Memo asking for other locationsFrom: Gary Sieb
To: Hubbard, John
Subject: Re: FW: DA1305
Thank you for your application for a Voice Stream wireless antenna to be placed on an existing
communication tower in Coppell, Texas.
You have requested administrative approval of this antenna and have submitted a $500.00 application
fee for its processing. Administrative approval could be granted provided:
1. You have read and understand the provisions of Section 12-32A, Wireless Telecommunication
Towers and Antennas of the Coppell Zoning Ordinance.
2. You will provide me a list of existing antenna sites per Section 12-32A-3 (C) of the Ordinance.
3. You will provide me a site plan as outlined in Section 12-32A-6 (B) (1).
4. The addition will not be more than 12-15 feet higher than the existing facility.
5. All other applicable provisions of Section 32A will be complied with.
However, one troubling aspect of you application relates to the justification letter of Mr. Krishnan. You
will recall that at the outset of your request for information regarding wireless towers here in Coppell, I
suggested you look at Mac Arthur Park as an alternate location for this facility. Mac Arthur park is less
than a mile from the site in question, and certainly has much better access. As I review Mr. Krishnan's
letter (with map attached), you did not look at the location I suggested. The property I suggested is
located just east of Tupelo Drive, on the east side of Mac, Arthur (on your map), and appears to be a very
desirable site for this facility. I would like you to revisit this location and reconsider its desirability.
Hopefully, the Mac, Arthur Park location is acceptable, and we can proceed with administrative approval
of your request. If the Mac, Arthur site can not be used, I will need more tangible justification for
approving the tentative site you have submitted.
I look forward to further communication regarding this subject. 110'['15: ~ I,,'['1~. O~' ,J~ '2,7,. ~%
June 25, 2002