Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/04/1996

Home

8. Does your community encourage or require tower'sharing to the ex'tent that it is technically feasible?. Yes No TotalResponses: 19). 154 (77%) replied that they require or encourage tower sharing to the extent that it is technically feasible. 45 (23%) replied they did not. 9. Would you support or oppose federal preemption of local cellular tower siting standards? . Support __ Oppose. TotalResponses:212. I3 (6%) said they would support federal preemption, while 199 (94%) said they would oppose it. I0. What were the reasons for denial of cellular tower applications? TotalRe~oorues: 19. Every respondent listed strong opposition from adjacent residential or business property owners as the reason for denial. 11. How would you describe thc feasibility of cellular tower siting within your community? TotaIResponses: 153. Because the responses were anecdotal, we read them and assigned each one a feasibility rating. Not very feasible: 36 (24%) qualified as having "not very feasible" tower siting environments. Among the circum- stances we found to be recurrent in this category were: "intense public opposition to visual pollution '~ intense public opposition to health risks associated with cellular technology · presence of an environmentally sensitive area or scenic overlay district · technically not approvable due to outdated regulations · no land available for towers, can locate antennas only on existing buildings [] multiple reviews and approvals required by different review, lng bodies · permitted in industrial districts only · request for tower too close to an airport environment Feasible: 58 (38%) qualified as having feasible tower siting environments. Recurrent comments: · towers allowed in some but not all districts · regulations were still in the process of being updated to accommodate cellular technology · increasing public acceptance · favorable environment if zoning for location is met · favorable environment but prefer rooftop installation and co-location on existing towers · · favorable environment if tower is designed to "blend" with irs surroundings · must meet landscape requirements for the site · favorable environment everywhere except residential areas Very Feasible: 59 (39%) qualified as having very feasible siting environments. Recurrent comments: · recendy amended regulations to accommodate cellular technology · easy as long as site is aesthetically compatible · good relationship with cellular carrier ! little or no public opposition has been expressed "proposal and site plan in line with local standards/ land-use controls · proposing party respects local concerns 12. What (if any) are your community's cellular tower requirements for the following: Height (total responses: 112). Most commonly, height limitations were a function of the district the tower was to be located in or the density of existing development. For building-mounted antennas, the height added to a host building was also limited in this way. In many communities, maximum height was a function of the setback possible on the lot, regardless of the district or the density. These tower-specific height standards were tied to the setback to protect adjacent property or property owners from damage that could be caused by a fallen tower. Height restrictions in communities that reported these in feet ranged from 30 to 320 feet. In some communities where communlrywide height restrictions were intended ro maintain a small or quaint scale of building development, towers had been exempted. In other cases, they were allowed to exceed standard height limits only with a variance or special use permit. Finally, some communities' to.wer heights were contingent upon Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval, because towers would be located near airports or flight paths. Setback (total responses: 131). The most common formula for setback was a percentage of the tower height. The most conservative setback reported was I00 percent of tower height plus an arbitrary additional distance (such as 10 or 20 feet for insurance) from the nearest property line or street. The intent was to protect adjadent property · from damage in the event ora fallen tower, but it should be noted that some towers are designed to collapse within themselves rather than topple forward. In most cases, the setback was based on the district's requirements. One respondent had no setback requirements because towers were allowed only on public property such as municipal golf courses or utility easements. Another had no setback requirement for the individual lot, but did require spacing of 300 feet from the nearest residential dwelling. Landscaping and Screening (total responses: 95). The most common response was a requirement for landscaping around the base of the itructure, with a height and depth specified for vegetation. Another common response was that landscaping be required for the area fronting residential or commercial property or streets. Some places required landscaping only for towers locating in residential districts. Others required landscaping standards to be determined by a ZBA or a design review board. A few required the landscaping of a percentage of the total lot area. For those that had communitywide landscaping ordinances or guidelines in place, very specific details (such as shrub type and planting methodology) were listed. A few communities applied tree planting requirements such as "one'six-foot tree for every 40 feet of frontage' or "street trees required." As for nonvegetative screening, most places again required some form of screening around the base of towers, in addition to planting. Specific descriptions included: brick masonry walls, chain link fences, solid wood fences, opaque barriers, and berm. Some communities reported landscaping or screening height requirements. These ranged from four to 24 feet. A more flexible but vague approach, reported frequently, was to require that landscaping be done in a 3