The view from the "high ground" is excellent, but willingness to compromise only makes it better!

When arguing an issue sometimes it makes sense to step into the other guy’s shoes.  So in the spirit of compromise, I am providing three simple ideas that could help MetroPCS and KCC to win their application for variance.

1.       Don’t build the tower on one of the lowest parts of your property!  The MetroPCS FAA study filing shows that they intend to build a 174.9 foot tower at a location on the Country Club grounds which is 874.1 feet above sea level.  This is among the lowest spots on the KCC property!  If we assume that the purpose of a telecom tower is to elevate the antenna array to an optimal altitude, then we must ask why would anyone want to build a  tall tower in a low spot?  Why not build a shorter tower on a higher spot? 

That's why I recommend building the tower at a higher elevation.  According to the City of Kalamazoo G.I.S. mapping system, the elevation in the area near the KCC main clubhouse ranges from 906 to 912 feet above sea level.  Building at this height would reduce more than 37 feet from the overall height of the tower.  For those who assert that a cell tower is consistent with the character of a residential district this is a perfect way to prove your point and demonstrate the strength of your convictions!
2.       Another way to reduce the overall height of the tower is to reduce the number of collocation sites.  These are the “rental spots” on the tower where other wireless carriers can attach their antennas in exchange for a monthly rental fee. (Tower rental is an up-and-coming industry, especially among companies who are trying to build their balance sheets in advance of possible merger or acquisition.)  The tower design submitted in September depicted 5 additional collocation sites.  These are spaced at ten foot intervals beginning 120 feet above ground.   The math is simple; each collocation site that is removed saves 10 feet of height.

The Telecom section of the Zoning Ordinance requires that new towers above 100 feet in height provide at least two additional collocation sites.  (Why would they want 5 collocation sites when only 2 are required?)  If MetroPCS built a tower with just 2 collocation sites, it would meet this requirement and save a total of 30 feet in tower height! 

These two simple recommendations have already saved a total of 67 feet, reducing the total tower height from 174.9 feet to 106.9 feet!  But why stop there?

3.       If MetroPCS and/or KCC request a waiver to the collocation requirement, they might even be able to eliminate the other collocation sites altogether!  This would give them exclusive occupancy of the tower, and save another 20 feet!   It’s true that MetroPCS will not collect as much rental revenue from this approach, but that shouldn’t be a problem.  Their project description states that they’re building the tower to improve wireless signals for their customers.  It makes no mention of rental revenue, so this change could not possibly represent a hardship for MetroPCS. 

These simple steps have brought the tower height down to 86.9 feet above grade, a 50% reduction in height based solely on moving the tower and eliminating the collocation sites!  Doesn’t that make more sense? 

Here is the best part; the Zoning Board of Appeals is not limited to simply granting or denying variance applications.  They are expected, empowered, and duly authorized by the local ordinance and state law to impose conditions on the construction of the tower in order to minimize adverse impact to adjacent properties and to uphold other applicable considerations of the Zoning Ordinance. 

Let's get back to reality. The ZBA should not approve this application for use variance!.  Moreover, MetroPCS is going to have a very hard time producing the amount of compelling proof necessary to win a variance.  Just the same, I hope that the tower proponents will examine this possibility:  what if the ZBA grants the variance, but only on the condition that it is built at the highest point on the KCC parcel and with 3 or less of the lucrative antenna collocation points?  Would you still want the tower?

KCC members, if that idea is unappealing to you then perhaps you will understand why the tower does not appeal to us, your neighbors.