Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-05 PZC MINUTES• • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION May 5, 1998 I. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the City Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Englewood City Council Chambers , Chairman Douglas presiding. Members present: Members absent: Also present : Welker, Dummer, Homer, Lathram , Rininger , Tobin , Douglas Weber (with previous notice) Simpson , Ex-officio Harold J. Stitt, Community Coordinator Brad Denning , Planning Analyst Nanc y Reid , Assistant City Attorney II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 21, 1998 Chairman Douglas stated that the Minutes of April 21, 1998 were to be considered for approval. Tobin moved: Lathram seconded: The Minutes of April 21 , 1998 be approved as written . AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Welker , Dummer, Homer, Lathram , Rininger , Tobin , Douglas None None Weber The motion carried. III. COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE Telecommunications Antennae and Tower Standards CASE #OR-98-03 Mr. Douglas stated that the issue before the Planning Commission is that of proposed standards regarding telecom- munication antennae , towers , and related facilities . Mr . Douglas asked for a motion to open the Public Hearing. Tobin moved : Homer seconded: AYES : NAYS: ABSTAIN: ABSENT : The Public Hearing on Case #OR-98-03 be opened. Dummer, Homer , Lathram , Rininger , Tobin , Welker, Douglas None None Weber The motion carried . Mr . Brad Denning was sworn in , and testified that the Neighborhood & Business Development Department is asking that the Planning Commission to ad dress the issue of telecommunication towers , antennae , and related facilities , and to recommend standards applicable to the location and construction of such facilities. Mr . Denning stated that ordi- nances that have been enacted in Englewood are inadequate to address the location and installation of telecommuni- cation towers , antennae and related facilities . Mr. Denning stated that Council Resolution #9 , Series of 1997 , estab- lished a temporary moratorium on installation of telecommunication facilities within the City limits. This morato-• rium was to provide staff an opportunity to research the telecommunication issue , and draft proposed standards. The moratorium expired in November, 1997 . Staff has researched the telecommunications industry, and has worked with members of the telecommunications industry , as well as Special Counsel Fellman , to develop the proposed standards. Mr. Denning stated that Special Counsel Fellman was appointed to work on the specific telecommunica- tion topic by the City Attorney's Office . Mr. Fellman does have expertise on the telecommunications issue, and has provided valuable assistance to staff. Mr. Ken Fellman was sworn in . Mr. Fellman, who had distributed a Draft V of the proposed telecommunications standards prior to the beginning of the meeting, apologized for not having Draft V available to the Commission at an earlier date . Mr. Fellman stated that Draft V incorporates the suggestions and changes that were made by the Com- mission at the study session in February . Mr. Fellman went through Draft V, pointing out modifications in language and other edits that have been made . The issue of "man made trees" as an alternative tower structure, or "stealth tower" structure was discussed at length, as was the issue of "security fencin g". Mr. Homer questioned the rationale of camouflaging tower structures, and then drawing attention to them by requiring security fencing . Mr. Douglas asked if there might be supporting equipment or facilitie s serving a camouflaged structure wh ich might need security fencing . Mr. Fellman responded affinnatively . Ms. Tobin asked if the supporting equipment and related facilities have resalable components that could attract vandals. Mr. Fellman stated that he did not believe theft was a primary reason for security fencing , but rather it is a matter of liability for the telecommunication companies . Mr . Homer asked if security fencing is re- quired around other towers -the water tower, for instance . Ms . Reid stated that she is not sure whether security fencing is "required" -if it is in place, it is for a liability reason . Mr. Fellman continued with the review of Draft V, citing word changes, citation corrections , and newl y added wording to provide clarification . Mr. Homer asked what is "appropriate anti-climbing devices " -are we talking about barbed wire atop the security • fencing ? Mr . Fellman stated that an "appropriate anti-climbing device" would be determined by the Building De- partment. Ann Closser, land use consultant to U .S . West Air Touch Cellular, was sworn in . Ms . Closser testified that her company would prefer that "man-made trees " be retained as part of the definition of "alternative tower structure" and not deleted from this definition as shown in Draft V . Ms . Closser stated that inclusion of "man-made trees" in this definition would encourage, rather than discourage, camouflage of