HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous
I
i
I
i
i
i
I
i
I!
i I
II
II
II
II
II
!
!
o,It!u,:,.~ -re/e((J 1'1~(/Alt ult<lvvs- o/" j~~?e.-
f2<.'3at~(~. pla6__e4:~ ~:;~f:::es,I'::~,u4 .~~
- Jtsl ~ )Jrir/'i!s/ ~?~tfl 11~',fI'"t'~4
Ju.-y Ca.-rM, he.#U ~,..,...t..clld-t-~ ~~<:.
- d LS/. tto~ Ilt~~NC /rr~l'h~h-v~,4"~J
- J1 sf. belw e,~ 10 .w e-r f
- J t Jt ~ fa j:,h; )2rJlJlj ek-_
- J,s/ ~ Ct;'- ~J~-/s e~.
i
I
I
I
I Apftul~~~i :
! I
II
I
I
j!
II
I!
j'
II
II
Ii
, I
II
II /
II CO L()c~tu~ ~
II
i I
II
! I
Ii
II
15~~6
I
I!
!
i
I
I
II
II
!I
l.
I!
1 !
-s(kt!~
f(4-t.-JS d- j vse
?O-ftZcvl:J.. I ~ I eKCc f"J gece.
Ct., l.(~"'L1:-v)-rr.. t.r1. tfl..Ji4erfi'!--1 9 ...c~
V/5(/0.1 ?j/l/ ;,
~{IJ.IIt('-Yfi{~"It//e/ ~ ~e.,'(' j~,-)",
All sl- e't<'4vff clJloc~ f1fJ~'ltl i,{-ef
,.u,1J.1"~h f~vl-II- b ~61tL- (.6/<4 C6-h4?A
pro4dd-- JeVLtaL 11/5(: k o~ (JSt-/'f'
IIJ.esli"I<<-~" $~1 yfJ,~4",-/:J~Lr
:>c ra~ I . . I""", hc..;V~
s <: fhtU'k: . . ~ dr/t.Jr. ~ frv c" 4.. C 5
C<td'IV<JC'l~LA ce.tf'.J-~ tAre.L5
Co l.<n./ J-e-~+vrel ;Vl t.t. /-el'lr1Y
MhiW ftJ [ ~ V)1. {1 f:
Ii
i i
1 I
i i
II
! -I
I r DeAh,lttJvt5
II
Iii.
ZON/I4Ct
11
I r( LJ TF OS.e--- Ca fe-g d i 1(!-5
II I) /v1tMr~?lttl-{~S ~ 35/
liL r / 1/0/
I[ l} It-. fiflVleJl wre- ,-a-c. 3 S -.-
Ii 3) f11..j4r ('<LC. > _ /
1[0
II..... ~ ,ft-=1 Ao-frt Y
!I d
II
II
lIB.
II -
i I
Ii -
11
I I
j 1
I ! -
! i
, I
II
Ll
lie.
II
11
II
11
II
II
iiD
! l ..,
1 }
i i
! I
! i
I!
i I
i I
II
'i
i IE
IlL.
II
i I
it
II -
il
Ii
I j
1 !
t!
j j
j 1
1 t
! I
l!
i i
II
! I
! i
11
I I
Te/ec()W1~
6,. J.
~
{.jleco~ f (/ ~ ,1-5
d. 00' n-r c;,. CO)
Var[lMA-c'{ ~/I(}weJ.~
S ll"-;r (llt4l-r I Y
Z8/J
"S (I-~. ()../7 r/v;"'IN~t[0
- S'+",?-. .~r' y
- fVt~SV"~~ tAvI~... 1.f2tJt../
() \-erl~ /5{; eGud-- D cs-In.e-If'
-' Ntt UfC Co".;'J L r5 {(arks? SC.i-ddk ?)
I . . I
5bfV~ B~ 7'-~e.r:f
den€rfcr f~r "S'j.wllle
h.tCfhr1~.. X rJt:-
~ t/~. u-I-~f}
!1
Ii
II
II
! I
Ii
II
i i
Ii
i I
II A.
