Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12171998 Min Ag . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND AMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Business Meeting December 17, 1998 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 3, 1998 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. City of Port Townsend, Continued Open-Record Public Hearing Wireless Facilities Design Standards (LUP98-80) 1. Staff Update 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions V. NEW BUSINESS VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings December 31, 1998 CANCELED January 14, 1999 Proposed Revisions to PTMC 19.05 (ESA) and 13.32 (Stormwater Management) - Open-Record Public Hearing January 28, 1999 VII. ADJOURN . . . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 p.m. Business Meeting December 17, 1998 I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 3,1998 III. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail IV. OLD BUSINESS A. City of Port Townsend, Continued Open Record Public Hearing Wireless Facilities Design Standards (LUP98-80) 1. Staff Update 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings December 31, 1998 January 14, 1999 J~nuary 28, 1999 /' / I It . ;. ~,' MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED SESSION OF DECEMBER 3, 1998 December 17, 1998 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. inthe Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were Karen Erickson, John Boles, Nik Worden, Larry Harbison and Len Mandelbaum. Lois Sherwood was unexcused. Staff members present were JeffRandaJ}, and Tim McMahan. IL APPROV ALOF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of Decemher 3, 1998 as written and amended was made by Ms. Erickson .and seconded by Mr. Mandelbaum. An were in favor. IlL COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail · Resolutions in packets regarding the Comprehensive Plan IV. OLD BUSINESS A. City of Port Townsend, Continued Open Record Public Hearing Wireless Facilities Design Standards (LIJP98-90) 1. Staff Update Chair Thayer opened the Continued Open Record Public Hearing of December 3, 1998 asking for a staff update. BCD Jeff RandaJI discussed th.e staffreorganization of material as appears in the Draft 6 ordinance of December 10, 1998, redlineand strike out changes including response to comments made by the Planning Commission and Mr. Andrew King's letter dated November 23,1998 for AirTouch CeUular (Exhibit C). Mr. Randall gave an update of exhibits: · Exbibit A · Exhibit B · ExbibitC · Exhibit D Main Map Western Wireless Simulated Images, (B1-B7) Mr. Andrew King letter dated November 23, 1998 for AirTouch Cellular Letter to the Planning Commission from Assistant City Attorney Mary Winters dated November 24, 2998 Letter to the Planning Commission from Assistant City Attorney Mary Winters dated December 1, 1998 · Exhibit E ,,- . . . Planning Commission Continued Public Hearing December 17, 1998 Page 2 · Exhibit F Letter to BCD Jeff Randal1 from A. McKenna dated December 14, 1998 regarding siting antennae on Morgan HiJJ · Exhibit G Letter to Mary Winters and Jeff Randall from Committee Member Richard Talbot dated December 16, 1998 with comments and recommendations on the PWS Ordinance draft of December 10, 1998 Commission Questions of Staff: Mr. Worden asked for a briefing of reorganized material. Mr. Randall pointed out some of the changes as foJ]ows: · Section 17.78.110 Design Criteria -- to clear up language duplication, e.g., language for equipment enclosures in each macro, micro and mini -- changed to design standards for equipment enclosures and differentiating for macro, micro and mini · Section 17.78.130 -- renamed · Section 17. 78. 130.D Covenant of Good Faith Among Carriers Required, Page 33 -- to bring into conformity application requirements and design standards. Ms. Judy Surber noted parties enter into the covenant to cooperate with future co-location in the application requirements, but there was no actual requirement for this in design requirements. CONSENSUS: Continue discussion at the time of Commission Discussion and Conclusions. Mr. RandaJl stated he was contacted on December 16th by Sprint, and they now want to site a monopole at the water tank; after the last meeting, John McDonough indicated Western Wireless would also be interested in beginning negotiations on leasing a portion of the water tank area. Mr. Boles: What requirement is there for the provision of service within in a period of time so that these companies aren't just reserving the water tank location and not doing anything? Mr. Randall: Establishing some sort oflease? -- that is an interesting point. The way it is drafted now, it would be limited to three monopoles. TheoreticaIJy, you could have three companies come in and lease three monopole sites, and then what does the city do with the fourth company that comes and actuaBy wants to build one? There is noting in here that regulates leasing of a site. The actual construction of the facility triggers the permit; leasing the site does not trigger a permit. Ms. Thayer: Can we make it a provision of the lease that the construction be within a certain time frame? Mr. McMahan: Would not advise the City to enter into a lease until there was a permit issued contingent upon having a lease. We don't typica]]y lease City property, especiaJIy if you are foreclosing opportunities for real entities that might want to take advantage of the facilities. That is bad use ofpubJic property. . . . Planning Commission Continued Public Hearing December 17, 1998 Page 3 2. Public Testimony At 7:20 p.m. Chair Thayer reopened testimony on the new changes that have been incorporated in the ordinance since the last public hearing. Mr. Richard Talbot Referred to his December 16, 1998 memorandum and what to do with John Boles' concerns regarding areas where there were no overhead utilities, poles or street lights. He said he felt the ordinance should somehow address the fact that there may be areas of the city that