antennae/tower facilities. Ms . Closser stated that eliminating man-made trees as an approved alternative tower structure penalizes telecommunication companies for developin g costly designs to dis g uise the antenna and tower facilities . Ms . Closser referenced an evergreen tree on Monument Hill , which is an antenna disguise . Ms. Closser suggested that incentives should be provided to en- courage the telecommunications companies to increase the camouflage of towers and antennae facilities . Ms. Closser discussed the issue of security fencing , noting that it may be in place around supporting equipment but there is no need for the security fencing around trees . She further commented that the supporting equipment for Air Touch is housed in a small , locked building -a 12 ' x 20 ' footprint ; the company also uses a small cabinet with an 18 square foot footprint. Ms. Lathram asked if the equipment buildings are locked and otherwise secured, is security fencing required. Ms . Closser stated that the site would not have to be fenced. Mr. Douglas asked Ms . Closser how many towers she could estimate to cover the C ity of Englewood. Ms . Closser stated that she could not respond for the industry as a whole, and pointed out that installation of new telecommun i- cation facilities is declinin g at the present time . The past few years has seen a lot of activity on the part of all tele- communication companies to secure sites and erect the towers and antennae , but this has really slowed down in the last six months . Ms. Closser stated that the majority of Air Touch sites are developed . Mr. Welker asked if there is a difference in tower and antennae size and appearance for digital systems versus ana- log systems. Ms . Closser stated that there is no difference, and that Air Touch added digital equipment to their ana-• 2 • • • log towers . Ms. Closser stated that digital systems can handle a lot more calls than the analog system, but have no more visual impact. Ms . Closser pointed out that topography and height of buildings dictate height of towers . Ms. Closser addressed Page 4 , #3 of the proposed Telecommunication standards, and expressed opposition to the provision requiring that building and safety codes be applied retroactively. Ms. Closser stressed that Air Touch complied with the standards in effect when their towers and antennae were constructed/installed ; these facilities should not be required to be updated to comply with newer building and safety standards. She urged that §G 4 cited in Paragraph #3 be deleted . Ms. Closser addressed D #3 on page 5 ; she stated that industry companies should not be required to disclose pro- prietary information such as sites in which they have an interest. She suggested modification of the first sentence to eliminate reference to "proposed" telecommunications facilities. Ms. Closser stated that until site information is public knowledge , this would place any company at a competitive disadvantage. Mr. Rininger asked what the problem is with disclosing tower locations. Ms. Closser stated disclosure of specific locations is disclosing "trade secrets " to competitors . Mr. Rininger asked whether colocated facilities are by lease agreements . Ms. Closser stated this is correct; either they lease to another company, or lease from another company. Mr. Fellman stated that §D 3 is not asking for proprietary information , only that which is already disclosed . This provision is for "current proposed" facilities . Ms . Closser suggested that the wording be changed so the sentence reads : " ... existing or current land use applications for proposed telecommunications facilities ... ". Further discus- sion ensued. Mr . Fellman suggested that the sentence could also be modified to state " ... publicly proposed ... ". Ms . Closser addressed Page 7 F, Fees . She asked what the intent of the "telecommunications facilities permit fee " - is it to "punish" this particular business or to pay for the processing of the permits . Ms. Closser stated that it a ppears to be a "penalty" against the telecommunications businesses. Ms . Closser emphasized that fees imposed must have direct relation to the cost of processing the applications . Mr. Homer asked how fees are addressed in other jurisdic- tions . Mr. Denning reported on research he has done , noting that there is a wide range in the fees charged; there is no set standard in the metro area . Mr. Fellman suggested that the issue of fees must be addressed by City Council. Mr. Fellman pointed out that it is possible the City may have to contract wi th someone with telecommunication expertise to process applications . Fee imposition is a City Council issue. The issue of fees versus a tax was discussed . Ms . Reid stated that City Council does review fee schedules on a periodic basis , and all fees are determined by City Council. Ms . Closser addressed Page 10 , #5, and stated that rad io frequency emissions are enforced by the FCC ; she ques- tioned that the City has authority to be involved with complaints regarding frequency emissions . She suggested that the entire paragraph , after