Loading...
070108 Cell TowersCOMMUNICATION TOWERS City Zoning Ordinance Amendments City Council July 1, 2008 Background: Current CZO provisions were adopted in 1990, when cell phone usage (and the number of towers needed to support that usage) was much lower than it is today. In late 2007, the City Council asked Staff to ensure that new wireless telecommunications equipment is located on sites where there are existing towers or where there is an existing structure that can accommodate additional antennas without the need for a new tower (“co-location”). Background, con’t Where co-location is not reasonable or possible and a new tower is needed, the City Council wanted to make sure that alternative sites are investigated, such that the tower is constructed in a location that is as visually unobtrusive as possible Background, con’t Staff worked with wireless telecommunications providers to develop an ordinance that would accomplish these goals and improve the current siting process. The Planning Commission considered the proposed ordinance in June and recommended approval with a few changes. There was no opposition to the ordinance. Although the proposed ordinance repeals the entire current section 232 of the CZO and rewrites that section, most of the existing provisions are kept intact. Other provisions are added and the section has been reorganized. NEW PROVISIONS Purpose (Lines 251-262): •Facilitate provision of wireless services to citizens and businesses •Minimize risk of physical damage and other potential adverse impacts •Require joint use of towers where commercially reasonable •Allow use of public property where such use (i) minimizes potential adverse impacts; (ii) does not adversely affect public facilities; and (iii) meets applicable requirements pertaining to use of public property wmm1 New Provisions, con’t Preapplication Conference (Lines 264-285): Applicant MUST meet with Staff prior to filing of ? application to discuss: -Co-location on existing tower or other structure, incl. a public facility; -Availability of suitable alternative sites, incl. public sites; -Specific issues (e.g., potential interference with public safety communications facilities, visual and other potential impacts on nearby property & means of eliminating impacts); -Feasibility of camouflaging equipment (“stealth technology”); and -Any other relevant matters Slide 7 wmm1 it is anticipated that the pre-application conference will resolve most if not all of the issues before the application is ever filed William Macali, 6/25/2008 New Provisions, con’t Application Requirements (Lines 290-397) Report from professional engineer re proposed tower ? height, design, etc. must be under seal ?Where proposed tower is within ¼mile of a residential or apartment district, application mustbe supplemented no later than 30 days prior to Planning Commission meeting by: Balloon tests, photo simulations & other ? information Planning Dir. deems necessary to assess visual impact; ?Summary of planned contacts with nearby residents and of actual contacts when they occur Application Requirements, con’t ?Applicant must also submit verifiable specificinformation regarding lack of available space or structural capacity for the applicant's equipment on (i) existing towers, buildings or other structures, (ii) sites on which existing towers are located, or (iii) sites on which the proposed tower would be less visible from or located a greater distance from residential or apartment districts than the proposed location ?Note (i) and (ii) are in current ordinance; (iii) is new. ?If tower is within 1 mile of an existing or planned public safety communications facility, an intermodulation study is required (to determine if the proposed equipment will interfere with public facility) Application Requirements, con’t Also required: ?Map showing that equipment will not be within 200-foot buffer of microwave path between public safety communications sites ?Water tanks: security plan re access by non- City personnel (unless plan is in the lease) Location & Design Requirements (Lines 399-440) City Council shall give primary consideration to: 1.Whether proposed equipment cannot be located on an existing or approved tower because: ?Proposed equipment would exceed height or structural capacity on the other tower and other tower cannot be modified (as documented by licensed P.E.); ?Proposed equipment would cause electromagnetic interference with other existing or approved sites and interference cannot be prevented; ?Existing or approved tower not high enoughfor coverage Location & Design Requirements, con’t 2.Co-location capacity of proposed tower -at least 2 other users if height is > 100’, 1 other user if height is < 100’ 3.Whether proposed application conforms to requirements re public safety sites and water tanks (see below) 4.Applicant’s written agreement to allow co-location on commercially reasonable terms Landscaping Requirements (Lines 450-486) ?Existing trees within the area under control of the applicant (leased area) shall be preserved to the extent practicable ?Towers shall be located on the site so as to maximize the effectiveness of trees as screening (as permitted by setbacks) ?Existing landscaping may be used to satisfy requirements ?City Council may modify landscaping requirements as it deems appropriate (either more or less landscaping) Setback Requirements (Lines 488-507) ?Same as current ordinance, but City Council may require greater or lesser setbacks as needed to protect existing or future structures from damage or to enhance screening effect of trees on or off the site Public Safety Communications Sites/Water Tanks ?Special considerations apply to these sites (security and public safety/emergency use), so there are add’l requirements applicable to them ?No private telecom facilities allowed: -on sites with PSC facilities; -in any location where intermodulation study shows there would be a substantial possibility of interference with PSC communications that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated; or -within 200-foot buffer of microwave path of an existing or future PSC microwave facility Public Safety Communications Sites/Water Tanks, con’t No private telecom facilities on water tanks or within secure areas unless there is a demonstrable public need in the area and no reasonable alternative site is available. If allowed, applicant must comply with security plan as a condition of the CUP Other New Provisions Communication towers on electric transmission line structures and building-mounted antennas allowed without CUP if: -they match color of structure on which they are mounted -Communication towers no higher than 20% above structure; -Building-mounted antennas in least visible location practicable or otherwise screened from view (note BMAs are currently allowed by right in most zoning districts); and -APOs are notified of new communication tower Other New Provisions, con’t ?Any tower or other wireless equipment not used for 1 year shall be removed within 90 days after notification. If not removed, City contract for removal and charge the cost to the tower/equipment owner Open issue -communication towers in P-1 Preservation District Staff version prohibited (i.e., no CUP allowed) on P- 1 land that is undeveloped and in its natural state, but allowed on other P-1 land (e.g., neighborhood parks). Planning Commission recommendation is to allow them with CUP everywhere in P-1.