Loading...
05-E Tower Ordinance OptionsAGENDA INFORMATION SHEET SUBJECT: Consider various regulations for inclusion in a proposed ordinance regulating the siting of telecommunications towers within the City of Paris. BACKGROUND: The City of Paris has previously adopted an ordinance imposing a moratorium on the siting of new telecommunications towers in the City, pending adoption of a comprehensive regulatory ordinance. The moratorium ordinance, which has recently been extended by the City to allow completion of the ordinance process, applies only to newly constructed towers; it does not prohibit collocation of antenna equipment on existing towers, nor does it in any way impose regulations on towers in Lamar County but outside the city limits of the City of Paris. In order to prepare an ordinance which hopefully will be a reflection of the needs of the Paris community, several existing ordinances and model ordinances were requested and received by the Legal Department and reviewed incident to the process of ordinance preparation. The firm of Faulk and Foster, which represents the industry, forwarded a sample tower ordinance prepared by the Telecommunication Subcommittee of the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG). In addition, Faulk and Foster provided copies of regulatory ordinances which presumably are satisfactory to the industry from the cities of Monroe, Louisiana (MO); Shreveport, Louisiana (SH); and Hot Springs, Arkansas (HS). Finally, Faulk and Foster also referred the Legal Department to ordinances prepared by the City of Arlington (AR) and the City of Irving (IR) as ordinances which were prepared based on the model telecommunications ordinance which they recommended from NCTCOG. On its own initiative, the Legal Department requested ordinances from the City of Bryan, Texas (BRY) and Mesquite, Texas (MESQ). Finally, comprehensive model ordinances were obtained by the Legal Department from the International Municipal Lawyers Association (IMLA) and from the law firm ofVarnum, Ridering, Schmidt, & Howlett, a major Michigan law firm which specializes in providing representation to many cities in many states on issues related to telecommunications (hereinafter referred to as VR). The various provisions of these many ordinances have been reviewed by the Legal Department, and a proposed draft of an ordinance is under preparation. However, City Council can provide valuable assistance to the Legal Department at this stage in the process to advise the Legal Department on various policy issues which have already been identified during the ordinance review and preparation process. As a consequence, City Council will be asked to provide specific guidance to the Legal Department on these issues as summarized in this agenda information sheet. DESCRIPTION: For purposes of the issues requested for review and action by City Council, reference will be made to the specific ordinances above as to the source of various alternative information. For example, one of the issues on which City Council will be asked to consider and provide guidance is the maximum height permissible under an ordinance regulating towers. Keeping in mind that an answer to such an issue will still be subject to further review based on information and input we may receive from the industry, the various height limitations, if any, in the ordinances which are referenced above will be identified by their source ordinance using the abbreviations listed above. Page -1- By way of further example, and considering the question of a limitation on height, the height limitation imposed by the City of Irving is 120 feet, and this will be identified in the following discussion as: IR- 120"' Using this key as a guide to source information, the following issues are requested for review and comment by the City Council: There are a number of purposes which can be served by this proposed ordinance. The Legal Department has attempted to compile a comprehensive list of purposes from the other ordinances, without being repetitive. To that end, it would not appear necessary to identify the ordinance source of these purposes, but only necessary to advise council that each of these proposed purposes has been derived from or has comparable language in many of the ordinances reviewed. Please advise whether or not the following stated purposes seem consistent with or acceptable to City Council: "The general purpose of this ordinance is to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of towers and telecommunications facilities in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, while at the same time not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications market place in the City. More specifically, the purposes of this ordinance are as follows: (a) To regulate the locations of towers and telecommunications facilities in the city; (b) To protect residential areas, historic areas, and land uses from potential adverse impact of towers and telecommunications facilities; (c) To provide a range of locations for wireless telecommunication facilities in all zoned areas of the city unless otherwise prevented; (d) Within any zoning district wherein wireless communication facilities are permitted, to provide clear performance standards addressing the siting of wireless communications facilities; (e) To minimize adverse visual impact of towers and telecommunications facilities through careful design, siting, landscaping, and innovative camouflaging techniques; (f) To encourage the location of wireless communications facilities on existing structures, including utility poles, signs, water towers, buildings, and other similar facilities where feasible; Page -2- (g) To promote and encourage shared use/collocation of towers and telecommunications facilities as a primary option rather than construction of additional such facilities; (h) To promote