would not have poles on which these small unlicensed facilities could be placed. He suggested allowing people to either put up their own poles or basically deny that service from that area. He said his last point, #7, Bulk and Dimensional Standards, was the bigger one and only struck him after reorganizing. Draft 6 ordinance, page 28, 17.78.110 C.1.a. Macro facilities, the dimensional requirements are expressed in terms of height aU owed in construction, but on the next page, Mini facilities, exactly the same thing was expressed in terms of a percentage of building elevation for a certain area. He stated his concern that if you have a large building, that can become very large; he advised restating the Mini facility as dimensional requirements in the same way as done in the Macro facilities, that they should be made consistent. Mr. Talbot said otherwise he thinks staff did a very good job. There being no other testimony, at 7:25 p.m. Chair Thayer closed public testimony and opened the meeting for Commission discussion. 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions General Concerns: Mr. Mandelbaum: Length of permit. In the last meeting Ms. Winter said there were jurisdictions that issued permits for less than 5 years. Concern was expressed that the City have some t1exibility with changing technology; two weeks ago there was some concern that there might be diminishing incentive for people coming in to put up their equipment. He said he was not entirely comfortable with that; that's hypothetical and he asked why necessarily a 3 year permit would be such a disincentive considering an the approaches we have taken to the industry's interest. Mr. Worden: 1) It was something of a hurdle for the provider to go through review of all their facilities every 5 years (one actually objected to that); however, he did not object to every three years; . . . Planning Commission Continued Public Hearing December 17, 1998 Page 4 2) Don't have city staff to respond in any very significant way, especiaUy given the change of technology we are concerned about. The committee did go through that discussion. Five years may be an arbitrary number, but it is not very arbitrary; he thought they felt 2 years would end up being a constant administrative hassle for everybody. Mr. Boles: What sanctions are there in here if someone is up putting faulty, non-complying facilities? Ms. Thayer: Wouldn't that be enforced by the FCC? Mr. Boles: Who is going to enforce these things? Once you approve a permit, what performance standards are there, and what sanctions are possible within the 5-year period? Mr. Randa]): What kinds of things are you thinking of -- letting the landscaping lapse; lighting exceeds standards? Mr. Boles: Not in compliance in some ways, and they start to accumulate. Mr. Randall: It seems like somewhere in here we talk about removing the permit. Mr. Boles: It expires immediately, if it's abandoned. Mr. McMahan: The enforcing mechanism is on Page 36. We just incorporated a chapter from the Zoning Code, a simple enforcement code that allows revocation of permits, $100-day penalties, etc. He said, candidly, one concern that he personally has with this ordinance is the ability of staff to be policing something that is very, very policing intensive. There is a lot of monitoring anticipated in here that he thinks is going to be a chaUenge for the city. He said he is comfortable with the policy direction, but this is a concern he bas -- but, they do have the traditional remedies. Page 36, 17.78.180 refers to chapter 17.94 and refers to chapter 20.09, enforcement section. Mr. Boles: Is the reference incorporated in here sufficient for faulty business practices, if they are not complying? Mr. McMahan: Ifthey are not complying with permitting conditions; it is like any other non- compliance. Noted he was not saying this is going to be easy to enforce, but remedies are available. Mr. Boles: Would go along with Mr. Mandelbaum's concern. He suggested crafting something tiered -- the first permit pending establishing a service, etc. be for 3 years, then stretch out to 5 years at the most; he would be in favor of a shorter time period. He thinks people are going to be feeling their way along, that 5 years is a long time. Mr. Worden: A major advantage of having shorter periods for expiration of a permit is, as we refine the ordinance, as we learn how to make the ordinance better, they we can apply the standards sooner. Mr. Randall: Clarified the renewal -- 3 years or 5 years down the road, they would apply for a renewal with application to extend the permit; if they are in compliance with aU the original conditions, we would review their permit, and do whatever we have to do to ensure that they comply with whatever conditions they have on the permit, but if they are in compJiance it · · · Planning Commission Continued Public Hearing December 17, 1998 Page 5 would be an automatic renewal. If we change the ordinance somehow and the design standards for their facility have changed in the meantime, those would not apply to their facility; they would be "grandfathered" under the conditions they had received at that time. Mr. Worden: But, ifthey make any change in the facility, then we can catch up with them and bring them to enforcement. If there is a change in technology, I would presume they would want to make a change in the facility. Paee by Paee Deliberation: Page 3 Mr. Randall: Whereas #19 -- Identifying that we are not going to have 100 percent pole coverage throughout area. Page 7 Mr. Randall: Rearranged section titles -- Additional Conditions Page 12 Mr. Randall: Decisionmaker -- definition of a term used (identical to other codes) Page 14 Mr. Randall: "Preferred locations" and "Secondary locations" -- in response to the AirTouch letter requesting definition of terms used. Page 15 Mr. Worden: Asked about Mr. Talbot's definition of unlicensed facilities. Ms. Thayer: Is that where we want to put in some definition for unlicensed facilities? Mr. Randall: Noted unlicensed facilities on Page 25 -- make the two consistent. MOTION Mr. Worden Delete the reference to "unlicensed facilities" under 17.78.] 