Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12031998 Min Ag . CITY OF PORT TOWNSEND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chambers, 7:00 PM Business Meeting December 3, 1998 I. II. III. IV. V. VI. . ROLL CALL INTRODUCTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER: Len Mandelbaum APPROVAL OF MINUTES: November 12, 1998 COMMUNICATIONS: Current mail OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS A. City of Port Townsend, Open-Record Public Hearing Wireless Facilities Design Standards (LUP98-80) 1. Staff Report (Jeff Randall) 2. Public Testimony 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings December 10. 1998 December 17, 1998 Proposed Amendment to Title 19.05 (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) Proposed Amendment to Title 13.32 (Stormwater Management) December 31, 1998 VIII. ADJOURN ;. · · · i , , PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Business Meeting December 3, 1998 I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall by Chair Cindy Thayer. Other members in attendance were John Boles, Nik Worden, Larry Harbison and Len Mandelbaum. Karen Erickson was excused; Lois Sherwood was unexcused. Staff members present were Jeff Randall, Mary Winters and Tim McMahan, II. INTRODUCTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER Chair Thayer introduced new Planning Commission Member Len Mandelbaum. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion to approve the minutes of November 12, 1998 as written and amended was made by Mr. Worden and seconded by Mr. Boles. All were in favor. IV. COMMUNICATIONS: Current Mail V. OLD BUSINESS -- There was none. VI. NEW BUSINESS A City of Port Townsend, Open-Record Public Hearing Wireless Facilities Design Standards (LUP98-80) 1. Staff Report (Jeff Randall) Mr. Randall referred to the city's moratorium that prevented the siting of personal wireless service facilities in town for quite some time and noted a chapter was reserved for the topic in the zoning code when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. He said it was foreseen that the City was going to deal with this issue; when you read through the ordinance, it is very different from any other chapter in the zoning code. The committee met many times and had Copied to Councll / /;J A, q-<2.v . . . Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1998 Page 2 contact with a wireless facilities consultant who works for cities, Ted Kreines, as well as several meetings with a representative from Western Wireless, which does not yet have any wireless facilities in this area but plans to in the near future. The result is this ordinance which attempts to locate potential sites for wireless facilities in the City of Port Townsend, identify areas where facilities should either be discouraged or prohibited and set standards for what these facilities should look like. Mr. E.anda11's overview of policy issues in the draft ordinance: PREFERRED LOCATIONS, Page 23 1) City water tower -- elevation of 300 feet above sea level; owned by the City; not very visible from most parts of town; 2) Mixed commercial/light manufacturing zone (Port Townsend Business Park and property south of Sims Way) 3) General commercial (corridor along Sims Way, west of Sheridan Street to the City Limits) 4) Port Townsend Boat Haven property 5) High School -- a very high point; in a part of town not identified for any preferred sites of significant size. The school district and school board have consented, understanding they will have full control over whether or not anything is sited at that location. Without their consent, an application cannot go forward. 6) City of Port Townsend Fire Station -- small and rather limited, but a public site uptown. 7) Jefferson General Hospital property -- quasi-public site, with a fairly high location. 8) Co-location sites. · Notices Preferred sites (listed individually) -- all processed as administrative, public notice provided to neighbors, as well as published. Macro -- notice within 1,000 feet of the site; administrative decision, no public hearing process. · Types of Facilities Macro type facility (largest); monopoles are macro type. Outside the water tank site -- wireless facilities can be located on structures up to 75 feet in height (exception to the normal zoning code building standard in most zones which range in height from 30 - 35 - 50 feet.) Water tank site -- structures for this ordinance as high as 160 feet. Early goal was to encourage co-location on a facility -- as many antennae on a structure as possible, limiting the number of structures. (Height recommendations made after talking to Western Wireless and having gone through some simulations based on the topography of how much town can be served by a facility there and the optimal or minimum heights needed for good service. Western Wireless indicated at the water tower site minimum . . . Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1998 Page 3 height for a monopole would probably be 130 feet to co-locate on a monopole would generally require some vertical separation; 160 feet recommended to guarantee the possibility of at least two providers co-located on a tower. Mini type facility Attached to an existing structure; would not be located higher than the maximum building height in that zone. Micro type facility (fairly small) Limited in size by this ordinance. Would have to be contained entirely on the top of an existing utility pole. Everything would have to be enclosed. SECONDARY LOCATIONS, Page 24 Facilities are commercial in nature and appropriate to locate in these zones. Areas more sensitive than others, e.g. the Historic District -- ultimate goal is to keep these facilities out of residential areas due to their commercial nature. This ordinance prohibits them in residential areas. Process -- Type IIVCUP requiring a hearing -- most locations. Type II Micro-facilities -- the exception. Small; only located in street rights-of-way or on utility poles. Esthetically, no more obnoxious than a transformer, perhaps less so. Require some process to verify compliance with FCC standards and compliance with the rtature of the Historic District. UNLICENSED FACILITIES Very small -- FCC does not require provider to use a certain band. Process -- Type I Permit. Would give Staff and the City the opportunity to verify compliance to FCC standards. LOCATING WIRELESS FACILITIES IN CRITICAL AREAS (17.78.060) Prohibited within Class I, II or III wetlands. Not prohibited outright in other environmentally sensitive areas. but subject to the same permitting requirements as any other development. Prohibition oflattice and guyed towers -- greater visual impacts (though optional). Mr. Randall distributed a handout from Western Wireless and identified exhibits: Exhibit A -- Main map Exhibit B -- Western Wireless simulated images (B 1- B7) Prohibition (continued) Exhibit B, page 1 -- latticed tower in the upper right corner; monopole in the upper left corner. Western Wireless indicated it does not matter what structure is used; they can use monopoles as well as lattice or guyed towers, but monopole silhouette is less. Prohibited -- . . . Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1998 Page 4 on any residential structures regardless of zoning district; in residential zoning districts; in neighborhood commercial zones, C-VMU and C-IVMU because of their residential components (with the exception of micro-facilities in developed streets); in P/OS zones including properties the city has acquired for drainage purposes (with the exception of the water tower site because it has already been developed with large utility structures). Mr. Randall said the committee addressed such design issues as review by the Historic Preservation Committee for facilities included in the Historic District, landscaping standards for screening enclosures that go in the facilities, etc. He again referred to Exhibit B 1 regarding an equipment cabinet and said basically these facilities come with an antenna; something the antenna is attached to, a monopole or a building; and come with an equipment cabinet that contains batteries, electronics and perhaps a transmitter which is necessary for the antenna. He indicated the equipment cabinet in the Exhibit is on the rooftop and cited examples: · something sited downtown, possibly an antenna and equipment cabinet on a roof someplace; · a monopole with the equipment cabinet on the ground; or possibly · a combination of the two, an antenna on a structure with an equipment cabinet on the ground- He said the committee, as many jurisdictions do, created screening standards for equipment cabinets which can be quite large (with older technology they could be 12' x 12'). The screening standards in the ordinance now would require landscaping around the facility to screen it from adjacent rights-of-way. Those located on rooftops should be located in such a way that they are not visible. The Committee ~stablished requirements for facilities, e.g. · initial application materials indicating how the facility was going to comply with the standards, maps; · the service area of the facility; · any other providers in the area; · compliance with FCC standards for radio frequency (RF) emissions; · watering programs; · predevelopment conditions; · how the facility would look when it is complete; · removing equipment. He noted that although the ordinance is complex, the consultant claimed this is one of the best ordinances he has seen in working with cities all around the country; it has been drafted purely by a citizen group. They feel the policies have been pretty well looked at; however, Staff . . . Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1998 Page 5 is still working at fine tuning the organization of the ordinance to make the format more consistent with other zoning chapters. He referred to the packet of materials from Western Wireless: · Page 2, using the high school as an example. The top picture is an existing shot; in the bottom picture there is a line pointing to three rectangular objects on the side of the building which are antennas. They are basically about a 4' - 5' high fiberglass panels made to look similar to architectural elements of the building. The equipment enclosure in this case would probably be on the roof and would not be visible; that could be the wireless facility. · Page 3, white sheet of paper (rather a key to the rest of the packet); the colored map on the next page is a simulation done by Western Wireless -- if you have only one wireless facility (at the time of preparation consideration of the water tank site was 150' height), what would the service area be? Dark brown -- in-buildings-service at high urban density (e.g. calling on your cell phone deep inside a high downtown Seattle building); red -- medium density urban service (same sort of service, but a little less); orange -- residential in-building service (calling from inside a house); yellow (or lime green) -- in-car service; dark green -- outdoor service (you can call from outside, but not in your car). He said looking at the water tower site, you can see it is not a bad site, but leaves out downtown areas and some of the uptown near the bluffs on Admiralty Inlet. · Another map, a combination of the water tank site at the same height, with a facility on the high school rooftop that provides a little better service to the uptown area. · Water tank site plus a downtown building at 70' -- good service downtown but does not go far up the hill. · Port Townsend marina and water tank site. Advantage -- very industrial looking and could be made to look like a sailboat mast having an antenna in or on it. Problem -- elevation of the site limits its service area. His understanding from providers is that though transmission doesn't truly go on a line of sight basis, it is a good rule of thumb. If you have a low line of sight, your service will not be very great. The committee identified as many different areas around town as they could to avoid picking one or two sites; based on these estimates, you could not provide full coverage from one of the sites. Federal law states that the city must not prohibit providers from coming to town, must allow full competition between providers, and must allow providers service to the town. The committee selected a number of different areas throughout the city to try to avoid having big gaps, like these indicate with just one or two sites. Ms. Mary Winters indicated there are a few sma1I or medium policy changes based on Staff and Western Wireless input. Exhibit C -- Comment letter received during the SEP A process from Andrew King, Consultant . . . Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1998 Page 6 for Air Tough Cellular. Mr. Randall distributed the letter and noted Mr. King's comments were made on an earlier draft of the ordinance and that Mr. King consented to Mr. Randall marking his letter with reference to accurate page numbers from the November 24th draft ordinance. Ms. Winters discussed issues considered: · Page 18, #19, Application requirements -- Possible change: requirement for an acoustical engineering report, to "at BCD discretion." · Page 33, Monitoring of noise -- Would like the ability for complaint resolution, but not require a compliance report annually (excessive staff time to track). · Fees · Page 25, Notice requirement of 1,000 feet for macro facilities; 300 for micro and mini, even for Type II. Notice requirements are the upside; Neighborhood comment for treating Type II projects -- these particular facilities are different from anything else; regulatory reform tends to make everything the same. · Page 21, Prohibitions -- strike paragraph C. Mr. Randall said the difficulty is (in prohibiting siting on residential structures in all zones) what is a residence -- a house? multi-family building? apartment or dwelling unit in a building next door? In trying to locate these facilities downtown, many buildings downtown contain residences. This is looking at esthetics issues, not health issues; as long as they comply with FCC regulations, they cannot be denied. Mr. Boles asked if they were proposing deleting "C" entirely or modifying it to take account for those exceptions; they there are two different things; they are throwing out a huge superset with the subset if"C" is deleted. Mr. Randall replied that Ms. Winters forgot to make the deletion. Direction from the committee was with a personal wireless facility, if it is in one of the zones identified on their map as a preferred or secondary zone, that a residence be treated like any other structure in that zone. If someone wanted a personalized facility sited on that property or on that structure, and they complied with all the other regulations, that would be possible -- it wouldn't be outright prohibited. Ms. Winters said they felt it would be more consistent to regulate by zone rather than by the type of structure within zones. There wasn't any valid reason to say "no" if you are in a commercial district. · Page 27, Design criteria, Specific Height, Bulk and Dimensional Requirements. Ms. Winters requested the Planning Commission look at this, that they really struggled with this issue. She feels BCD prefers a more flexible design type (e.g. we make these things as small as possible, but we don't know where the industry is going; we don't even know all the types of facilities that are out there; technically you are trying to work with the carrier to try to make it work.) On the other hand if the carrier comes and says it is as smaIl as possible, they can't go any smaller, and we think it is huge and horrible, if we don't have a prescriptive kind of · · · Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1998 Page 7 standard that says it can't be bigger than 12' x 12', we get into an argument. That is the balance of trying to make it work in the drafting. · Page 34 -- Grandfathering of existing facilities. Ms. Winters said when City Attorney Tim McMahan read this, he thought they were meaning an amortizing system; she said they were not, and she needs to clarify the language that says within 5 years from the effective date of this chapter you must submit a description of the facilities. She indicated aU they wanted was 5 years to let anybody out there with a personal wireless facility tell them what they have and who they are -- no permanent requirement, unless they modify the facility. She said they suspect there may be a few out there and suggested something to the effect, "They must submit to the BCD a description and statement of who they are," and then specificaUy say, "This is not intended to require a permit." Mr. Boles asked about 5 years, if it already exists. Ms. Winters replied it could have been 1 year; Mr. Boles felt 5 years might be a little dangerous. Chair Thayer indicated they would revisit and discuss this. Commi$sion Ouesti9ns/ Answers: Mr. Boles: How is potential interference addressed, by FCC regulations? I didn't see anything in here with anybody in their home use or otherwise having problems with their instrumentation. Ms. Winters: When they get their license they deal with the issue of interference and even where you have co-location, there could be interference; things would have to be a certain distance. Mr. Boles: How about people who have found that there is interference? Is that typical? When he used to have sophisticated electronics in Seattle, other things were added nearby, and he was hearing local broadcasting. He said they traced it down and eventually somebody changed the direction of an antenna and they got rid of it. He said he did not anticipate that here but wondered if there is interference with multiple facilities and asked if it was discussed? Mr. Randall: He did not think they saw that handled in any other ordinances. Ms. Thayer: If that is an FCC regulation, I would think you would go through the FCC. Mr. Randall: He did not think that was anything the city would get involved in. Mr. BoIes: The difficulty he saw was that a person that finds they are getting interference, a ham radio operator or somebody else, to whom do they complain? The FCC didn't give the permit; the FCC is going to give them the run around. Mr. Randall: These facilities are licensed through the FCC. Mr. BoIes: But they are permitted by the city. Ms. Winters: You could do as with cable television where the master cable organization actually sets up a mechanism for how you would complain. With the cable TV franchise we made them have a local office. I don't know if we can require them to have a local office, . . . Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1998 Page 8 but as a condition of permit approval, we can certainly have them give a local contact person for complaints. Mr. Worden: Thinks the Telecommunications Act precludes our making any regulations including interference. Mr. Boles: If something comes up, I do not want the public to have to chase after this forever lost in the bureaucracy. Ms. Winters: She thinks they can do that. Mr. Boles: Relative to the map, secondary sites -- definition of personal wireless services on Page 13, and 17.78.100. Page 21, Para D is saying there won't be any personal wireless service facilities permitted in any of the following residential zones, without exception, and as he reads Page 13 the definition of personal wireless services is rather all-inclusive; yet, he saw secondary sites with all the blue lines running through, and the exception in 17.78.100 that talks about small unlicensed facilities. He said he is not clear if the exception of 17.78.100, Para D is covered relative to Page 21, Para D, and, if the exception in 17.78.1 00, Para D has any supporting structures, or are they just the dishes? Ms. Winters: That was a good catch. That should be there; it was in former drafts. Mr. Randall: Basically, they would all be prohibited in residential districts with the exception of unlicensed facilities. Mr. Boles: Is the unlicensed facility only the small structure and its mount, or is it potentially also some ancillary box or something that could be some rather large size, as specified later? Ms. Winters: No, they defined unlicensed facilities. Mr. Boles: Except under definitions they are called personal wireless services. Mr. Randall: Questioned Para D. Mr. Boles: Said they defined it separately; they didn't really encourage them. Ms. Winters: She said that is another thing they probably should define. She said this came fairly late in the ordinance process. From the picture they were shown in the New York Times, it was small. She said there is a little discomfort in that most did not know what an unlicensed facility was, and looks like. In talking with Ted Kreines, he said most municipalities do regulate unlicensed facilities, but they make it really easy. They mainly just want to know where they are, and make sure they fit within some parameters you come up with. At the end it is Type I, but it should carry over a definition and say, "except for," but the idea is they would be allowed anywhere througb a Type I permit process. Mr. Boles: What is the extra ordinance consideration for those areas that are white on the map, or don't get service, and eitber a provider or the people want service. It appears as it stands right now, you are aware of some drop outs (and you can see them around the fair ground). On first look, there is no provision for that coverage, and all of a sudden people who don't . . . Planning Commission Minutes December 3.1998 Page 9 think anything is going to be allowed in their area. by this ordinance. are going to be imposed upon at a later date because of these drop outs. or for lack of service. Are you saying you are aware of that. but you are not going to allow it. because you can't preclude people from serving that area according to government regulations? Ms. Winters: The map shows preferred sites. but some of those white sites could be served by secondary sites. Because ofthe way Port Townsend has developed. unless residential rights- of-way are used. we may not achieve full service all over town. We grappled with this and said the best service is the least possible impact. Mr. Boles: So. as I understand it. the fall back is not intended that those be served at a level other than would be provided by the unlicensed facilities in streets in the secondary area. or in the blue sectors like the fair ground. Ms. Winters: Right. but it could be that we could serve some of those secondary sites. if people were willing to go through the process. Mr. Boles: Said he just didn't want someone coming in and erecting a big tower out on the bank at Sea View or Almira and wondering why it was there. Mr. RandalJ: Ted Kreines shared case law from other cities adopting standards where they wanted facilities to be. how big they could be. and that they could live with not complete. full high-density urban coverage in every part of town. It was a big enough urban area that it was a big marketplace for these providers; the city won the suit. He said he thought we were safe. that we were providing enough areas. Mr. Boles: Pages 5 and 9 -- Comment that there can be significant noise. 1) Page 5. ". . . finds that the noise levels generated by some personal wireless service facilities may cause nuisance-like impacts. . ." 2) Page 9. Para A. " . . . provided, however, that this chapter does not apply to personal wireless facilities located completely and entirely inside a "building;' . . ." Mr. Boles asked ifhe understands correctly that the noise limitation would not apply; that is what that says. and yet it is possible that the inside of a building could generate nuisance- level noise? Ms. Winters: We grappled with the inside of buildings. She said her understanding ofthe technology is that you couldn't put one of these inside a building other than something built to house or camouflage. and that they can't penetrate walls. She does not think they have the zoning authority to regulate inside of buildings; on the basis of what they are regulating, there is no esthetic or other issue inside a building. She thinks this is a non-issue, but is put in to make it clear that we weren't worried about inside of buildings. Regarding noise levels, the City has yet to adopt a noise ordinance; there is a WAC indicating it is an environmental noise level. She said it felt comfortable that they could not go beyond that. Ms. Thayer: We could add something to the effect, "or the applicable city noise ordinance." Ms. Winters: We could say something upon adoption. . . . Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1998 Page 10 Mr. Boles: The concern there is, that as a fall back you only have one place to go and that is the state level, thert you are out. Ms. Winters: We can always amend the ordinance. Mr. Boles: Page 35 -- regardirtg removal of outmoded or deèommissjoned faèìJìties. It wasn't clear if that would irtclude ca.ble and small systems; I aSsun1e it would cover the unlicertsed, smaii facilities. The definition is on Page 13. Perhaps those are covered to come extent. Ms. Winters: Cable TV is covered under the cable ordinance. Mr. Boles: This is talking about removal of facilities and then itemizes them. It wasn't clear that it addressed all the possible facilities that are allowed in the definitions. Mr. Randall Rather than say "the facilities" it could say". . . licensed or unlicensed facilities. . Ms. Winters: Yes, "licensed or unlicensed personal wireless services." Mr. Boles: Was pleased with the definitions of camouflaged and concealment, and disguised. He was a little troubled knowing what some other jurisdictions have done and that most of the discussions center on buildings, or those kinds of things; maybe it is not necessary to be concerned