Telecommunication Tower -Item 6B Hart St applicant presentationSouthlake City Council September 15, 2015
ZA15-034, Specific Use Permit for a Telecommunications Tower, Antennas and Ancillary Buildings
at 1604 Hart Street
Application by Parallel Infrastructure
with Verizon Wireless as
the anchor tenant
1
The engineer for the anchor tenant, Verizon Wireless, has provided before and after coverage maps for the proposed site, with antennas at 75’ Antenna Center Line. The best spot to fill
the coverage gap is at the intersection of Brumlow and East Continental, however that intersection is very close to residential property. The intersection of Brumlow and East Continental
is the center of the search ring map. The proposed site is southeast of the center of the search ring.
Before installation of proposed tower
After installation of proposed tower
Pinkish Red = Coverage outdoors
Pale Green = Coverage inside vehicles
Medium Greens = Coverage inside residences
Darker Greens = Coverage inside commercial buildings
2
The search ring is shown on the left. It is residential in all areas other than the southeast quadrant, where it is light industrial. This was considered by the applicant to be the most
appropriate spot within the search area for a cell tower. The zoning to the east of the proposed site is agricultural, and to the south and east of the agricultural area is manufactured
housing and more light industrial and also some heavy industrial. The owner of the agriculturally zoned property to the east, Mr. Wright, is not interested in leasing his property for
a cell tower and is opposed to the tower.
3
No existing tower can accommodate the applicant’s proposed antennas. Verizon’s engineer indicated that there are no towers available for antennas in the search ring, and antennas outside
the search ring would not remedy the coverage gap, meeting one of the city code criteria for evidence that no existing towers or structures are located within the geographic area required
to meet applicant’s engineering requirements. Verizon’s engineer also provided specific information that the existing tower at E. Continental and Timberline advocated by the neighbors
would not work because the incremental increase in coverage would not offset the amount of interference that would be created at that site relative to two existing sites to the north
and east, meeting another city code criteria for evidence that proposed antenna on an existing tower would cause electromagnetic interference with the antenna on applicant’s other existing
towers or structures.
Existing towers within one mile
Search ring (1/4 mile radius)
4
Verizon’s engineer summarized the proposal for putting Verizon antennas at the existing tower on E. Continental and Timberline as follows: “The area to the west does show improvement
(and rightly so since we have a new site) but we are getting this improvement at the cost of degradation on the east and there is no way we can approve this design that costs us thousands
of dollars to build a site with no real benefit to overall coverage.”
Current interference map
Increase in interference with antennas at existing tower at E. Continental and Timberline
5
The applicant has tried to accommodate neighborhood concerns by lowering the height.
City code requires towers must be designed and built to be capable of use by tower or more carriers. Applicant has agreed to lower the tower height such that it would only accommodate
the minimum of two carriers rather than four in response to the request by the commission to lower the tower.
Affidavit of Jennifer Brown with Parallel Infrastructure indicates that
it would be difficult to find a carrier needing antenna centerline lower than 65’, and with that constraint, the minimum tower height for two carriers would be: 80’ for standard monopole
or three-sided stealth (monument); 100’ for a stealth monopole (flagpole); or 90’ for a monopine.
Applicant has provided photos of different tower styles for consideration by the neighbors
and city council and photosimulations to compare a 90’ monopine; an 80’ three-sided stealth (monument); and a 95’ stealth monopole (flagpole). The stealth monopole could be 100’, or
95’ with a wider base, so the shorter tower is pictured in the photo simulations provided.
6
In response to plan commission and neighborhood concerns about visibility of the proposed tower, the applicant has proposed alternative styles. Sample styles of monopine, three-sided
stealth monument tower, and stealth monopole are shown below.
7
Views of 80’ three-sided monument
From Tealwood undeveloped lot
From E. Continental looking SW
8
Views of 90’ monopine
From Tealwood undeveloped lot
From E. Continental looking SW
9
Views of 95’ stealth monopole
From Tealwood undeveloped lot
From E. Continental looking SW
10
Diameter of pole for different styles: two meet the maximum 48” diameter in the city code:
42 inch base for the Stealth Monopole
42 to 48 inch base for the Monopine “trunk”
10 foot base for the three-sided Monument
11
Applicant has provided an engineer’s opinion that “the possibility of a tower collapse is very unlikely.” Setback variances for various options are set forth below. Applicant and the
property owner are willing to relocate the tower to the west side of the proposed site so that it would avoid utility lines.
80 ft.
45 foot setback from side property line (35 foot fall zone variance.)
20 foot setback from front property line (60 foot fall zone variance and 10 foot front yard variance.
)
30 foot setback from utility easement ( 50 foot fall zone variance.)
5 foot setback from the building (90 foot fall zone variance)
90 ft.
45 foot setback from side property
line (45 foot fall zone variance.)
20 foot setback from front property line (70 foot fall zone variance and 10 foot front yard variance. )
30 foot setback from utility easement ( 60
foot fall zone variance.)
5 foot setback from the building (85 foot fall zone variance)
95 ft.
45 foot setback from side property line (50 foot fall zone variance.)
20 foot setback
from front property line (75 foot fall zone variance and 10 foot front yard variance. )
30 foot setback from utility easement ( 65 foot fall zone variance.)
5 foot setback from the building
(90 foot fall zone variance)
12
Revised site plan with tower on south side of the existing eastern building on the lot.
13
Revised elevation with 95’ monopine (this could be reduced to 90’).
14
Request
Applicant respectfully requests approval of a application as revised for a 95’ monopine, or in the alternative, requests approval of a design and modified location to the west of the
current site to be specified by city council.
15