00 and substitute a reference to facilities which meet the requirements of Part 15 of the FCC document and are less than one watt in peak power. SECOND Discussion Mr. Mandelbaum Mr. Randall said he would do a word search to see if there is more than the one reference to unlicensed facilities on Page 25; ifJanguage is added "shall not exceed one watt in power," he will make it consistent throughout. Unanimous, 6 in favor by voice vote VOTE · · · Planning Commission Continued Public Hearing December 17, 1998 Page 6 Mr. Boles: Mary Winters' December 11, 1998 memorandum refers to unlicensed personal wireless service facility made by Ricochet and talks about pigtail antenna. She suggests, "So, you may want to consider amending the definition to include a small antenna." He said it was not clear to him where that should go, unless #3 is intended to cover it. Mr. Worden: It is the same issue as the one we were just addressing; we missed that. He suggested to Mr. Randall that we call them "low powered facilities." Mr. Boles: Wouldn't you be better served by putting in a definition and have an engineering term used. It is referred to in several places. Ms. Thayer: Agreed -- there should be a definition. Mr. Boles: Because ofthe concern, the first thing would be to add a definition that covers the low powered, unlicensed or whatever you want to put in the definition, then go from there and use that generic term. But, then you are left with this issue of different kinds of infrastructure in the form of small "pinky" fingers or pigtails, or whips or whatever. We should incorporate something. CONSENSUS: Instruct Mr. Randall to incorporate wording. Mr. Randall: Thought they should remove the term un1icensed faciJities. He would create a definition for low-powered wireless facilities. He thought they ought to keep the dimensional requirements and perhaps add a reference to the sma]] antenna not exceeding 2' or 3' with some small diameter, and then add, "with less than one watt of peak power" and make all the references consistent with that definition. CONSENSUS: Agreed. Mr. Boles: Is that the understanding of Page Il.B.3. where there is no reference to low powered unlicensed facilities, just antenna and maybe needs some more generic reference to antenna - - small, or linear antenna or something, e.g. whips, rods, or pigtails and cover all these different situations that is begged by the question in Mary Winters' December 11th letter? Mr. Randall: This pigtail would fall into the whip antenna, and would be much smaller than the threshold, but we could add a reference to the pigtail. Mr. Boles: I think you could word it such that it is more generic and doesn't exclude by naming them. Mr. Randall: Thought it is just another term they happen to use, and they could say it is a whip antenna. Mr. Boles: If you think that will do it. Page 16 Mr. Randall: An addition in response to a comment by AirTouch regarding co-location and a concern that the provider already on the facility have some protection, that the person who . ¡ . Planning Commission Continued Public Hearing December 17) 1998 Page 7 proposes to co-locate not interfere with their signal, that the first provider have some control over the minimum horizontal and vertical separation, so that their equipment would not be impaired. Mr. Randall said in his mind that goes without saying, but did not see any problem with having that in there. Mr. Worden: Had a problem with it; thought it could permit the person who builds the tower to prohibit co-location. Said he is almost happier leaving it unsaid, and then have the opportunity to ask them to give some technical proof of whatever it is they happen to ask for when a co-locator comes along; that is not a very satisfactory solution, but he is afraid of giving them the option of setting whatever parameters they want. Mr. RandaU; This doesn't ban them from having that. If you remove this language, they can stilI enter into a lease that establishes horizontal and vertical requirements. Addingthis doesn't anow something to be prohibited earlier. Mr. Boles: It says "may require;" it does not make it mandatory. When you described this, didn't you put the word "minimum" horizontal or vertical separation into a description? Am I correct in assuming that this can be quite competitive, that your scenario is not unexpected, and that they win slip in, if they can, to exclude someone else? Mr. Worden: From reading the comments from AirTouch, that was my first reaction, that they were tryin£ to ta.ke COTltrol of this It does say "may" here, but remember this is a c.ommitmentby the person the license is going to. I would like to strike the change. Mr. Harbison; Do we need to include that this may be negotiable, just so it is acknowledged? Mr. Boles: Does the good faith commitment relate to this? Me Worden affirmed. Ms. Tbayer: What if we took it out? It is stated here in the covenant of good faith. Would rather see it here than put in some wording about negotiating. Then who determines it? Mr. Randall What we have iTl there now about co-location on Page 22 and on Page 33 talks about" ".. personal wireless service providers shall exercise, good faith in co-IOCflting with other providers ::rod sharing antenna sites,.provide.d that such. shared use does not give rise 10 a.substantial technical impairment of the ability to provide service. This level shall not give rise to substantial technical impairment where perhaps with Mr. Worden's argument they would argue if there is any technical impairment they would have the right not to. Mr. Worden: Think we are covered, that this says it. Mr. Boles: Would it help on Page 16, paragraph 3, to refer to the good faith covenant? Mr. Worden acquiesced. In writing such a commitment, "Good faith will be exercised." Mr. McMahan: Maybe the thing to do is to put a provision in there such as that it shall be based upon engineering being acceptable by the BCD Director, so