Title
Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider/Discuss/Act on a Specific Use Permit to Allow a Stealth Telecommunication Structure, Located on the South Side of the Intersection of Stars Avenue and Wellness Way, and Accompanying Ordinance
Summary
COUNCIL GOAL: Direction for Strategic and Economic Growth
(1C: Provide a strong city economy by facilitating a balance between industrial, commercial, residential and open space)
MEETING DATE: March 4, 2025
DEPARTMENT: Development Services - Planning Department
CONTACT: Jennifer Arnold, AICP, Director of Planning
Caitlyn Strickland, AICP, Planning Manager
Jake Bennett, Planner II
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION: Staff recommends approval of the proposed specific use permit request with the following special ordinance provision:
1. The property shall generally develop in accordance with the attached specific use permit exhibit and all applicable development requirements of the city.
APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE: March 4, 2024 (Original Application)
November 21, 2024 (Revised Submittal)
December 20, 2024 (Revised Submittal)
January 10, 2025 (Revised Submittal)
January 21, 2025 (Revised Submittal)
ITEM SUMMARY: The applicant is proposing a specific use permit to allow a stealth telecommunication structure located on the south side of the intersection of Stars Avenue and Wellness Way.
The zoning for the subject property (PD Ord. No. 2003-01-004) requires that a specific use permit be granted in order for a stealth telecommunication structure to be developed on the subject property due to the proposed height of 110 feet and reduced setbacks, as discussed further below.
ZONING:
|
Location |
Zoning District (Permitted Land Uses) |
Existing Land Use |
|
Subject Property |
“PD” - Planned Development District (Commercial Uses) |
Undeveloped Land |
|
North |
“PD” - Planned Development District (Commercial Uses) |
Restaurant and Indoor Commercial Entertainment |
|
South |
“PD” - Planned Development District (Multi-Family Residential Uses) |
Multi-Family Residential |
|
East |
“PD” - Planned Development District (Commercial Uses) |
Outdoor Commercial Entertainment |
|
West |
“PD” - Planned Development District (Commercial Uses) |
Fitness Center |
SPECIFIC USE PERMITS: Pursuant to Section 203C.3.e of the McKinney UDC, the following factors should be considered when evaluating a specific use permit (SUP) request:
• Whether the request complies with all site specifications adopted by the City, including the base zoning district and/or the PD entitlements;
• Whether the site, buildings, and use meet the criteria specified for the use in §205C, Use Definitions and Use-Specific Standards;
• Whether the proposed use will be detrimental to the adjacent properties or to the City as a whole;
• Whether the proposed uses are compatible in terms of scale (building massing, form, orientation, and location), intensity, and operating characteristics with uses and structures on adjacent properties and properties in the vicinity of the proposed application; and
• Whether potential impacts associated with such use are adequately mitigated through enhanced site or building design, including but not limited to additional landscaping, buffers, or screening, to minimize adverse impacts on surrounding uses and the City.
Staff has evaluated the request based on the above-mentioned parameters and feels that the site is appropriate for the proposed telecommunications tower and the proposed location should not interfere or negatively impact adjacent properties.
USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR COMMUNICATION ANTENNAS, SUPPORT STRUCTURES AND SATELLITE DISHES: Pursuant to Section 203H (Communication Antennas, Support Structures, and Satellite Dishes) of the McKinney UDC, the following standards also apply to telecommunication tower uses, and the extent to which the proposed project satisfies these requirements should also be considered when evaluating the specific use permit (SUP) request:
COLLOCATION REQUIRED: The applicant must demonstrate, to the reasonable satisfaction of the city, that no existing antenna support structure can accommodate the applicant’s service needs. Evidence submitted to demonstrate this may consist of any one of the following:
a. That a large number of the service provider’s subscribers are unable to connect or maintain a connection to the national telephone network through applicant’s wireless telecommunications network;
b. That no existing telecommunication structures, including elevated storage tanks, are located within the geographic service area which meet the applicant's engineering requirements;
c. That existing telecommunication structures are not of sufficient height or structural strength to meet the applicant's engineering requirements; and
d. That there are other limiting factors that render existing telecommunication structures unsuitable.