the first sentence, be eliminated . Ms. Closser then addressed Page 11 , #7 a, and suggested that the last sentence be deleted in this subsection . She noted that the FCC must be notified whenever a transmission site is to be activated , and compliance is determined at that time . Ms . Tobin asked whether Air Touch Cellular has field personnel to periodically check compliance on the tower and antennae sites . Ms. Closser stated that they do not. Mr. Rininger inquired about the process followed if a complaint is filed . Ms. Closser stated that the company must bring the site into compliance or they could lose their license . Brief discussion ensued . Ms . Closser referenced Page 12 , #2 and #3 ; she asked that the 12 foot figure cited be increased to 14 feet. Ms . Closser discussed perceived inconsistency between requirements of Page 12 §J 4 , and Figure I. She suggested that an additional paragraph be added as J 5, which would clearly specify permitted uses in specific zone districts . Troy Miller, Western Wireless , was sworn in . Mr. Miller testified that tower and antennae for digital and analog are very similar; the support facilities that Western Wireless provides can be contained in a structure the size of a large refrigerator; there is no need for a building or security fencing. Anti-climbing devices are typical on their installa- tions. If the City is concerned about possible vandalism , fencing can be required . Mr . Miller cited Page 5, §D 3 ; he stated that requirement of a map description of existing or proposed facilities will be quite unreliable ; he stated that the telecommunications industry has gone through a dramatic build out in the last 3 few years , and that activity has slowed down quite a bit. Additional need for capacity, which cannot be foreseen , is what drives the need for additional towers . Mr. Miller discussed "colocation", and stated that anytime a carrier must • participate on a colocation site , service will be "surrendered"; he stated that a worst case scenario would be that the 911 service could suffer because of co location. Mr. Dummer asked if Western Wireless has distance requirements or specifications for specific areas. Mr. Miller stated that the location of facilities depends on topography and the height and size of development. Mr. Miller referenced Page 6, #6, and expressed objection to requirement of a report by a "Colorado" licensed pro- fessional engineer; he noted that Western Wireless frequently purchases towers that are manufactured out-of-state . These facilities meet the engineering standards of the state in which they are built, and questioned that the require- ment of a "Colorado" licensed professional engineer is necessary . Mr. Miller noted that Page l 0 , G 4 a iv also cites requirement of Colorado licensing. He reiterated that structural approval has already been granted for facilities pur- chased from out-of-state. Ms. Tobin noted problems with Colorado soils and weather that officials licensed by other States may not be famil- iar with . She stated that she felt the requirement of Colorado licensing should be retained . Mr. Welker stated that it is a typical requirement to state a "Colorado licensed" professional ; he noted that there are reciprocal licensing agreements between states on professional people such as engineers, architects , etc. He stated that requirement of the Colorado licensing provision is not unusual and should be retained . Ms . Lathram asked if the Building Depart- ment wouldn't require a Colorado licensed professional. Ms. Tobin stated that it should be specifically stated in this ordinance . Mr. Miller referenced Figure l , noting that Conditional Use approval is required for tower structures and microwave antenna in all residential districts . He urged that a two foot satellite dish be allowed as a permitted use in the resi- dential districts . Mr. Miller noted that Wind Star is becoming a very popular digital transmission system, and that the two foot dishes could be used very easily in conjunction with larger residential facilities. These dishes could be fastened to the side of an apartment structure , or atop the building. Proliferation of the dishes was discussed . Mr. • Miller suggested that language could be included to restrict addition of only one dish to wireless facilities ; this would assure that allowance of transmission dishes would not be "abused". Discussion ensued. Mr. Stitt noted that there is a section of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance pertaining to sat- ellite dishes , but it is for "receive only" dishes; transmission facilities are not addressed. Mr. Homer expressed his concern regarding allowance of the dishes as a "permitted use"; he stated he would prefer retaining the Conditional Use provision . Installation of the transmission dishes would then have to be approved by the Planning Commission following a Public Hearing . Chairman Douglas called for a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p .m . Mr. Fellman asked for an opportunity to address some of the concerns expressed by Ms . Closser and