II
! i
II
I'
'I
II
1\
I
II
11
t;
II
II
II
II
Ii
II
II
I
DCl/"c~,~ PrtX- e.55
12 ell'! ~
I) 0[f fervVtrl- (~ul-~ ~I/IY)
t) (J/Z C - -<; {'/C- l/~ re-i/le.-w-
- /'lc,w hw US
- f~"w/"~ It c:.- ~ J. ~*rY
i-rrF 0.- ru~i~~f"w~
J"cf--<- fJ/~ ra-ill~. re$fS';
Gt). tlffJlu!-tvt-. (~
~) jV1.ar/t-ef pl~
c.) Vt-Stl~ ~w(/f Ct-ve.4/L'J:ft5
J) pr.d .(~t~ w/rc;c;
e) Jli-6f{ ~P.~ e,w,/lsffc-S,
fJ !e1f0 d J~k .~~ UJI4.~
Jl Irac/"~ ~/4/--
~ ~J.tW C6,,!.~ PhJ.J/~~
3) CuP (dVJj.~ D
6\:- h
i
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
\ 18, Sf rfe Oest,1/I
II 0<5<<6(uk,~ -1-. taM.- rltJ~ di,l~...J. -;.v/-"Jw.v
II t) ;5e<:.w-4 ~C"d
II ,) CCS.~,......w....1 t.p/.-..t..~... "p./-.-l.r&
11 ~ ) I ~J ~C1? {:sq~el1,l j;C.J
I
I
I
I
1
i
I
I
I
A ~N r;;, p MJ3J..Le-
W~ h f41 .~. .OK. ~..r
~k Jil ~ fA ~.t-~. c.,O~. /.h~ ?
I
i
I
II
I I
II
I
I
II
II
t I
II
i!
II
i i
! I
II
II
! I
II
i I
II
1\
II
II
1\
't l3f.d!J eMV' I
I - Fc:C - ~&r;d"'< /lc>r
\'\ - C?c:e.4:h ..,ea 0- . ~II."Y S~..v - c,,4 Z_"'"
II - cOff&.N{ 6f.c1,~~ce.. .
Ii I ?
i 1- PZ /ttce ~ '
H - ne~j ."'wrJ,,,,...J.c ~1:3r()~
j I
, I
i I
1\ f3r~~~ JrJJr
I r bLCf,() ,-;~~.L -- rc~ ~
I I
! ~ cs-fv.lt Cd~lJ/ee- rev, e (/
1\- ":J vrve"-1 c/ s-~rtltGe,lrat/tjL(5
II 0
Ii
It {)"t!l!'?e 1frtk(U-j.,...~f
Ir
I.
Ir
II
I~ ru~ ~>
I~ p Iz frL~
11- rui I- OJ'J.:J~ ~q-
! I
Ii
I r vJ~ ci.J "e-> e. 'VcA 4~ ~
1\
Ii
[\
II
I!
1 !
[I
II
, I
II
I:
\ \
,. e~ -"'5" e.-
Lv, /J. .of J.
Tele- C~ ~;4c- I--
Existin2 Telecommunications Ordinance
Permitted in M-2
Allowed in A-P, C-l, C-3, A-O, M-l with a Conditional Use Permit when:
· conform to setback requirements in that zoning district
· within reasonable height restrictions set by the Commission
· do not jeopardize the health, safety or welfare of the public
· consistent with the spirit,. intent, and objectives of this ordinance
· do not negatively damage, affect, or curtail surrounding land uses
Telecommunications Act of 1996
1. Local zoning requirements may not unreasonably discriminate among wireless
telecommunications providers that compete against one another.
2. Local zoning requirements may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of wireless telecommunications service.
3. A local government must act within a reasonable period of time on requests for
permission to place or construct wireless telecommunications facilities.
4. Any city or county council or zoning board decision denying a request for permission
to install or construct wireless telecommunications facilities must be in writing and must .
be based on evidence in a written record before the council or board.
5. If a wireless telecommunications facility meets technical emissions standards set by the
FCC, it is presumed safe. A local government may not deny a request to construct a
facility on grounds that its radiofrequency emissions would be harmful to the environment
or the health of residents if those emissions meet FCC standards.
O:\....\Lee\Telepres.doc
1
Recent concerns expressed from local citizens:
· aesthetics, towers are unsightly and an eyesore
· they could negatively affect surrounding property values
· health and safety risk, from accidents, debris, and emissions
· not an appropriate use close to a single family neighborhood
· not appropriate located close to major entrances and gateways to the city
· efforts should be made to locate transmitters on existing buildings or structures
· towers are "out of scale" with residential areas
· main concern occurs with towers over 100 ft in height.
Zonin2 Authority Available
:> Conditional Use Permits - public hearing
:> Regulating placement and siting
:> Application requirements
:> Co-location incentives
:> Safety and aesthetic requirements
:> Extrajurisdictional requirements
:> Abandonment regulations
:> Incentives for city facilities or ROW's
:> Temporary moratorium on new permits
O:\....\Lee\Telepres.doc
2
:> Res!:Ulatinf! placement and sitinf!