that we can at least force them to come to us with some engineering analysis instead of just a technical problem of co-location and the minimum separation is going to be "X" number of feet. It would give US a third party, and an engineering stamp saying that is necessary; otherwise, we are just arguing in the dark, Ii . . Planning Commission Continued Public Hearing December 17, 1998 Page 8 Mr. BQles: That such a commitment shall be based on sound engineering practices demonstrated. . , Mr. McMahan: Yes, "found acceptable by the BCD Director." The decision is the director's, Mr. Randall: Basical1y, we are requiring that they provide us with a commitment to al10w for co-location without discrimination consistent with the provisions of this chapter. What Mr. McMahan was indicating was that tbey could provide uS with engineering acceptable with the BCD Director to show that minimum horizontal and vertical separation is required. Mr.. McMahan: I would have it be an engineering report stamped by a licensed engineer, or maybe just an engineer of Port Townsend. Mr. Boles: You are going to have some demonstration by an engineering report and it is going to refer to separation? CONSENSUS: Strike proposed change to 17.78.040.A.3; add wording "upon an engiD.ee.dng report"; make reference to borizontal and vertical separation. Page 18 Mr. Mandelbaum: Paragraph #17, visual impact analysis -- was this a partial answer to the letter? Mr. Worden: This looks like very familiar language. I thought we had this in here already, Mr. Randall: This is something Judy Surber and I found, We had a lot of references to visual impact, but they weren't necessarily in the right places. Ms. Surber has some experience wit.h requiring impact analysis from her planning work in California, This is in the section of application submittal requirements, and a lot of these toward the end of the section are those the BCD Director bas the authority to request, but isn't always required, Paragraph #16 is basicaUy the overhead map where you can look down and see the viewshed showing the facility, in addition to section drawings showing tbe vertical relationshipR Paragraph # 17 would be more the basic elevation provided with the viewshed analysis. If you have a problem wanting perspe.ctivej # 17 ls.Q3$icalJy a visual impact analys.is realJy focusing in on one angle, on one problem and requiring them to provide more detail; talking about erecting a crane, etc, -- creates a process of how you review it. Mr. Worden: I recognized the language as something we had talked about a lot. If it is someplace else, perhaps it doesn't need to be tbere. This is sufficient. Mr. Randall: It may be we pulled it out. We might have had this under design standards, Page 20 Ms. Thayer: Gets into the requirement of the business license -- Me Randall's note at the bottom of the page regarding tbe AirToucb question. Mr. McMahan: Thinks business licenses are required for other utility providers. He will check to see. · · · Planning Commis$ion Continued Public Hearing December 17, 1998 Page 9 Mr. WQnlen: There is another significant difference. Those are state regulated utilities, and the personal wireless facilities are not; they are a different category. Is the reference in Paragraph #23 WAC 197-11-88 (27) correct? Mr. McMahan: That is not correct. Will double check. Mr. Randall: Some of the language in the SEPA ordinance and SEPA state law is a little bit different; this will provide us with the information so that we can make that determination upfront with the application. Page 25 Mr. Boles: In paragraph 2 of Mr. Talbot's memorandum he suggested that areas with underground utilities be addressed in 17.78.1 OO.D. Mr. Boles asked regarding Hamilton Heights, and if they are going to be served by the water tower or if there is a shadow. Mr. Randall: There appears to be somewhat of a shadow. Mr. Boles: There are a couple oflocations in town that have underground facilities. It is not something that should be dealt with lightly. People have purchased these properties with the understanding that there won't be poles or wires running through their neighborhood, and it's an amenity they have paid for and continue to enjoy. He said he thinks some kind of notification, approval or special requirement to put it on a structure, on a tree or like a tree and camouflage it is reaUy important. Ms. Thayer: If you ask the approval of the neighborhood, do you ask for 100% approval, or for some other percentage? Mr. Worden: Suggested to resolve this with the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process. Perhaps for micro facilities allow the erection of purpose built poles subject to the CUP with a 1000 foot notification and a hearing process. Mr. Randall: A lesser requirement would be along the same lines, would be treated as a Type II, which would be administrative, but would also have public comment like the macro. You could do a couple ofthings. You could add to the definition of street pole, purpose built poles for wireless facilities in areas where no poles exist and right now it says unlicensed facilities shaH be Type I process which means no public notice, administrative review. We could add something which says that unlicensed facilities located on new poles shaU be a Type II process, which requires a public notice; the Director has aHthe authority to require these analyses and things like camouflaging, vegetation, etc. Mr. Boles: But the notification and opportunity to comment are quite different. Mr. Randall: We could make it consistent with the Type II notification, the same as the micro facility . Mr. Boles: Page 25, paragraph C, you say Type III; you say 1000 feet. Mr. Randall: So we have 1000 feet for monopoles and macro-facilities and 300 feet for mini- and micro-facilities. Suggested making it a Type II process with 300 foot notification . . . ~ <, .", Planning Commission Continued Public Hearing December 17, 1998 Page 10 consistent with other mini- and micro-facilities such as locating a facility downtown on a