and encourage utilization of technological designs that will either eliminate or reduce the need for erection of new towers and telecommunications facilities; (i) To streamline and expedite permitting procedures to effect compliance with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996; (j) To enhance the ability of providers of telecommunication services to provide such service to the community quickly, effectively, and efficiently; (k) To avoid potential damage to property caused by towers, support structures, and telecommunications facilities by insuring such structures are soundly and carefully designed, constructed, modified, maintained, and removed when no longer used or are determined to be structurally unsound, and to ensure that towers, support structures and telecommunication facilities are compatible with surrounding land uses. Several other ordinances from other cities not only regulate towers and tower structures, but also ground antennas and antenna dishes. While it was not the intention of the Legal Department to incorporate regulations regarding these kinds of structures, the Legal Department would ask that City Council confirm the intent of this ordinance is solely to regulate the placement of antenna arrays on tower structures or other similar structures intended to be elevated in the air? One consideration in determining the scope of the regulations is whether or not this ordinance would apply to telecommunications towers erected by other governmental entities. Currently under the law, in all likelihood the City cannot regulate towers erected by agencies of the Federal Government or direct agencies of the State Government, other than perhaps with regard to regulating the zoning locations where such towers can go. Similarly, regulations on towers erected by the County (again other than perhaps for land use purposes) would not apply. On the other hand, it is unclear as to whether or not such regulations would apply to towers erected by independent school districts and/or colleges and universities (such as Paris Junior College) which are state support and tax supported. Does the City Council believe that these regulations should apply to any of the governmental entities listed herein? The next logical issue to be considered by the City Council is where or in what zoned areas of the City towers may be located? Consistently across the board, towers are prohibited in all areas of cities zoned residential. This is not necessarily limited exclusively to single family zoning; nor is this necessarily an absolute prohibition, where the circumstances might dictate allowing a tower in such a zoned area depending on engineering and telecommunications considerations and the actual conditions of the area in question. On Page -3- the other hand, and in response to an inquiry by the Legal Department, the City's Building Official has researched the City Zoning Map and believes that the towers should be allowed only in the following zoned areas: Heavy Industrial, Light Industrial, Commercial, and Agricultural. This would mean that not only would towers be prohibited in areas zoned single family residential, multi-family residential, and two-family residential, but they would also be prohibited in areas zoned for retail use, property used by public institutions, property located in the central area, and office use. Does the City Council believe that such towers should be permitted as a matter of right only in the areas of heavy industrial, light industrial, and commercial zoning? In addition, should towers be permitted in an agriculturally zoned area with a specific use permit? If the City Council believes that towers should be located in areas other than industrial, commercial, and agricultural, in what zoned areas should such towers be permitted? Several of the ordinances exempt from coverage of the ordinance amateur radio station antennas under thirty-five (35) to seventy-five (75) feet in height used by a licensed radio operator or which is used exclusively for receive only purposes. Does the City Council believe this kind of antenna use should be exempted from the ordinance? See ordinances from NCTCOG - fifty (50) feet max; VR - seventy (70) feet; IMLA - all such towers exempted; VR - seventy (70) feet; HS - all such antennas; SH - under seventy (70) feet; BRY - thirty-five (35) feet, with other considerations; MESQ - seventy-five (75) feet. Most ordinances impose a maximum height standard for such towers. What maximum height would the City Council consider appropriate? Examples of similar limitations are NCTCOG - none; HS - one hundred fifty (150) feet; MO - two hundred sixty (260) feet; AR - none; BR - two hundred (200) feet; BR - two hundred (200) feet; MESQ - one hundred fifty (150) feet; IMLA - one hundred fifty (150) feet without site plan; VR - one hundred fifty (150) feet. In addition, previous ordinances have commonly imposed limitations on how high above existing structure (such as buildings) antenna arrays can extend when they are added to such structure. Limitations commonly run from twenty to fifty feet above the height of the structure to which the antenna array is being added. Should the City impose height limitations for such additions to existing structures, and if so what limitations should be imposed in this range? Another consideration in developing such an ordinance is a requirement for a tower to be set back a distance from adjoining property lines. This is different from a separation requirement which will be discussed under a separate heading. A setback requirement addresses how far the tower location must be sited from the closest boundary line of the tower owner's property. Representative setbacks include a multiple of the length of the tower, such as a setback equal to the length of the tower (SH; 75% of the length of the tower) VR. Having a setback measurement