· req. distance from residential areas (R-I thru R-4??)
· req. distance residential as function of tower height (75 ft height = 200 ft. dist, etc.)
· req. distance from parks, schools, healthcare facilities, daycares, playgrounds, etc.
· req. distance from historical buildings, structures, areas.
· req. distance between towers
· req. distance from certain roads or ROW's
· req. distance from certain city gateways and entrances
:> Co-location
· must exhaust all colocation possibilities
· must "over build" towers to provide co-location opportunities
· providers must provide co-location option to new providers
:> Safety and Aesthetics
· setbacks as function of tower height (for example, setback = tower height)
· screening and landscaping
· req. setback from other structures
· camouflage requirements in certain areas
· color, texture, and materials in certain areas
· monopole construction in certain areas (for example, within half mile of residential
zones)
:> Other Opportunities
· Extrajurisdictional requirements (FCC, FAA, Elect. Ind. Assoc., etc.)
· Abandonment Policy - tower must be removed ifunused for 6 -18 mos.
- provider must notify city of intent to stop use
· Application Requirements
· Program for using city facilities, towers, or ROW's
O:\....\Lee\Telepres.doc
3
· Can city be selVed from outside city limits?
:> TemDorarv Moratorium
· 4 - 6 months or until new ord. adopted
· to allow staff time to develop and adopt new ord.
· will prevent additional towers that will become nonconforming
O:\....\Lee\Telepres.doc
4
Recent concerns expressed from local citizens:
· aesthetics, towers are unsightly and an eyesore
· they could negatively affect surrounding property values
· health and safety risk, from accidents, debris, and emissions
· not an appropriate use close to a single family neighborhood
· not appropriate located close to. major entrances and gateways to the city
· efforts should be made to locate transmitters on existing buildings or structures
· towers are "out of scale" with residential areas
· main concern occurs with towers over 100 ft in height.
Zonin!! Authority Available
:> Conditional Use Permits - public hearing
:> Regulating placement and siting
:> Application requirements
:> Co-location incentives
:> Safety and aesthetic requirements
:> Extrajurisdictional requirements
"'CL (All
r- I I
~ Abandonment regulations
:> Incentives for city facilities or ROW's
:> Temporary moratorium on new permits
0:\... .\Lee\Telepres.doc
2
~r\<'i05
:> Re2ulatin2 placement and sitin2
· req. distance from residential areas (R-I thru R-4??)
. req. distance residential as function of tower height (75 ft height = 200 ft. dist, etc.)
. req. distance from parks, schools, hea1thcare facilities, daycares, playgrounds, etc.
· req. distance from historical buildings, structures, areas.
· req. distance between towers
· req. distance from certain roads or ROW's
· req. distance from certain city gateways and entrances
/~ ?J1/,,- ~
r-C
:> Co-location
· must exhaust all colocation possibilities
· must "over build" towers to provide co-location opportunities
· providers must provide co-location option to new providers
- I'C"V' fLc-v pf'dlreJeId h:; trlVi1~4 (Y151'""'{f fJ'a'vt"Ck[1
~ff
LA G ~ t>ftte-h",- tV'tl-,'arJr (V'f
.oJ ur
. setbacks as function of tower height (for example, setback = tower height)
· screening and landscaping
· req. setback from other structures
· camouflage requirements in certain areas b l cr\.. tf\ f a.(t-
. color, texture, and materials in certain areas - S Ic-~ 0 e- U
. monopole construction in certain areas (for example, within half mile of residential
zones)
:>
Safety and Aesthetics
:> Other Opportunities
· Extrajurisdictional requirements (FCC, FAA, Elect. Ind. Assoc., etc.)
· Abandonment Policy - tower must be removed ifunused for 6 -18 mos.
- provider must notify city of intent to stop use
· Application Requirements
· Program for using city facilities, towers, or ROW's
0:\.... \Lee\Telepres.doc
3
t<:
tl"'.f (fl, .7
;):fJ ~ IV
+'" r('/
· Can city be served from outside city limits?
:> Temporary Moratorium
· 4 - 6 months or until new ord. adopted
· to allow staff time to develop and adopt new ord.
· will prevent additional towers that will become nonconforming
.- h~~ he~1A- (;c)v,\)u/eL
/, I!l tl) t'~fl5
-S rh,~S
~
- -:s ffJ r wJ"" C 4~A I:)
, () C:-.
f l~<l~ {p\ -
- ( It C ,rCdiiJ)."/tJ",,'fJiLt1P((~W1
O:\....\Lee\Telepres.doc .
I Vt
/IIvtf '>f. e .