building, etc. Ms. Thayer: Said she was not comfortable with that because she looks at the area Mr. Boles lives in and there are no overhead lines at all; 300 feet isn't very far to try to get some indication from the neighborhood. She was more inclined to do 1000 feet. Mr. Boles: It is not the same as a downtown building; it is quite different estheticaIJy, Mr. Randall: We are talking about small facilities with small ranges. Suggested making the process as simple as you can while providing as much notice as you think necessary. If we make it too hard, we will be creating something that will be defeating itself. Ms. Thayer: It is nice to give the neighbors the opportunity; 1000 feet would be fairer than 300 feet, with a Type II process. Mr. McMahan: Type II could go to public hearing. One little concern is how to define exactly what you are talking about. Y ouhave to be somewhat careful with talking about various areas of town that have underground facilities. That is likely to be the trend of all the developments in Port Townsend. There are areas of town, however, that are undeveloped which, if developed would have underground facilities. Mr. Randall: It applies to developed. Mr. Worden: We are only talking here about the micro-facilities which would be allowed. Mr. Boles: Even though it's a developed street in an undeveloped area, there may be infrastructure there. Your original proposal was a new pole. Page 26 Mr. Worden: 17.78.110.A.2. -- Mr. Talbot points out a typographical error: include in strike out piacGd in ~t1Gh a JUèmnCI as to not be vi~ibk £JoIn Page 27 Ms. Thayer: Mr. Randall has made a note under B.2. Macro-facilities. Mr. Boles: Nothing has been added about width; could see these becoming pretty big Christmas trees with co-locations. There is nothing that restricts branching out. Mr. Randall: We have these incredible detailed requirements for equipment enclosures. AH of a sudden with a macro-facility, if you are in an area, perhaps along Sims Way, and have an existing one-story structure, the code basicaIJy says you can go up to 75 feet with your antenna over this structure. If you have a 20 foot structure with this 50 foot antenna -- maybe we are not looking at that issue as much as we did with equipment enclosures. Some of the other codes they saw talked about antennas attached to existing structures shall not extend more than 20 feet above the roof, etc. There were a lot of examples, but in this case, we have nothing. The definition of macro-facilities says that it can't be a support structure attached to a building, so you couldn't have a building with a monopole coming offfrom an · · · Planning Commission Continued Public Hearing December 17, 1998 Page 11 antenna; it would have to be an antenna itself, if you have nothing in here. You would have to trust that their antennas are not going to be that big or put some maximum heights in here Ms. Thayer: Liked what Mr. Randall said, not to exceed 20 feet higher than the building and in no event no higher than 75 feet Mr. Boles: Asked if there is a height limit in the zone. Mr. Randall: Believed mini-facilities are 1imited. Macro-facilities at preferred sites can extend up to 75 feet. Mini-facilities are tied to maximum building heights in the zone. Mr. ßo]es: Is there any reason why the same language couldn't be used? Mr. Randall: It is rather a different concept. If you go back to the two tables on pages 23 and 24, Macro-facilities weren't allowed in very many places; the places that were aUowed were areas that were quite commercial. We allow them at the water tower, the Sims Way corridor west of Sheridan, the boat haven, and the hospital. Mr. Boles: You could run afoul of the FAA at the hospital. Ms. Erickson: With an antenna 10 feet above the roof Mr. Worden: These don't have to be attached to buildings. The actual zone we are talking about extends some distance from the hospital. He didn't think they need to be concerned about the helicopters at the hospital; that the FAA will regulate that Ms. Thayer: With macro-facilities being allowed in the general commercial zone along Sims Way and the comment about one-story buildings having a 75 foot height, recommended changing wording to, "20 feet higher than the building, but in any event no more than 75 feet in height." Mr. Randall: Clarified -- monopoles are allowed as a macro-facility, up to 75 feet. Pointed out, if you have something attached to a structure, you could reaHy get esthetically out of balance, if it was significantly higher than the structure itself. Ms. Erickson: The height limit at the Port is 50 feet maximum; 20 feet above that is 70 feet Mr. Worden: You will then force these people to build a monopole that is independent as their response to that limitation. Maybe it should be no more obtrusive than having a monopole separate from a building, which is 20 feet away. Ms. Thayer: Maybe we need to concentrate more on width than height. Mr. Worden: That may be true. The committee did consider this concern about the impact on the buildings; he thought they concluded that, in the case of these preferred zones where we wanted the macros to be, we wanted to make it as easy as possible to do it. We didn't feel the impact was inconsistent with the other kinds of development that are in that zone. Mr. Boles: You are saying that a macro-facility can be a monopole. So we are saying we could have 75 foot monopoles in aU ofthese macro-facility locations. Mr. Randall: 75 feet including antennae. Under this ordinance you could only see monopoles in the preferred areas listed under macro-facilities on the water tank. Mr. Worden: The big antenna is at water tank where we allow 160 feet -- nowhere else. . . . Planning Commission çºntinu~d fµÞ1iç H~aring DecemÞer 17. 199~ Page 12 Mr. R;mdªJ.l They are going to get a lot mQre "Þang for their puck" at the water tank. and a þjgger service area than .at the hospital with a 75 foot pOle, The ~levatj()n would be muçþ lower; it would pe a ffion()wle. Mr. BQI~.: 13ut jt could be dotted aroµnd town -- could pe 75 foot monopoles with other co- l()cated stroctmes, What prevents company's locations? Ms. Thaver: Go back to oa!!e 18_ visual imoact analysis. '~'.."