about something looking like bushes or trees. The sizes of some of these could be rather obtrusive, and other jurisdictions have made them to look exactly like the surrounding; In the east you would be hard pressed to say which was the antenna and which was the tree. Ms. Winters: The reason we didn't feel a concern was that we prohibited guyed and lattice towers; separate structures would be monopoles. They are the ones with a height limit that she felt would be usable to the industry, the water tower height. She said esthetically there wasn't a large concern, although, macro-facilities could go to 75' -- maybe we can also talk about standalone structures. Mr. Boles: Disguise is in there as a definition and it is used very nicely, i.e., on Page 26 but Page 25, Para 2 it does not carry forward disguise. There are opportunities for that on Page 25, Para 2, Variance Procedure. Mr. Randall: This section you are talking about is clearly part of the organizational revisions they are still working with. He said he felt the section that best deals with the design standard or criterìa to start with for any project is found on Page 26, 17.78.1O.A. "The entire facility should blend with and not disturb the visual character of its setting and camouflaging, concealment and/or disguising the facilities may be required depending on the circumstances. . . . " Maybe they need to tighten this up or make it more specific. Mr. Boles: It seems to be primarily from the building perspective. He said he understands why they chose the water tower; it is a little disconcerting that you have language in there that says, if it's not a skyline or visible to most people -- now you say downtown. We see it every day when we go out Hastings. That whole area out there is a skyline and it will be obtrusive. Regarding height -- is the height 160' including the water tower, or is it in addition to the · · · Planning Commission Minutes December 3,1998 Page 11 water tower? Mr. Randall: From grade. Ms. Winters: It may be that it wouldn't even on the water tower~ that would be a question for the industry knowledge, if they have to reinforce the water tower. It could be a monopole, or two monopoles out there. Mr. Boles: You mentioned that some of structures could be quite large. There is a discussion on Pages 28 Mini facilities, " . . . In general, mini-facilities which are independent of other structures should not have a footprint greater than 750 square feet, . . ." His understanding ofthe footprint is the surface area covering the ground. A Mini-facility and a 12' x 12' structure is quite a large footprint. Mr. Randall: Thinks that applied to not just the equipment enclosure -- the 750 square feet was intended to also apply to the structure the antenna is attached to and to everything excluding the buffers. Mr. Worden: The 750 square feet was supposed to be the aggregate of everything that is installed for this including the security fence, if that is necessary. The 12' x 12' is the size of a specific cabinet, the largest allowable. Mr. Boles: Page 29, Paras Band C -- gives sizes of micro-facilities which would be allowed only in the preferred sites, is that correct? Ms. Winters: Micro-facilities are on poles only (street poles) but not in residential zones. Mr. Boles: You can have a pole mounted equipment cabinet not exceeding 40 square feet in total surface. Roughly that is a structure a little larger than 3' x 3' X 2'. Do you have any information about how many of these there going to be? How often they are going to exist? If there is more than one provider, how many there are going to be? Ms. Winters: Not specifically. Some of these numbers were fashioned on Bothell's ordinance and some came out of the committee. BotheJI real1y regulated and looked into the size of micro-facilities in all rights-of-way. A lot of people didn't like that; they cost more and you have to put a lot more in to get service, but visual1y you don't see them. If you want them aU over your rights-of-way, everywhere, you don't see them. We didn't want to go that far at all, but we did feel that everything on street poles should be only on the pole itself Apparently, sometimes, there could be enclosures that are separate. Mr. Randa)): Jim McDonough, representative from Western Wireless, might be able to help. What they indicated to us was, first of all, they come and try to get the biggest bang for the buck including the facility and the best place that will provide the most service in town. If they have an area in town that isn't being served very well, a little gap that has a high demand market, they might go for something like this micro-facility that would have a short range but would be an infiU-type of facility. Ms. Winters: We might have a lot of them everywhere, but since we don't, we only allow them on limited rights-of-way, they are not going to be able to serve the town that way. I think . . . Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1998 Page 12 they win be just fill in. Mr. Boles: You are saying they are not economically feasible. Mr. Worden: They are limited to one facility per pole. Ms. Winters: We did say in developed streets. Mr. Boles: I was more concerned with 3' x 3' x 2' boxes. Typographical error in 17.78.190 -- what was intended to provide was not included. Mr. Randall: Please write down any typos or any mark ups, and we will take care ofthem. Mr. Mandelbaum: On the noise report of investigations -- you were wondering about going with nothing or annual; the in between possibility is to require one report at the end of the first year. That might give us an additional review and some input and report; beyond that "as required." M.r. Harbison: I didn't understand the elimination of that altogether, either. What I understood you to say, was that would be suspended entirely. Ms. Winters: It would not be eliminated. We could require it at any time; it would just be triggered through a complaint. Mr. Harbison: On the other hand, if somebody doesn't like it they could complain months later, and if you have a process in place where you can say that issue is addressed every 6 months, the City has taken care of that, and it puts you in a better position. Ms. Winters: As the years go on, in her experience keeping up with that becomes a problem if we didn't do it and later go in and try to enforce. Ms. Thayer: With noise, I think you need to give the public the opportunity to complain. Ms. Winters: We could