Loading...
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