equal to the length of the tower would effectively establish a fall zone if that setback applies to adjacent boundary lines or the curbline of streets. Should the City require setbacks? If so, how much? Page -4- 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. The various ordinances also impose what are called separation requirements. These separation requirements include distances that the tower must be from various off-site uses. For example, separation distances may be imposed to keep towers a certain distance from residentially zoned property (VR - 100 to 200 feet depending on the use; IMLA - 200 feet or 200% of the height of the tower, whichever is greater; IR - 200 feet or three to one distance to height ratio, whichever is greater; NCTCOG - three to one distance to height ratio from SF and one to one distance to height ratio from MF). Should the City impose a separation requirement requiring a tower to maintain a distance of say 200 feet from any residentially zoned property? In addition to the separation requirement related to the distance to residential property, ordinances commonly include separation requirements in which the towers themselves are to be located a certain distance from the next tower. Examples of this requirement include: NCTCOG - tower in excess of 180 feet must be one mile from another similarly sized tower; IMLA - 750 feet to 150 feet depending on the kind of tower; VR - 750 feet to 5,000 depending on the kind of tower; AR - towers in excess of 180 feet must be located a minimum of one mile from a similar tower; IR - 5,000 feet; BR - limits the number of towers per square mile; MESQ - 750 to 1,500 feet depending on the size of the tower). What separation requirements should the City of Paris impose, if any, on the distance between towers? Each of the ordinances includes language in varying degrees intended to control the aesthetics of the towers. Some ordinances encourage towers to be constructed in ways they are less visible from adjacent properties, either through the color or nature of the construction. Is aesthetics a concern to the City of Paris? Many ordinances limit the kind of lighting that can appear on towers to only that kind of lighting imposed by state or federal law. Should a similar limitation be included in a Paris ordinance? Many ordinances limit the nature or kind of signage which can be placed on such towers to only the signage, if any, necessary to identify the tower, and all commercial signage is prohibited. Should a similar limitation be placed on towers in the City of Paris? Many ordinances require security fencing around the tower itself. Should the City of Paris ordinance require security fencing? Some ordinances (for example NCTCOG and HS) require applicants for a permit to reimburse the city for costs incurred in hiring a special consultant for permit applications which involve tower issues that are extremely complex. Should the City of Paris require a similar reimbursement? Most if not all of the ordinances require an application fee to reimburse the city the cost of administering the ordinance and processing and reviewing applications. Should the City of Paris similarly impose a fee? Page -5- 15. Collocation. Collocation is the concept whereby city ordinances encourage entities desiring to build telecommunication towers to place their antenna equipment either on existing towers or other existing structures suitable for such equipment, thereby avoiding the necessity for a proliferation of towers. The following ordinances address collocation in some fashion: (VR; IMLA; HS; AR; SH; MO; IR; NCTCOF; BR; MESQ). Is the concept of collocation something that the City of Paris should address? If collocation is something that should be encouraged in Paris, there are other sub-issues which can be considered. First of all, should new towers be required to be built to structural standards that would accommodate one or more additional antenna array, thereby assuring future collocation? Another common requirement is to require applicants for new permits to submit detailed information as to their attempt to consider other optional sites and locations and to explain to the City why such optional sites or locations were not acceptable. Should the City similarly impose a requirement for an applicant to provide assurance to the City that it has considered other collocation sites before applying? Some cities even include some regulatory incentives dealing with the height, siting, etc. of towers if they are collocated on existing structures. Should the City look at similar incentive for its new ordinances? There are certainly other provisions which may arise as the Legal Department drafts a proposed ordinance for City Council's consideration. Certainly it is the intention of the Legal Department to solicit further input from the industry for any proposed ordinance, as well as from the general public. The City Council could also consider involving the planning and zoning commission in this process. What suggestions does the City Council have for any further direct input from various interested groups in the proposed ordinance before a draft ordinance is presented to the City Council for discussion? RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direction to the Legal Department on the issues raised in this agenda information sheet. STAFF CONTACT: City Attorney, Larry W. Schenk; Chief Building Official, Steve Methven COST: Not applicable. LOCATION: Not applicable. SCHEDULE: Consideration of these issues will allow the Legal Department to prepare a draft ordinance for future consideration by the City Council. COUNCIL DATE: Resolve the issues summarized in this AlS at City Council's July 9, 2001, regular Council meeting. Page -6- ADDITIONAL MATERIALS: Ordinances from the cities enumerated in this AlS will be made available for review upon request. Page -7-