-'-~ -/."-"""-e/ ,--",' .',' ~ .,-_._~,-,' ."- '...--'Q'- .... ~." .:'..,.-..-:......,... ""''-'-'.1- ,".- '^."""""-".'"'J'-'~''' Mr.R3IHhdl: Iftb~y are prowsing t() go into a sensitiv~ view corridor. a place on a hill top, etc, Mr. B9J~s: Tbere is nothing now that would prevent companies from extending the monopole arms out 15 feet on a single pole? Mr. RaDdaJJ replied there is not. Ms. Thayer.: That gets pack to needing to discµss width instead of doing height. ,Mr.. McM3baD: Suggested on Page 27, since monopoles ar~ macros. to clear the ambiguity, On ß·1, add the word "other" to say: "Monowles shan not exceed 160 feet in height at the water tower site_ or 75 feet In hei!!ht at anv other location. . ." and B-2. Macro-facilities_ chan!!e to <.' '.', ,-,'. ',,":"'" ~.. > ,.' ,- -. ~.' ~-~' :"'.'~.,". '*"".....,... ",'" "'-... .I .. ...... ..',.~ -',- ',,"'-- - ....,. .. ". - ','. :. ,-, " .~'. '-"", .--~"~ -. -. .'" ,'....-. -.:. .,'" ~ .-.-, -"-'Ç'-' ,.., gay: '"ºµt,\¥itljtþ~~,,#~pti()µ()(tJ1~wier"tc#~l~r$it~,~hª11iµµ()窪~~~endå¡,ºy~{~fe~tixl l1~ìgijtªºº-v~5råq~," JUs. Thayer: Need guidance on width. Mr. Boles: If you restrict the width for co-location -- if a company comes in and needs 10 feet outreach to adequately co-locate on another company's monopole, we restrict the outreach to 5 feet, the company then determines they have to build another monopole. On one hand we want to promote co-location; on the other hand you can get a very ugly facility if you don't restrict how they co-locate. Ms. Thayer; Maybe we need to go bac.k and rely on the vj~µalimpact analy~í~, MaYPe as thi~ process goes along, as w:itb the Çümp Plan, there wiUhave to be changes made, Mr. Boles: Suggested changing B.2. Change to read: ". . . '7.5fét::tì!1h@ìgJl~@º-vt:grnJj¢; e~~ª~~()tt..()f'.t1t1t~8,~.lt()tíZ;()tt~lIY...fr()m...~l1e....¡)()lt::..~U..~...miri,imµ;eg.." Mr. Boles: Suggested reorganizing Section B so that monopole restrictions are the subset of macro-facilities. Mr. McMahan: I agree that would heip. Mr. Boles: You are allowing a 160 foot monopole for a macro-facility, but only at the water tank. Any other place where there is a macro-facility, we are allowing a height of 75 feet with a co-locatio!" .Mr. .1\fcM;J.baJJ: You could just say it once in one section, Page 28 M~. TIHJyer: Regarding Mr. Randall's note on #4 -- eqµipment epc1osµre location, si?:e of cfJþles~ etc. Mr. Worden; The main thing they wanted WaS to Þe able to pµt them on the gfoµnd. Mr. R311daU: The one J questjoned was the ,I inch in 4ifJffieter caþle~ they weJesaying you see . . . ¡,- '"- Planning Commission Continued Public Hearing December 17, 1998 Page 13 conduit on power poles, that the cable can be inside the conduit -- what difference would it make; and screening with chain link fences and slats. Mr. Worden: None ofthat is appropriate for micro-facilities; those kinds of comments are appropriate for mini-facilities. Micro-facilities -- right-of-way, nothing on the ground Mr. Randall: Think their point is they are not using that technology yet, but they could put in a pole with a box on the ground. Ms. Thayer: Equipment Enclosures -- Mr. Randa)): Made changes in Section C, equipment enclosures: · C.1. from 12 feet to 6 feet; · C.2. from 9 feet to 6 feet. Ms. Thayer: 6 feet sound...~ fine. Mr. Boles: ]2' x 12' sounds like a very large box. Mr. Randall: The new companies have much smaller boxes. It is tied to what they have and what they want to use. In is not necessarily interchangeable; the old technology is being used that has larger equipment because that is what those companies have spread throughout the country, and they have to use the same equipment so that it is compatible. The newer companies have smaller equipment because they were formed later; they just started establishing their sites later, and they bought into this newer technology which they are going to use consistently everywhere. We have been informed that Sprint and Western will use newer technology, and some of the others may be stuck with some of the older technology that is bigger. Mr. Boles: Paragraph 4 says, "None shall be ground-mounted." We recognize that a company wanted to put theirs on the ground, but we didn't want that. Down below we are saying some companies have newer technology, so the boxes will be smaller and esthetically less offensive; other companies want to use these ] 2' x ] 2' larger enclosures, so we need to write it for the old technology. I don't understand why we can't impose a restriction that forces the technology. Mr. Worden: Paragraph 4 refers to technology that, as far as we know, there isn't anybody that has equipment that will meet these criteria. In the case of micro-facilities we are not impacting anybody because there is no such thing. In the case of macro-facilities we are rather up against not being allowed to discriminate against any providers. Some providers cannot change their equipment without changing all their equipment in the country. Mr. Randa)): The point there is, if we want to aHow them, they wiH have to have an equipment building; which they can all do -- a garage or storage building, etc. that could easily fit into the commercial area which it would be. The alternative is to lower the threshold a little bit. Mr. Worden: We also need to clarify -- Page 28 C.1. appears to apply to everything that follows, but, in fact, it only applies to macro-facilities, the only thing that these requirements are relative to according to this reorganization of 17.78. Now we have scrambled the hierarchy. . . . ... :"~ Planning Commission Continued Public Hearing December 17, 1998 Page 14 We should have: · a paragraph caUedMacro-facilities; · a sub-paragraph C1. that applies to free standing -- macro-facilities that have a monopole; · a sub-paragraph C2 that would be requirements for macro-facilities that are attached to buildings (now under 1.a.) Mr. Randall: 