say automatically, the first of the year, and then BCD would have the discretion to require, but no more than once a year. Mr. Mandelbaum: Tradeoffs between costs, time and flexibility -- We are giving 5 year permits. Five years in an age of changing technology is a lot of time. Next year we may find somebody clever coming in and able to arrange beautiful looking blue heron style facilities which could be located pretty low and cover the entire city. I have no idea the cost of these monopoles; I assume they are substantial and once they are implanted, there is a cost there. Wondered if the committee discussed these kinds oftradeoffs; what happens if2 years into the process you learn of a new technology that would cover the city better, would be less noisy -- what authority might we want to get some serious consideration for a change under those circumstances? Ms. Winters: We did discuss that some. Chair Kate Jenks had a great desire to be able to have some flexibility. Ms. Winters said her problem, legally, was if you want to do that, you can, but you need to amend it. You can't build in flexibility -- putting in a monopole you have to know it is in for the duration; you can't change mid-stream. You must amend the ordinance, or have a shorter permit period. . . . Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1998 Page 13 Mr. Boles: So you are talking about forced obsolescence as opposed to a competing entity coming in with a more powerful new system. Mr. Mandelbaum: We are learning something here, a change in technology; 5 years at a time when technology is changing. Ms. Winters: Five years -- as long as you are operating the same thing, it gets extended again. It is a question of fairness to the provider. If we make it every 3 years, and with new technology, we want better things, will they come to Port Townsend at all? Ms. Thayer: If it happens we can amend the ordinance. Ms. Winters: Answered Mr. Boles question that 5 years was about the middle of what other jurisdictions she looked at were doing. Chair Thayer stated concern about the process. She indicated they would be presented with quite a bit different draft than they have now, and asked for consideration of a continuation of the hearing. She asked staff for a time frame. Ms. Winters said she would have another draft ready next week. A continuation of the hearing could be possible on December 17th. 2. Public Testimony -- 8:20 At 8:20 p.m., Chair Thayer opened public testimony. Richard Smith, 813 Rose Street Spoke of unintentionally adopting an ordinance that adversely affects a local community asset, the amateur radio club of approximately 50 members, and by extension, over 150 licensed radio operators that caU Port Townsend their home assisting the Red Cross, the Sherif:fs Department, Search and Rescue and an additional host of many other public service activities. He requested the term personal wireless service be either redesignated commercial wireless service where that applies, or by definition in 17.78.030 specifically exclude amateur radio from the definition of personal wireless service. He reminded that 2 years ago Congress and the FCC enacted what is referred to as PRB I which requires municipalities to accommodate amateur radio and not adopt restrictions of legal operation of amateur stations. He said if they feel amateur radio does need to be regulated, the amateur radio community is glad to assist. He said they worked with the County Commissioners 2-3 years ago and successfully adopted a very reasonable ordinance we are all happy with and would be glad to do the same with the city. Mr. Randall: Noted the exemption on Page 10 #3. · · · Planning Commission Minutes December 3, ]998 Page 14 Ms. Winters: It was their intention to exempt amateur radios and asked Mr. Smith if the wording ofthat exemption was adequate. Mr. Smith: Replied they were concerned about objections to antennas in their yards, but he felt that exemption covered it. Howard Pack, Retired AT&T Engineer, 3310 Kuhn Has credentials and degrees in mechanical electrical engineering and a professional license in the State of Illinois. He spoke as a citizen in support the ordinance as prepared by the committee. He said he had first-hand observation of City Staff Jeff Randall and Mary Winters who he considered to be very competent in that area, and Councilwoman Kate Jenks. He endorsed the ordinance and any subsequent amendments felt appropriate. Ned Schumann, 537 Tyler Street Also complimented Staff for their attention to the ordinance. He noted Mary Winters' research comes in large part from existing legislation which was drafted during the era of the cell tower. He said the committee did add language to cover some of the newer technologies referring to personal wireless service, which he feels could be much more of an issue. He requested going through one more cycle, because he feels they could tighten up the mini tower size of antennas; they might be able to make them smaller. He spoke of hearing the cell tower technology; he felt they should have somebody from the industry and go over this one more time, somebody from the other side, to give more technology so they could tighten up some of the legislation and make it more restrictive, including limiting where they should be. He felt they could get into concern of ownership and rules under which they are licensed Because technology is changing so rapidly, he felt if they had someone other than from the cell tower technology, they might clear up ambiguities, that maybe they should take a little bit more time. He again thanked Ms. Winters and Mr. Randall for very careful attention to details in drafting this. Ms. Winters: Pointed out that in Mr. Schumann's reference to smallest facilities and mini towers, he was referring to micro-facilities. Mr. Schumann agreed. Ms. Winters asked how he felt they could go about getting more information from the industry. Mr. Schumann: He did not knOw. He made another suggestion offering to publicize this for people to look at. He said personal wireless is a significant part of future infrastructure. Richard Talbot 540 Benton Street, citizen member of committee He spoke of it as a good committee. He said it reads like a good document, and he generally supports it. He pointed out features that he reaIly liked: · Monitoring -- 17.78.140, RF and 17.78.150, Noise. He said even though they are excluded from worrying about some ofthe effects, he referred