Mr. Miller. Mr. Fellman discussed the issue of eliminating "man-made trees" from the definition of Alternative Tower Struc- ture , as well as fencing . Mr. Homer asked why one would want to fence a stealth monopole -this would defeat the intent of the "stealth" design . He suggested that on Page 15 , #6 could be modified by use of the word "may" be enclosed rather than "shall" be enclosed . Mr. Douglas questioned whether fencing should be "required". Mr. Fell- man questioned whether fencing should be optional for all towers , or only for stealth towers. Mr. Fellman stated that he will rework the language of Section D 3 on Page 5. Mr. Fellman stated that the issue of fees must be addressed by the City Council. Page I 0, #5 was discussed by Mr. Fellman. He stated that the Federal act says that radio frequency standards may not be regulated so long as the facility is in compliance with the federal standards . The FCC does have the authority to investigate complaints on transmission interference , but does not have sufficient staff to do so unless there is a serious problem to be addressed. On issues that are not serious it could be months before a problem is addressed. Mr. Fellman stated that there is a dispute with the FCC on how far local governments can go to determine compli-• ance , and that right now the law is unclear. The National League of Cities has commented actively on this issue , 4 J • • • and it is a valid local concern . He stated that, in his opinion, the City needs to have something in place to determine ifthe transmission towers are in compliance . Mr. Fellman stated that the city may not impose standards that exceed the FCC standards. Problems that might arise from multiple antennae were briefly mentioned, and Mr. Fellman stated that six months from now, rules regarding the FCC compliance and local government involvement may be changed. Mr. Welker noted that #5 on Page 10 makes reference to "initially installed" antenna; should not this provision also apply to subsequent antenna installations. Mr . Fellman stated that the City can require an annual report . Mr. Fell- man also referenced #6 and #7 on Page 10 , and commented that the public safety personnel in the City had requested this language ; this would address interference with public safety transmissions by facilities of private telecommuni- cation companies . Mr. Fellman stated that the requested change to 14 feet on Page 12 is not unreasonable ; he did point out, however, that the 12 feet was an agreed-upon figure during the course of meetings with the industry representatives . Mr. Dummer asked if there is a requirement to have lights atop antennae that are on roofs , or that may exceed a specified height. Mr. Fellman referred to Page 8, #2 e , which states that towers shall not be artificially lighted un- less so required by the FAA or other applicable authority . Mr. Fellman pointed out that any one appl y in g for a Con- ditional U se approval for location of a tower or antenna will have to present proof the s ite /installation has been ap- proved by the FAA ; this is the applicant's responsibility to get the FAA approval. Mr. Homer inquired about the concern on "retroactive" appl ication of standards . Mr. Fellman stated that he does not know whether there are older towers that do not comply with existing codes . What section G 4 say s is th at the owner must assure that the tower will be maintained, and shall comply with applicable codes whenever new codes are adopted . Mr. Fellman stated that he has not researched the legality of this requirement, and does not know how a court would rule. Mr. Fellman stated that in his opinion the overriding concern for public health and safety should appl y . Mr. Welker stated that there is very little in the Building Code that applies to towers, but he felt it should not be a "big issue " ifthe industry knows that the towers are to be maintained to code . Ty pically, structures are brought up to current code when they reach a "hazardous" situation , or there is a change of use of the structure . Mr. Fellman stated that his reference to applicable codes adopted by the C ity include the Uniform Building Code , National E lec- tric Code, Plumbing Code, and whate ver other codes might apply. Mr. Fellman stated that he understood M s . Closser 's concern was focused on towers existing on the date this proposed Ordinance becomes effective. Mr. Wel- ker suggested that an opinion from the City Attorney 's office regarding the applicability of this section should be obtained. Mr. Fellman referenced Mr. Miller 's comments regarding predicting needs ; he stated that capacity predictions are unreliable in many instances . However, "general predictions", similar to a business plan for any business, should be a part of any telecommunications company's operations. These companies have to have ideas and trends to beg in , operate, and stay in business . General predictions should be available to file with the City . Mr. Fellman stated that he agrees with Mr. Welker's comments regarding the Colorado licensed engineers , and there is a licensing reciprocity agreement