BACKGROUND
A timeline of the events related to the proposed Oakwood Cell Tower
Week of 7 September, 2009. MetroPCS Announces their plan to build a 170' tower on the grounds of the Kalamazoo Country Club.
In a letter sent during the week of September 7th, MetroPCS invited recipients to attend an informational meeting at the Country Club. The stated purpose of the meeting was to address concerns related to the new tower.
9/16/2009. MetroPCS application is turned in to Community Planning & Development Department.
9/16/2009. MetroPCS holds informational meeting at Kalamazoo Country Club.
9/23/2009. Community Planning & Development Department publishes public notice in Kalamazoo Gazette for 8 October ZBA meeting. Community Planning & Development Department sends Notice of Public Hearing letter to property owners within 300' of the property boundary of the Kalamazoo Country Club.
9/28/2009. Visited Planning Office. Reviewed file. Obtained copy of Zoning Board of Appeals Application form.
10/02/2009. Visited Planning Office. Inventoried application file. Observed pencil changes on application form.
10/07/09. MetroPCS contacts Community Planning and Development Department to postpone hearing. Planning department requires a written request, which MetroPCS provides. Planning department presents the request for the postponement at the outset of the 8 October meeting. The motion to postpone is approved.
10/15/09. Visited planning office and reviewed application file. Review shows a few new documents, but no significant improvement to the quality of the application or the supporting documents.
10/28/09. MetroPCS has withdrawn their application. Sometime since my last visit to the planning office on 10/15, MetroPCS has indicated that they will withdraw their application and reapply in time to be heard at the December 10 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
11/12/09. MetroPCS did not make the application deadline for the December 10 meeting of the ZBA. Whether this reflects a lack of commitment, poor preparation, or a delay-tactic, we may never know. The most likely course of action for MetroPCS at this point is that they will resubmit their application on or before December 11. If they do, then the application will dealt with during the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on January 7, 2010. Please continue to check back for updates, OR, if you prefer, we will send you alerts when new information becomes available. Visit the EMAIL ALERTS page to send a request.
A timeline of the events related to the proposed Oakwood Cell Tower
Week of 7 September, 2009. MetroPCS Announces their plan to build a 170' tower on the grounds of the Kalamazoo Country Club.
In a letter sent during the week of September 7th, MetroPCS invited recipients to attend an informational meeting at the Country Club. The stated purpose of the meeting was to address concerns related to the new tower.
9/16/2009. MetroPCS application is turned in to Community Planning & Development Department.
9/16/2009. MetroPCS holds informational meeting at Kalamazoo Country Club.
9/23/2009. Community Planning & Development Department publishes public notice in Kalamazoo Gazette for 8 October ZBA meeting. Community Planning & Development Department sends Notice of Public Hearing letter to property owners within 300' of the property boundary of the Kalamazoo Country Club.
9/28/2009. Visited Planning Office. Reviewed file. Obtained copy of Zoning Board of Appeals Application form.
10/02/2009. Visited Planning Office. Inventoried application file. Observed pencil changes on application form.
10/07/09. MetroPCS contacts Community Planning and Development Department to postpone hearing. Planning department requires a written request, which MetroPCS provides. Planning department presents the request for the postponement at the outset of the 8 October meeting. The motion to postpone is approved.
10/15/09. Visited planning office and reviewed application file. Review shows a few new documents, but no significant improvement to the quality of the application or the supporting documents.
10/28/09. MetroPCS has withdrawn their application. Sometime since my last visit to the planning office on 10/15, MetroPCS has indicated that they will withdraw their application and reapply in time to be heard at the December 10 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
11/12/09. MetroPCS did not make the application deadline for the December 10 meeting of the ZBA. Whether this reflects a lack of commitment, poor preparation, or a delay-tactic, we may never know. The most likely course of action for MetroPCS at this point is that they will resubmit their application on or before December 11. If they do, then the application will dealt with during the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on January 7, 2010. Please continue to check back for updates, OR, if you prefer, we will send you alerts when new information becomes available. Visit the EMAIL ALERTS page to send a request.
TOWER FACTS & FIGURES
Most people dont give alot of thought to the specific terms and jargon related to the structures that we usually think of as "cell towers." The purpose of this section is to clarify specific terms related to these imposing structures.
Tower: The vertical support structure that rises from the ground. Towers may either be supported or unsupported.
A supported tower typically uses high-tension guy wires stretched from fixed locations on the tower to permanent anchors that are offset from the base of the tower.
An unsupported tower does not use external supports. The proposed tower is a monopole tower, that will be supported by its own structural rigidity.
Antenna: The zoning ordinance describes an antenna this way, "[a]n electrical conductor or group of electrical conductors that transmit or receive radio waves, excluding amateur radio antennas." When viewing a tower, each company's antenna are visible as in a ringed-array at fixed levels surrounding the tower.
Antenna Support Structure: The zoning ordinance describes an Antenna Support Structure this way, "[a]ny building or other structure other than a transmission tower that can be used for location of telecommunications facilities.