1) Macro-facilities ground-mounted, 2) Macro-facilities not on a support structure. Pafi:e 29 Ms. Tbayer: Mini-facilities -- Mr. Talbot's suggestion to revisit and treat it with a dimension like the macro-facilities. Mr. Worden: Supported that. Suggested wording -- change to match Page 28 C1.a. Ms. Thayer: Suggested wording change. CONSENSUS: Change C.t.b. to say, "Mini facilities. Equipment enclosures attached to an alternative support structure shall not extend more than 6' (exceed more than 6' (sic]) above the height of adjacent portions of that structure, and in no case shall extend above the maximum building height in the underlying zoning district." Ms. Thayer: Micro-facilities -- Mr. Boles: That is a huge cabinet, repeated every 1/4 mile. Mr. Worden: Remember, this is a technology that isn't reaUy there yet. We are just trying to say what is acceptable to us. Mr. Boles: It should be in scale with the size of the pole they are mounted on; a 2 x 3 x 4 box is going to dominate the pole. Mr. Worden: Was using the power transformer as sort of a model. Mr. Boles: It is huge and every 1/4 mile -- think it is a disservice to people to have a 5" whip antenna, 6 feet above the pole and a 2 x 3 x 4 box on the pole every 1/4 mile. People in this town are going to scream. With consent of the Commissioners, Ms. Thayer reopened public hearing for comment from Committee Member Kate Jenks. Ms. Jenks: Another option is burying these; they do actually submerge them; she said she just wanted them to know that option was possible. Mr. Randall: That would respond to AirTouch's comment putting them on the ground if you can't put them on the pole. Mr. Worden: Since we are trying to prescribe an ideal we would like to see the industry meet, not ruling anybody out with these requirements for mini-facilities, we should state our preference now. , , . ;0- .~ Planning Commission Contin~ed Public Hearing December 17~ 1998 Page 15 Mr. Boles; Can't you have some alternative language e¡g" "shall be visually minimized either by being placed ~ndergro~nd, or of a size that the profile is as close as possible to the profile of the pole on which it is mounted'?" Mr. Mandelbaum: Do the camouflage requirements apply to micro-facilities'? Have we already lost faith? Ms. Thayer; Can we put something in here, e,g, reduce the size; encourage underground, etc,'? MOTION Mr. Worden Change the size of the micro-facilities pole-mounted equipment cabinet to 32 square feet in total surface area. and add an option for placement of a facility ~ndergro~nd val,llt subject to approval of the Public Works Dire.ctOL SECOND Discussion ML Mandelbaum felt if you put it in discretionary terms~ it seems very expensive undergro~nd¡ FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND VOTE Mr. Boles; We keep saying these don't exist, so why are we saying 40 square feet if we don't want to exclude. why not make it 20 square feet'? If it's based on somethin& it's arbitrary and lef s requiTe them to 'mdeJgmund them or make them within the siJhouette ofthe pole and see what happens. Mr. Worden: Would prefer to give them a size limitation and an option of placing underground, When this technology comes along, if there is some provider who is ready to do it~ and their cabinet just can't quite meet the design standard, that means we don't get any service, Mr. Boles: Mr, Worden's concept is. good to set SOme stanòard that keeps within the si1houette ()t' size. in proportion of the. pole on which it is mounted" or underground if it is larger. Mr. Worden:. A pole might be 14"-15" atthebaseandprobably6"- 8" at the top, These facilities only go on existing poles. MOTION Mr. Worden Change the. wording on C.1.c. to say, "Micro,..faciUties may h.av~ a pole-mounted. equipment cabinet not larger in profile than the pole on which it is mounted, and bavingno single dimension greater that 4 feet, or an equipment cabinet which is installed completely below grade in a vault. SECOND VOTE Mr. Boles Unanimous, 6 in favor by voice vote · · · >... Planning Commission Continued Public Hearing December 17, 1998 Page 16 Page 30 Mr. Boles: Paragraph 3. is expressing the concept which I was trying to achieve in the previous paragraph, and it is consistent with Mr. Mandelbaum was pointing out It just may be more difficult to do. Mr. Worden: The problem is when you are dealing with existing street poles that has a number of other uses besides this one, it is hard to see how it can be camouflaged. Ms. Thayer: Mr. Talbot pointed out typographical errors: Sequence of sections, Page 30 -- . Lighting -- change F. to G.; · Signs, Symbols, etc.-- change G. to H. CONSENSUS: Staff incorporate changes to typographical errors as Mr. Talbot pointed out. Mr. Worden: Paragraph 3. objects to incorporating AirTouch's requirements. CONSENSUS: Strike recommendation by AirTouch in Paragraph 3. Pa~e 32 Mr. McMahan: Paragraph 6. -- Leave at 60 days. These people are in the industry, and they should know what the standards are. "Require the applicant to provide the City with a written affirmation in compliance with FCC regulations." Pa~e 33 Mr. McMahan: Page 33 D.l., Covenant of Good Faith Among Carriers Required -- Before this draft, thought it meant that was a covenant or assurance made on the application form versus something recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor's Office (not a restrictive covenant like one of the ones we record in the Auditor's Office, but something that is included on the application form.) Mr. Randall: This is applying to someone who has an existing structure, they have gone through the permit process, somebody new comes. We could even attach it as a condition to the permit. Mr. McMahan: A condition of the permit or include it in the application form, or something like that, and strike out "recorded with the Jefferson County Auditor's Office." Mr. Randall to reword. Ms. Thayer: Permits -- Asked regarding Mr. Boles' earlier recommendation about the possibility of having a shorter 3-year permit and extending it. Mr. Boles: Have a little