The applicant has provided propagation maps, attached for reference, to show that the nearest existing telecommunication structure is approximately one mile from the proposed structure. In addition, the nearest elevated storage tank is approximately 1.35 miles away. The proposed structure will accommodate the equipment for a total of three service providers. The propagation maps indicate that the proposed tower is necessary to accommodate coverage needs. Based on these factors, Staff feels the applicant has demonstrated the need for the proposed tower pursuant to the specific criteria outlined in the UDC.
DESIGN STANDARDS: Stealth telecommunication structures shall include one of the following:
a. A commercial antenna placed wholly within any permitted building or structure;
b. A structure without any visible antennae that is designed to resemble something other than a telecommunication device including, but not limited to a development identification monument, flagpole, clock tower, or athletic field light pole;
c. A commercial antenna attached to a utility structure (e.g., electrical transmission/distribution tower, elevated water storage tank, etc.) regardless of the height of said structure;
d. A commercial antenna on the roof of a building in a non-residential zoning district that is not visible from an adjacent property or right-of-way;
e. A commercial antenna mounted flush to the exterior of a building/structure in a non-residential zoning district that is painted and/or disguised to integrate into the overall architectural design and is not readily visible/identifiable as an antenna from public roadways or neighboring residential properties; or
f. Another type of stealth telecommunication structure that has been approved by the City Council via the Specific Use Permit Process.
The proposed stealth telecommunication tower is proposed to be a monopole design, with the antennae equipment encased within the tower so the tower resembles a flagpole.
SCREENING: A minimum 6-ft tall masonry screening wall with low evergreen shrubs shall be provided around all associated ground equipment and/or materials. The applicant is proposing to provide a 6-foot masonry screening wall around the proposed telecommunications tower and associated ground equipment with Nellie R. Stevens Holly shrubs planted every 3 feet on center.
HEIGHTS AND SETBACKS: The maximum height of a stealth tower may not extend more than 25 percent above the allowable height of the governing zoning district, or 75 feet, even if an applicable overlay district allows a taller height. However, Heights greater than 25 percent or 75 feet may be approved by the City Council via the Specific Use Permit Process and shall be subject to the requirements of a telecommunications tower (high rise).
The applicant proposes to construct a 110 ft tower. The tower is adjacent to floodplain and a densely treed area along the eastern boundary, which will help screen and buffer the tower from the neighboring soccer complex. Multi-family residential buildings to the south also have a maximum height over 60 feet.
Additionally, telecommunication structures (low-rise and high-rise) shall be setback from all property lines a distance equal to the height of the telecommunication structure. Per the UDC, this setback may be reduced with the approval of a Specific Use Permit. With the proposed height of the structure, the required setback would be 110 feet from the property line.
While the proposed telecommunications structure does not meet the typical setback requirement, the proposed location would be approximately 850 feet from Collin McKinney Parkway and approximately 1,200 feet from Alma Road. It should also be noted that none of the immediately adjacent properties are zoned for single family residential uses.
With the proposed Specific Use Permit request, the applicant requests to reduce the required setbacks from 110 feet along all sides due to the boundary set by the proposed lease area. The lease area is located within a parent tract that is owned by the City of McKinney and is intended to become a park in the future. While the tower is proposed to be located approximately 4 feet from the boundary of the leasing area, the tower would still be located approximately 90 feet from the eastern property line and 150 feet from the southern property line, and hundreds of feet from the northern and western property lines.
As such, Staff is supportive of the reduced height and setbacks and recommends approval of the proposed Specific Use Permit.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996
Federal regulations set forth specific limitations on the City’s authority to regulate zoning and land use decisions on wireless service facilities, such as the telecommunications tower proposed in this case. Specifically, the City:
(i) May not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services.
(ii) May not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
(iii) Must act on applications within a reasonable period of time.
(iv) Must make any denial of an application in writing supported by substantial evidence in a written record.
(v) May not make local decisions that are based directly or indirectly on the supposed environmental effects and/or health effects of radio frequency (RF) emissions.
OPPOSITION TO OR SUPPORT OF REQUEST: Staff has received no letters of support to this request and no letters of opposition. This does not include emails or letters that may have been sent directly to members of the Council. Staff has not received any citizen comments through the online citizen portal.
On February 11, 2025, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0-0 to recommend approval of the request to the City Council.