telecommunications Antenna Notices Sent: Fifty-nine (59) Responses: One (1) received from outside the 200’ notification area: • Email received from Janet Elliott, 811 Independence Parkway, Southlake, in favor, “This email is in response to the controversy over the tower(s) that Verizon would like to install in our area. We have 4 Verizon phones and none of them work well in our home. We desperately need more towers in the area. Our home is located about 1 mile from the high school in question.”