to RF emissions and loud acoustic co- · · · Planning Commission Minutes December 3,1998 Page 15 location possibilities and their cunmlative effects, he felt it was important to require RF emission reports and the option to demonstrate that the faciIity is doing what it is supposed to do; that is not regulating it. He liked this feature. · Notice requirements -- He also liked these. He said because they are allowing some of the macro facilities within 100 feet of residential areas, and because they are by choice using preferred locations, some of which are in or surrounded by residential areas, he feels is it important that people have the opportunity to participate. He said his initial approach, thinking that generaUy people want these facilities, was that everybody should share the burden and was for siting the facilities everywhere in residential areas. He spoke of the precedence set with commercial activities in residential areas with cable television, saying that cable television is a commercial venture, and yet we have wires strung throughout the city in residential area because we wanted it. He said as they went through this, he compromised to some degree, because he could see the other point of view that there are facilities in locations that might serve the needs of the city. He said at the same time you have the window of opportunity where if technology develops, you could fairly simply justify opening up the ordinance to other facilities on a broader basis. It wasn't like they had a blanket exclusion. He said he was unclear from the handouts regarding coverage. He said the city would be well served having a policy statement, a whereas, which dealt with the city's vision of what they felt was adequate service, unless they went to a system that could go into residential areas, with taller towers, etc. if that is the coverage of an area they want served. He spoke of a statement saying we are not going to try for the last decimal place of service, that reasonable good service is the goal. He said they talked about it, but it was not added. He also spoke of the co-location issue and that generally it tends to make a contentious situation. The first man on the tower has the prime position. John McDonough, Resident ofCoupvilIe, W A, Western Wireless Also complimented M.s. Winters and Mr. Randall for their work. He noted the State Department of Health position on personal communication facilities which was included in Commission packets. He commended the city for their ordinance and said he felt is was an excellent example of what a city can do when they are proactive with an issue~ they did an appropriate job of tiering, a good job of selecting sites including if it is going to be least obtrusive, that the water tower site seemed to provide a lot ofthat. He said in every jurisdiction everywhere there is the conflict of where a carrier is going to be the low man on the monopole, the pecking order in terms of where they are going to be on a specific tower, and carriers trade with one another. He said the way the ordinance is structured it provides secondary sites for carriers at the waterfront that don't have the highest or second highest position a way to have adequate coverage of town. He said the maps Mr. Randall provided, and he hoped he included a disclaimer as they discussed, were simulations based on the model that provide three or four · Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1998 Page 16 different scenarios they might pursue including terrain, vegetation, and building structures environmental engineers could use to calculate rather accurately what a propagation of service area will be. He said Western Wireless isn't currently planning anything in Port Townsend. They are a new provider in the Seattle market; they are locally based and headquartered in Issaquah and provide service to about 60% of the rest of the United States. He said they are just now developing the Puget Sound market with approximately 328 sites from Olympia to Blaine. Approximately 80% of those facilities are on BP A towers, PSE power poles, lattice and mono towers and water tanks and similarly structured buildings. He is pleased the city is allowing them with CUPs under certain conditions on structures in the Historic District, and thinks they will have carriers willing to take panels as he demonstrated and make them look almost exactly like the buildings they are attached to. He said you won't know they are there. Regarding noise emission levels, he thinks some documentation is appropriate, then afterward, as long as they meet the State WAC levels or any future city ordinance, you don't need any additional service unless there are complaints. He said you almost have to have a limit on complaints. He does not think the 5-year requirement is a bad idea; with changing technology you need to come back and address them. · Chair Thayer closed public testimony at 8:45 p.m.. · 3. Commission Discussion and Conclusions Mr. Boles: What is the maximum facility allowed on the secondary sites constituted on the map as blue lines on streets, some of which run through residential areas? Mr. Randall Exhibit 1, colored map. They are not to be confused with secondary sites. Mr. Boles: Unlicensed facilities are allowed anywhere in town? Ms. Winters: 12' x 14' x 6' -- they went up a little bit bigger from what the provider quoted them. It was her understanding that is the facility; there is no separate box. Mr. Boles: Asked for clarification from Mr. Schumann. Chair Thayer granted addressing Mr. Schumann. Mr. Schumann: The box is totally self contained, a particular vendor's box. The concern is they could proliferate, and are quite likely to. Had question as to dimensions and thinks they need more industry information. Mr. Boles: Is this a standalone item that would exist anywhere in the city as allowed in this ordinance. Is it a standalone and receive the signal through the air and not cable linked? Mr. Schumann: That is correct. The only link might be an electric pole because of electrical wiring or low power. . . . Planning Commission Minutes December 3,1998 Page 17 Mr. Boles: In the existing technology, are they contemplated as standalone, repeater type units? Mr. Schumann: That is correct. Mr. Boles: Were your comments directed to those units being a repeater unit of a primary facility someplace else? Is that the only way they are likely to exist as a repeater or primary facility, or would