difficulty making it shorter; was being consistent with Mr. Mandelbaum's thinking and trying to blend that with the committee. The idea was to have us start out with shorter period to allow time for everybody to get comfortable with compliance and to understand what is going on in technology, so that we are not locked in to · · · .' .. Planning Commission Continued Public Hearing December 17, 1998 Page 17 a 5-year period. On demonstration of reasonable practices compliance, etc. it could be a longer period of time. Ms. Thayer: Guess I wouldn't have any trouble with shortening the permit period to something like 3 years. Mr. McMahan: Was this a topic discussion in terms of the feasibility for somebody investing in facilities, and needing some minimum period of time and assurance of a viable project? Was this something you came to in balancing all of those issues? Mr. Worden: It is, but it is a judgment call. We discussed in committee that 5 years would be long enough to make it interesting to the providers and short enough to give us some control over things. Ms. Thayer: But is says in here the BCD Director will not withhold renewal approval if it is demonstrated that all terms of the original approval are met and that the structural integrity of the facility is sound. It is not like they are going to have a 3-year permit and then they won't get renewal. Mr. Worden: That's true. It's just a matter of them having to go through the application procedure again; it is not that cumbersome. I actually don't think 3 years is unreasonable. Mr. Randall: AirTouch requested that we clarify what the permit renewal would consist of. They also did say that the 5-year process was unwarranted. We tried to clarify what this would be -- that there would be fees, and the renewal would be automatic upon showing that they comply with the original conditions, etc. Mr. McMahan: One other concern, if somebody forgets to do this what does that mean? If the facility is not renewed within the period of time, after 90 days it is ilJegal and has to go? Is that something we want? Mr. Worden: They would have to come in and apply for a new permit and start over. This process is pretty simple. Ms. Erickson: What if it was on the applicant's shoulders to come in and renew after 3 years rather than to start an over with a new permit? How many of these providers are there? Mr. Randall: There are six providers for our area. Maybe they will have just one facility, maybe each has three facilities. Ms. Erickson: Would be comfortable with 3 years, renewal for 5 years. It would give the City after 3 years a look at what is going on. By then we may want to redraft this and change it. Mr. Boles: That is why we should have a shorter period than 5 years. If it is 3 years and renewal (the renewal is not a difficult process) then it's not going to matter a lot and when we go through one iteration is going to take you to 6 years (3 years with a 3 year renewal). By then something win have happened; the City will be sophisticated about it and an amendment would be no big deal. Mr. Worden: Could go along with that; it is unlikely any of these permits wiU last 6 years; by then technology win be sufficiently different that they will want a different kind of facility. · · · " ~. ~ Planning Commission Continued Public Hearing December 17, 1998 Page 18 MOTION Change the permit expiration to 3 years, meaning shall expire at 3 years from the date of issuance, and renewal for an additional 3 years. Mr. Boles SECOND VOTE Mr. Mandelbaum Unanimous, 6 in favor by voice vote Page 35 Mr. Boles: Called attention to Paragraph 17.78.170.C. Mr. Randall: We did not discuss the letter from McKennas regarding secondary sites on Morgan Hill. Ms. Thayer: Think it is covered in visual impact analysis. Mr. RandaIl: If it were a preferred site they would have more argument. Since it is a secondary site, if anything goes up there it is going to have to be pretty smalJ. Mr. Worden: Understood when we first talked about that site, that the area that would actually be available is not the steep bank, but the area between the water tanks. Mr. Randall: It is all fairly flat. They would want to go up high. There is not that much land to deal with; there are just some smalJ corridors and a smalJ path in the middle. They would have to be pretty small. We have 100 foot setback requirements. Our other concern is that there are currently some two-way radio communication antennas and 911 antennas up there, and it would be appropriate to leave it as a secondary site. Mr. Worden: The committee discussed that it is fairly likely that a provider win come in, put in one or two large facilities, their experience will show that they have some spots in town, and they will fill those in with some very small facilities. MOTION Mr. Worden Forward the Wireless Ordinance, Draft 6, as amended tonight to the City Counci1 for review and approval. SECOND VOTE Mr. Mandelbaum Unanimous, 6 in favor by roll call vote Thanks were expressed to the Committee for their work. V. NEW BUSINESS -- There was none. VI. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings December 3 L 1998 Canceled -; .~ , . ~.' Planning Commission Minutes December 17, 1998 Page 19 January 14. 1999 Proposed Revisions to PTMC 19.05 (ESA) and 13.32 (Stormwater Management) -- Open Record PubHc Hearing January 28. 1999 Chair Thayer announced this is Planning Commissioner John Boles last meeting, that his term has expired and he has chosen not to seek a new term. She thanked him for the contribution he has made to the Planning Commission. VII. ADJOURN Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Worden and seconded by Mr. Mandelbaum. AU were in favor. The meeting adjourned 9:20 p.m. . ß~ t&0 . Sheila Avis, Minute Taker · · · Gu"est List Meeting of: !{/t;1/¡(///l/(J; Có/14N/5S/Ò/1/ Purpose: a)I¡:~¿6S5 f'l-h.~/01/¿Ç5 DC:5/C/l/ S11f/llOA.I2D5 Date: /~//7/9fl Name (please print) Address , Testimonv? YES NO el~D (A-1--ßDÎ 5' 40 "KGt-,)"£ot-J s.-r ~:r: ~ ~þC H:vt ~-:jMC\ fo~~ 'VI s: t: Q~ ~ t u -" ) I _ I j ¡