among most states . Mr. Fellman discussed the issue of a llowing 2 foot dish transmitters mounted on the side or top of towers or antenna . If the overall height is less than 15 feet , he does not feel this would be unreasonable ; however, this installation would still be subject to all other requirements. Ms . Closser of Air Touch again addressed the Commission. She discussed the issue of "incentives", noting that for companies to have to pursue the "conditional use" approval over a "permitted use" approval is certainly a procedural disincentive . It is time consuming, plus the additional fee for the Conditional Use process is also a disincentive . Mr. Douglas asked if an yone else wished to speak. No one indicated a desire to address the Commission . Tobin moved : Dummer seconded: The Public Hearing on Case #OR-98-03 be closed . 5 AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT : Homer, Lathram, Rininger, Tobin, Welker, Dummer, Douglas None None Weber The motion carried. Chairman Douglas asked the pleasure of the Commission . Homer moved: Tobin seconded: The Planning Commission approve Draft V of the Telecommunications Standards, and recommend approval of Draft V by the Englewood City Council. Mr. Homer discussed the change proposed by Mr. Fellman to eliminate "man-made trees " as an Alternative Tower Structure ; he stated that he would prefer to see the "man-made trees" as a Conditional Use which provides the Plan- ning Commission an opportunity to view location, appearance, and impact of such an installation. Discussion en- sued . The Draft V , Page 2 , §B 1, was approved as written. Page 4 , #19 , was discussed. Homer moved: Rininger seconded : Page 4, # 19 be changed to read: " ... personal communications service telephone towers , man-made trees , and other similar structures ." AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN : ABSENT : Rininger, Tobin , Welker, Dummer, Homer, Lathram , Douglas None None Weber The motion carried. Page 4 , §C 3 was considered. Elimination of reference to G-4 was discussed ; it was determined that this reference shall remain at this time ; the Ci ty Attorney's office is asked to research the applicability of retroactive compliance on towers and antenna with new codes . Page 5, §D 3 was discussed. Commission members determined that the first sentence of this provision needed to be reworded . Welker moved: Homer seconded: AYES : NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT : The first sentence of §D 3 shall be reworded as follows: "A narrative and map descrip- tion of the applicant's existing or then current land use applications proposed for tele- communications facilities within the City, and outside of the City within one thousand feet ( 1,000) of its boundaries ." Tobin , Welker, Dummer, Homer, Lathram , Rininger None None Weber The motion carried . Page 10 , #5 was then considered. Horner moved: Tobin seconded : That #5 on Page 10 be amended by eliminating all wording following "... radio fre- quency emissions" in the first sentence . 6 • • • • • • Discussion followed. The vote was called . AYES: NAYS : ABSTAIN: ABSENT : Welker, Horner, Tobin Dummer, Lathram, Rininger, Douglas None Weber The motion did not carry. Page 12 , J 2 and J 3: The Commission approved change of 12 feet to 14 feet in both paragraphs . Page 15 , #6: Reworded to state: "Towers other than alternative tower structures shall may be enclosed by security fencing, of a type approved by the City, not less than six feet in height and shall alse be equipped with an appropri- ate anti-climbing device." Brief discussion ensued. The vote to approve Draft V of the Telecommunications Standards, as amended, was called: AYES : NAYS : Lathram, Rininger, Tobin , Welker, Dummer, Homer, Douglas None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT : Weber The motion carried. Mr. Douglas thanked Mr. Fellman for his assistance on this issue , and also thanked members of the telecommunica- tions industry for their participation in developing these standards . IV. FINDINGS OF FACT Case #CP-98-0 I Chairman Douglas stated that the Findings of Fact for the North Englewood Small Area Plan (NESAP) were to be considered for approval. Horner moved : Rininger seconded: The Findings of Fact for the North Englewood Small Area Plan , Case #CP-98-01 , be approved as written. AYES : NAYS : Welker, Dummer, Homer, Lathram , Rininger , Tobin, Douglas None ABSTAIN : None ABSENT: Weber The motion carried. V. PUBLIC FORUM No one was present to address the Commission VI. DIRECTOR'S CHOICE Mr. Stitt stated he had nothing to bring before the Commission . In response to a query from the Commission , staff stated that there are no cases scheduled for May 18th . Cancella- tion of that meeting was discussed . 7 VII. ATTORNEY'S CHOICE Ms . Reid stated that she had nothing to bring before the Commission . VIII. COMMISSIONER'S CHOICE No one raised an issue for discussion . There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was declared adjourned . Giufrw:! L7luf Recording Secretary f:\dept\nbd\group\boards\plancomm\minutes 98 \pcm 05-98a.doc 8 • • •