Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wireless Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Plano panel deadlocks on faux‑tree cell tower design; case goes to City Council without recommendation
Summary
The commission split 4‑4 on whether to approve an amendment to a specific use permit that would replace a 120‑foot flagpole monopole with a 95‑foot faux‑tree cell tower; staff recommended denial, commissioners were divided over aesthetics versus coverage, and the case will move to the City Council with no P&Z recommendation.
The Planning and Zoning Commission on Nov. 17 deadlocked on a request to amend a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a wireless communication site, leaving the matter to City Council with no recommendation.
Staff presented a request to amend SUP No. 56 to reduce an existing approved height from 120 feet to 95 feet and to change the approved design from a stealth flagpole to a human‑initiated faux‑tree (eucalyptus appearance). Planning staff recommended denial, saying the faux‑tree design would not mimic a native species’ form or height in that location and therefore would stand out rather than be stealthy.
Applicant representatives said the 95‑foot faux‑tree balances technical performance and aesthetics: Mason Griffin said carriers (Verizon, AT&T, T‑Mobile) could be collocated on the proposed design and that the faux‑tree’s exterior antenna capacity allows better practical coverage at lower heights compared with stealth flagpoles, which the applicant and an RF engineer said suffer technical compromises.
RF engineer Steve Nies explained the tradeoffs: stealth flagpole sites often require radios at ground level and more line losses, reducing coverage area relative to macro monopoles; the faux‑tree design permits larger exterior antennas and, the applicant argued, would reduce the total number of additional towers needed in the market.
Commissioners debated aesthetics, native species, wind loading and maintenance concerns for synthetic tree materials, and the relative public‑benefit tradeoff between fewer towers and visual prominence. Two motions were tried: one to follow staff’s recommendation and deny the amended SUP, which failed on a 4‑4 tie; a second motion to approve the revised 95‑foot tree design likewise failed on a 4‑4 tie. By commission procedure, a tied vote means no recommendation will be forwarded; the case proceeds to City Council for final action.
Staff said it would review any maintenance agreement the applicant can provide; the applicant said it has a third‑party maintenance contract and asserted support from nearby property owner associations but acknowledged it would follow up with staff before council.