Collocated Facility: The zoning ordinance describes a Collocated Facility this way,"When used in conjunction with [section] 4.2W: Telecommunications Facilities, a wirless telecommunication facility that is attached to an existing pole, tower, or other structure including, but not limited to, a structure that can accommodate the future installation of two or more antenna systems.
The definitions help to clarify what we should expect in the new Oakwood Tower. Imagine 119' of bare steel monopole tower rising above the landscape. The first antenna (actually a ring of antennas owned by a single carrier) will appear at 120'. Another antennas will appear every 10' for the next 50'!
Is Collocation Revenue the real goal?
In its "Kalamazoo Country Club Project Description" MetroPCS states the following: "The proposed tower will provide contiguous coverage serving the commercial traffic along Oakland Drive, Parkview Avenue, and Whites Road." They also indicate the following as a secondary benefit, "The cell site facility will also provide wireless service to the surrounding residential areas east of US-131, north of I-94, west of Westnedge Avenue, and south of BUS-94." Here is the problem with their statement, a review of their own internet-based coverage map of SW Kalamazoo shows that coverage is either "Good," or "Best" in the vast majority of these areas.
While it may be true that coverage for a small group of MetroPCS customers will be increased from "Good" to "Best," the clear objective of this tower-building effort is to generate rental revenue from Collocation. Imagine for a moment if every wireless carrier built towers for this purpose!
Tower: The vertical support structure that rises from the ground. Towers may either be supported or unsupported.
A supported tower typically uses high-tension guy wires stretched from fixed locations on the tower to permanent anchors that are offset from the base of the tower.
An unsupported tower does not use external supports. The proposed tower is a monopole tower, that will be supported by its own structural rigidity.
Antenna: The zoning ordinance describes an antenna this way, "[a]n electrical conductor or group of electrical conductors that transmit or receive radio waves, excluding amateur radio antennas." When viewing a tower, each company's antenna are visible as in a ringed-array at fixed levels surrounding the tower.
Antenna Support Structure: The zoning ordinance describes an Antenna Support Structure this way, "[a]ny building or other structure other than a transmission tower that can be used for location of telecommunications facilities.
Collocated Facility: The zoning ordinance describes a Collocated Facility this way,"When used in conjunction with [section] 4.2W: Telecommunications Facilities, a wirless telecommunication facility that is attached to an existing pole, tower, or other structure including, but not limited to, a structure that can accommodate the future installation of two or more antenna systems.
The definitions help to clarify what we should expect in the new Oakwood Tower. Imagine 119' of bare steel monopole tower rising above the landscape. The first antenna (actually a ring of antennas owned by a single carrier) will appear at 120'. Another antennas will appear every 10' for the next 50'!
Is Collocation Revenue the real goal?
In its "Kalamazoo Country Club Project Description" MetroPCS states the following: "The proposed tower will provide contiguous coverage serving the commercial traffic along Oakland Drive, Parkview Avenue, and Whites Road." They also indicate the following as a secondary benefit, "The cell site facility will also provide wireless service to the surrounding residential areas east of US-131, north of I-94, west of Westnedge Avenue, and south of BUS-94." Here is the problem with their statement, a review of their own internet-based coverage map of SW Kalamazoo shows that coverage is either "Good," or "Best" in the vast majority of these areas.
While it may be true that coverage for a small group of MetroPCS customers will be increased from "Good" to "Best," the clear objective of this tower-building effort is to generate rental revenue from Collocation. Imagine for a moment if every wireless carrier built towers for this purpose!
Monopole Tower Elevation Exhibit
This is the elevation exhibit for the proposed tower.
As you can see, the highest array is reserved for the tower owner, MetroPCS. Below their array are 5 additional collocation points. When fully operational, this tower will bristle with antennae beginning at a height of 120'.
Each new company that locates an antenna on the tower will pay a fee to the tower owner. If the lease agreement between MetroPCS and Kalamazoo Country Club is consistent with other such leases, the Country Club will receive additional revenue from each new wireless carrier.
Will new revenue for the Country Club help to keep dues low? Will it help to avoid a special assessment to the general membership? If so, for how long, and to what expense to the surrounding property owners?
What happens the next time they need revenue? Will they build an office building, a car wash, a scrap-yard?
As you can see, the highest array is reserved for the tower owner, MetroPCS. Below their array are 5 additional collocation points. When fully operational, this tower will bristle with antennae beginning at a height of 120'.
Each new company that locates an antenna on the tower will pay a fee to the tower owner. If the lease agreement between MetroPCS and Kalamazoo Country Club is consistent with other such leases, the Country Club will receive additional revenue from each new wireless carrier.
Will new revenue for the Country Club help to keep dues low? Will it help to avoid a special assessment to the general membership? If so, for how long, and to what expense to the surrounding property owners?
What happens the next time they need revenue? Will they build an office building, a car wash, a scrap-yard?