Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2000

Home

The following areas are specific questions that the Planning Commission had at your February 1, 2000 meeting. Towers in Residentially Zoned Areas According to the City Attorney, it is possible to restrict towers in residential areas. However, if it were not possible to supply sites that will provide the necessary coverage, then the elimination of towers in residential districts would be seen as a perceived ban of towers. A legal representative from a cellular industry stated that according to the Telecommunications Act, it is unlawful for an agency to endorse or support an outright ban or even a perceived ban on towers within the residential areas. To avoid any appearance of prohibiting, it may be more feasible to consider allowing towers in residential districts, which limit their location by: 1. Allowing towers only on institutional properties (i.e. public property, churches, and schools) that are located within residential zones. 2. Specify a minimum lot acreage (i.e. towers are allowed on parcels that are 5 acres or more within residential properties) 3. Invoke tower location setbacks (i.e. the tower must be at least 500' from the nearest residential dwelling or lot line) 4. Addressing aesthetic concerns (i.e. additional screening) Height Restrictions Imposing a maximum height restriction, without compromise, may be considered unlawful. Sometimes given the terrain and topography of a particular site, the need for taller towers is necessary for the towers to receive the correct frequencies. A federal court case (Maplewood vs. ATT) recently stated by imposing unreasonable height restrictions on towers puts companies in an unlevel playing field, which may violate anti- trust laws. Placement of Towers and Co-Location According to a legal representative of the cellular industry, it is difficult to pre-determine exactly where the need for future towers will be. Basically two factors determine the placement of towers: where is the market demand and where are other cell towers. He stated they are not in the business of building cell towers everywhere because they are not essentially a moneymaker for them. However, the geographic location of the site is not as big ora concern as the height of the structure or tower. They can be flexible in the placement of a tower within a few thousand feet, but in order to overcome terrain, natural and un-natural obstructions, the height of the tower in essence cannot be as flexible. He further explained that there are two types of service; cell and PCS. Essentially they are the same except that PCS wavelengths do not travel as far due to their high frequency. Because of that, there is the need for either more towers or higher towers for that type of service. As far as providing a tower for every competitor, the city has an obligation not to prohibit a network between them. According to tower ordinance section 9.15.05, a proposal for a new wireless telecommunications service tower will not be approved unless the City Council finds that the proposed tower cannot be accommodated on an existing or