4
~
/()b \
f.~ )
9)0( ,
() ,.
~////
\ /
"
".,of
/'.
---
.... ..
.-.... .....
..... ...
-- - -. . - -..... ....
..... .....-..... ......
DI~....e. tJ.... ~S.19N.,. H....9....iN
TELEclll~It.t1ATIoN
'..1',..'.. ..,.OH....W.... .... ...E..H..'....'RH'.. ..g..'.......,
.. . ... ..
. . .. .. . ... -.
. .. -...
.. ... - ...
. .. .. . - - ..
.. . . .
., ..
EXISTING ORDINANCE
Towers Permitted in M-2 (Allowed in others) if:
· Conform to Setback
· Reasonable Height
.No Health, Safety, or Welfare Issues
· Consistent with. Intent
· No negative impacts on land uses
TELECOM. ACT OF 1996
Required of Local Government:
· May Not Discrimillate Among Providers
· May Not Prohibit Service
· Must Act within Reasonable Time
· If Deny Request Must:
- Noti!)' in Writing
- Based on Evidence in Written Record
· FCC Standard Prevail
CITIZEN CONCERNS:
· Aesthetics
· Property Values
· Health/Safety Issues
· Close to Single Family Neighborhood
· Close to "Gateways'? and Entrances
· Locate on Existing Structures
· "Out of Scale" with Residences
· Towers +100' of Greates Concern
ZONING AUTHORITY
· CUPs
· Placement and Siting
· Application
. Co-Location
· Safety! Aesthetics
· Extrajurisdictional Requirements
· Abandonment Regs.
· Incentives
· Temporary Moratorium
PLACEMENT AND SITING
Required distance from:
· Residential Areas by Zone
· Residential Areas by Height
· Parks, Schools, Healthcare facilities, ETC.
· Historical Buildings ETC.
· Between Towers
· Roads and ROWs
· City Gateways and Entrances
CO-LOCATION
Providers must:
· Exhaust ALL Co-Loco Possibilities.
· "Over-build" to Provide Co-Loco
Opportunities
· Provide Option to New Providers
SAFETY AND AESTHETICS
· Setbacks
· Screening and Landscaping
· Other Structures
· Camotlage Reqs.
· Color, Texture, Material
· Monopole Construction
OTHER OPPORTUNITIES
· Extrajurisdictional Requirements
· Abandonment Policy
- removed if unused 6 to 18 months
- provider notify city of intent
· Application Requirements
· Use City Facilities or ROWs
· Serve fro.m Outside City
TEMPORARY MORATORIUM
· 4 to 6 months Until New Ord.
· Allow time to develop and adopt
New Ord.
· Prevent Non-conforming Towers
... ....
..... .....
.... ..'"
...... ..'"
....... .. .....
....- ....... ......
..... ........... ......
DI~~~I~I~~f'N
TELEG~..I.IATION
q;(J~ElRS
...... ......
EXISTING ORDINANCE
- ADoPT/.3D ft1!(
- Pe"j"d- Fa ! t'5" lelhtfN
I yt 1ltfl., h(/v!J))~ II e x/!;t e.,
Towers Permitted in M-2 (Allowed in others) if:
· Conform to Setback
· Reasonable Height
· No Health, Safety, or Welfare Issues
· Consistent with Intent
· No negative impacts on land uses
TELECOM. ACT OF 1996
Required of Local Government:
· May Not Discriminate Among Providers
· May Not Prohibit Service
· Must Act within Reasonable Time
· If Deny Request Must:
- NotifY in Writing
- Based on Evidence in Written Record
· FCC Standard Prevail
CITIZEN CONCERNS:
· Aesthetics
· Property Values
· Health/Safety Issues
· Close to Single Family Neighborhood
· Close to "Gateways'? and Entrances
· Locate on Existing Structures
· "Out of Scale" with Residences
· Towers +100' of Greates Concern
ZONING AUTHORITY
· CUPs
· Placement and Siting
· Application
· Co-Location
· Safety! Aesthetics
· Extrajurisdictional Requirements
· Abandonment Regs.
· Incentives
· Temporary Moratorium
PLACEMENT AND SITING
Required distance from:
· Residential Areas by Zone
· ResidentialArea,s by Height
· Parks, Schools, Healthcare facilities, ETC.
· Historical Buildings ETC.
· Between Towers
· Roads and ROWs
· City Gateways and Entrances
CO-LOCATION
Providers must:
· Exhaust ALL Co-Loco Possibilities
· "Over-build" to Provide Co-Loco
Opportunities
· Provide Option to New Providers
SAFETY AND AESTHETICS
· Setbacks
· Screening and Landscaping
· Other Structures
· Camoflage Reqs.
