Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council pauses decision on proposed telecommunication monopole at 4877 W. University Drive, asks applicant to explore alternate commercial sites
Summary
McKinney council continued action on a rezoning request to allow a telecommunications monopole at 4877 West University Drive, after several nearby residents asked the applicant to consider alternative commercial corners of the 380/Lake Forest intersection. Staff reminded council of federal limitations under the Telecommunications Act.
The McKinney City Council deferred action on a rezoning that would allow a telecommunication monopole at 4877 West University Drive, voting to table the matter to a date-certain so the applicant could explore potential alternative commercial sites.
Planning manager Kate Strickland reminded council of applicable federal constraints, including the federal Telecommunications Act; she noted city standards and the applicant's proposal placed the monopole more than 228 feet from the nearest residence and used a concealed "slick stick" or flagless flagpole design that encases antennas inside the structure.
The applicant's representative described design and site-selection work to date and said carriers had approached the firm after other, easier sites had been exhausted. Nearby residents and neighborhood representatives urged the council to revisit placement of the tower because Meadow Ridge Estates and other homes lie within close proximity to the proposed location. Mark Rutledge, a nearby resident, urged more due diligence and said he believed other underused commercial properties near the intersection could host a tower with less residential impact. Another speaker, Rick McDaniel, asked the council to consider the other three commercial corners near the 380/Lake Forest intersection and urged relocation.
Council members expressed sympathy for the neighborhood concerns while acknowledging federal and industry constraints. Several members said they supported giving the applicant a short period to research alternative commercial properties and return with options rather than proceed immediately. The applicant agreed to work with staff and the community to investigate other corners in the intersection.
Council voted to continue (table) the item until the May 20 meeting so staff and the applicant could pursue alternative placements and report back. The applicant and staff indicated willingness to attempt alternative site outreach during the continuance.
What to expect next
- Applicant will work with city staff to assess whether other commercial parcels in the intersection or nearby could meet technical coverage requirements. - Council set a date-certain continuance to May 20 to allow rapid follow-up; the item will return to council either with an alternate site proposal or a record showing the applicant's due diligence and justification for the originally proposed location.
