18 - Variance Request for Setback and Placement of a New Wireless Communication Facility - 1902 Bonham Street - LCAD 17245Item No. 18
in, = Of
TO: City Council
FROM: Grayson Path, City Manager
SUBJECT: 1902 BONHAM STREET- LCAD 17245
VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SETBACK AND PLACEMENT OF A NEW
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY (WCF).
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 2020
BACKGROUND: Carl Dugan represents Branch Communications of Tulsa, OK. They are
proposing to develop and construct a 180' wireless communication tower at 1902 Bonham
Street. The Paris West location is owned Ram K. Thappa. The proposed tower is a monopole,
and the proposed site is zoned Commercial (C). The applicant has represented that it has an
arrangement with a low cost internet provider to locate on the monopole.
City Ordinance Sec. 28. Regulation of Wireless Telecommunications Towers and Facilities,
section 28.106(c) provides that no setbacks shall be required for towers located on properties
zoned Commercial (C), Light Industrial (LI), and Heavy Industrial (HI) provided the actual
location of such towers in said zoned areas is at least five hundred (500) feet from areas zoned
SF -1, SF -2, SF -3, 2F, MF -1, MF -2, Agricultural (A) and Residential Planned Development (PD).
The subject property is zoned Commercial and does not meet the setback requirements from
residential. Sec. 28-113 provides that the City Council may, after following notice and public
hearing, grant a variance from the setback requirements of Sec. 28.106(c) "on an affirmative
sthat a WCF [Wireless Communication Facility] proposed for
construction will be constructed in a manner to be totally masked or camoufla tled or to ,be
included in an existing structure �f the WCF.... with the
which effectively masks the appearance o
result that „such. masking or camouflage.renders the proposed WCF invisible to public view. or so
coipj atible, in appearance with surrounding uses as to be transaarent in its impact„ „on said
surrounding uses." The ordinance further places the burden on the applicant to submit an
application "clearly showing that the requirements of masking, camouflaging... specified in ...
herein have been satisfied."
Hardship is not a matter for consideration under the variance regulations set forth in Sec. 28-113.
STATUS OF ISSUE: Mr. Dugan has requested a 375' setback variance from SF -2, SF -3 and 2F
zoning districts. The applicant states that there are no properties within the geographic area that
meets their engineering needs and also meet the City Ordinance of a 500' setback from
residential zoning districts. Mr. Dugan's initial application did not address masking or
camouflaging at all. After staff contacted Mr. Dugan to inform him of the masking
requirements, he submitted a revised application addressing masking at ground level, but did not
address masking of the entire 180 foot monopole.
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing on the requested variance of the setback
requirements of Zoning Ordinance Sec. 28.106(c) and consider said request. Because the
ordinance requires an affirmative showing by the applicant that he meets the masking and
camouflaging requirements in Sec. 28.113(a) and (b) before Council can grant such a variance,
staff has no choice but to recommend denial.
Pursuant to Sec. 28.113(d), "no variance shall be granted except by % vote [6 votes] of the
governing body in favor of the grant of said variance.... Any variance granted may include
such conditions or requirements associated with the grant of variance as the City Council
shall deem necessary and appropriate."