they be part of a primary service provision? Mr. Schumann: It could be a larger tower. M.s. Winters: There is a company in Seattle she can call for dimensions. Mr. Boles: Asked what provisions were made for areas with underground utilities, if micro- facilities are pole mounted or on their own poles. Ms. Winters: She said by their definition they are existing. Mr. Worden: Micros can go on light poles as welL Mr. Boles: If there are rto poles, he would have serious reservations as to how this addresses that. That is certainly a desirable feature of that area and hopefully something that will continue to be developed out in a reasonably undeveloped area. Ms. Winters: We could expand our definition of micro facilities, beside being on light poles, if there are underground utilities. Mr. Boles: That is where disguise should be carried forward. Ms. Winters: If they could be served by a standalone, a monopole. Mr. Boles: The maps do not show any sites currently. They may serve the area, but it is hard to be sure. The colors are appropriate Ms. Winters: One option is to relook at the zoning map and see if there is a location, a non- residential that is nearby, either a preferred location or a secondary (perhaps the fairground). Mr. Boles: That is the problem he has generally. It looks good now, but as soon as you start talking about putting a large tower at the fairground which is otherwise a fairly flat viewscape he can imagine a lot of people coming forward. Mr. Worden: As a member of the committee, he cautioned as to taking this too Jiterally. We know the state parks are considering their own. Mr. Randall: Fort Worden does not want them. Ms. Winters: Consider county policy, rather than city limits. Ms. Thayer: Do we want to go through the ordinance and talk about anything not discussed, Or have more discussion? Ms. Winters: Said this needs to go to council by the first meeting in January. She appreciates Mr. Schumann, but thinks they have heard a lot. She said they could bring back more comments on the 17th. Ms. Thayer: Asked if any of the other commissioners had any other issues. She stated concern with the marina and allowing a 75' height. Is this an encouragement to height in the Port? · · · Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1998 Page 18 Mr. Worden: Many masts are there that height and higher. Mr. Boles: Thought there was one that was sited for marine purposes. Mr. Worden: Many places the tall tower will not cover downtown. Mr. Randall: Questioned service to vehicles and commercial areas. Ms. Thayer: Asked regarding notice for towers within 150'. Mr. Randall: Type II, newspaper ad and one at the location; 300' feet -- no notice to neighbors. Mr. Boles: Err on the side ofletting them know. Ms. Winters: Spoke of Staff and council time. Mr. Worden: Referred to the map saying the committee has not discussed, that the Commission should discuss -- Schools all zoned as PI, secondary sites. Mr. Randall: The School Board could work a deal, perhaps. Mr. Harbison: Where would the city stand? Ms. Winters: It would be a School Board issue. Mr. Randall: They can ask anything before they enter into that lease. Mr. Boles: Asked for clarification on height and ifthere is anything that addresses width; arms. Page 28. Ms. Winters: Page 27, B.1. If you have something to put in, let's include it. Camouflage and disguise -- not enough to carry over. Try to come up with some language. Mr. Worden: Camouflage is my problem. Faux things become looking like faux. Mr. Mandelbaum: The lattice tower is less attractive than monopole. Ms. Winters: The lattice tower is old technology and they don't do much to cover them. Mr. Worden: Monopoles take much less view. Mr. Worden: Revisit micro-facilities. Might have to leave to an amendment. If within the next week we have input from a consultant, we should probably do that, and then continue the meeting. PROPOSED CHANGES: Ms. Winters: · Noise --first year monitoring. Then -- discretion, BCD report, but no more than once per year. Page 18 #] 9. · Delete C on Page 21 (Consensus) · Fee schedule -- Boles does not think needs to be. Winters wilJcome up and set. Mr. Boles: · Poles al}d underground and seryice Ms. Thayer: Need to revisit. Ms. Winttrs: Erect a pole, or come up with a site. Mr. Bole~: Need language. · · · Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1998 Page 19 Mr. Mandelbaum: · Flexibility. Permit. Ms. Winters: To get jurisdiction charts. Ms. Winters: · CUPs for wireless -- change Chapter 1.14. Will go to Hearings Examiner. Appeals Type II, go before Council and Hearings Examiner. Mr. Worden: · Permit -- end of 5 years. Automatic permit with proof. Mr. Boles: Ties in with my concern in abandonment. Chair Thayer asked if they wished to continue the public hearing. She said she is not comfortable approving this without seeing how it is written. Ms. Winters indicated she would provide them with a draft with lines in and lines out. Chair Thayer asked that they have the draft in enough time for review. MOTION SECOND Discussion: Mr. Mandelbaum Continue this public hearing to December 17, 1998 Mr. Harbison Mr. Boles asked what they do about the letter they just received from Andrew King. Ms. Thayer said she wants staff to read the letter, and the Commission should read it and bring it back. Unanimous, 5 in favo.r by voice vote. VOTE Mr. McMahan pointed out the proposed amendments on the Planning Commission schedule for December 17th were incorrectly assigned to the Planning Commission; therefore, the meeting date of December 17, 1998 could accommodate the continuation of this public hearing. VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Next Scheduled Meetings December 10. 1998 December 17. 1998 -- Wireless Facilities Design Standards, Continuation of Open-Record Public Hearing (LUP98-80) ~ber31. 1998 VII. RECESS · · · ~- Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 1998 Page 20 Motion was made by Mr. Boles and seconded by Mr. Worden to adjourn. All were in favor. At 9:53 the meeting was recessed until December 17, 1998, 7:00 p.m. in the City Ran Council Chambers to continue the public hearing. Jl!~ Sheila ~vis, J)1inute Taker · · · b 7ft//, I Name 'pl.... pri"'] I Address , I T~~~Tn~~ I I)\Cl çrt\ \ì1i '2; I 3' ~5.Ë. ç T t+nW~ vd PtJLc-L Q.~/O /¿4£tJ Pr7: V ~ 101/ 'S-:;r,jw/þÁ/ ¡(I .5~7 711£71:.-rT c.....-- ;Z\~\ (A.1..~ð( S4-o ~~ ~T ---- ~N & ~~&.o..J1_ Pc? "3 (z,cc4 ~f}Å'i1JI\.t¿- , //J :J \ 1/ V I I I I I