· Color, Texture, Material
· Monopole Construction
OTHER OPPORTUNITIES
· Extrajurisdictional Requirements
· Abandonment Policy
- removed if unused 6 to 18 months
- provider notify city of intent
· Application Requirements
· Use City Facilities or ROWs
.. Serve from Outside City
.. . r
TEMPORARY MORATORIUM
· 4 to 6 months Until New Ord.
· Allow time to develop and adopt
New Ord.
· Prevent Non-conforming Towers
MEMORANDUM
The purpose of this ordinance is to provide guidelines for the development of wireless
telecommunication facilities (WTF's) in College Station, minimize the negative impacts of
new WTF's, and ensure compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Input for
this ordinance has come from many groups including local servic.e providers, City of Bryan
staff and Telecommunications Committee, City of College Station staff, the Community
Appearance Committee, a College Station telecommunications focus group, many local
residents, and this Commission. In addition, lengthy research into the
Telecommunications Act and the ordinances of many other cities ensures that this
ordinance is in compliance with the FCC and contains elements similar to those already
adopted by municipalities nationwide. Coordination with the City of Bryan has helped
both cities develop ordinances that are very similar and will aid service providers entering
this area. Bryan's ordinance is also currently being considered for adoption.
This ordinance addresses public health and safety issues by maintaining minimum distances
from residential structures and zoning districts and requiring FCC certification. The
notification area was increased to 500 ft. from the property line of the host site to allow
more public comment. The issues concerning visual impact have been addressed by
setting height limits, requiring tower separations, establishing setbacks from major
thoroughfares, . establishing aesthetic controls in special districts and encouraging co-
location on.existing towers and structures. The use of stealth technology to "camouflage"
new WTF's is also encouraged. Finally the ordinance requires applicants to submit
necessary information, including a visual impact analysis, that will aid the Commission in
making decisions.
Please find enclosed a copy of the draft Wireless Telecommunication Facilities ordinance.
This ordinance closely resembles Bryan's draft ordinance. However some changes were
made for the purpose of simplification and to reflect the input from the group. You will
notice several places that are underlined in the draft. These are details that still need to be
finalized. I have scheduled a meeting for Monday October 24 at 1O:00am. At this time I
hope we can finalize most of the remaining details. I am also planning to have a map of
the city available that will show where towers could be located under this draft. Please
bring to the meeting specific comments and ideas pertaining to this draft.
It is my hope that we can present this ordinance to the Planning and Zoning Commission
at their meeting on November 21. With their approval it would go on to the City Council
for adoption on December 11. In order to do this, the ordinance must be submitted to our
legal department by November 3 in order to meet the November 12 deadline for the P&Z
agenda. In short, we need to have a mostly final ordinance by November 3rd in order to
get it adopted this year.
I believe we have a good draft ordinance that will serve the citizens of College Station and
further the policies of the City Council. Thank you all for your time and effort in creating
this ordinance.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
Planning & Zoning Commission
Lee Battle, Staff Planner
Update 011 telecommunication ordinance
RE:
DATE:
September 30, 1997
.
...
Due to the time limitations between the last meeting and the agenda deadline for this next
meeting, a continuation of the discussion on the telecornmunications ordinance has not
been put on the agenda for the meeting on October 2. This memo is to update the
Commission on what steps are being taken to review and revise the telecommunications
ordinance.
Because I have heard some confusing cornments about the discussion at the last meeting I
will now try to clarify the moratorium issue. As I discussed in the last meeting, the current
ordinance could allow requests for new telecornmunications facilities in locations that may
put the Commission in an uncomfortable situation. Due to the precedent of recent towers
and the antidiscriminatory language in the federal legislation, the Commission could be put
in a situati()nwhere it is obligated to approve a request even if the Commission feels it is
not in an appropriate location. Staff's position is that the moratorium is an option
available to the Commission to prevent this type of situation from occurring If the
Commission feels that such a situation would be a problem, arecornmendationcan still be
made at anytime fora. moratorium. As discussed below, a new ordinance could now be
completed in a relatively short period of time, therefore the Commission may no longer
find the moratorium to be necessary.
I have been in c()ntinuous contact with the City of Bryan staff regarding their work on a
telecornmunications ordinance. They have been researching and discussing ordinance
ideas for several months and have written a draft ordinance. Their Telecon1Inunications
Committee has worked on and approved drafts for this ordinance. The draft was then sent
to local telecommunication service providers for review and comments. Responses from
the industry have been favorable. Comments were considered and some changes made.
Bryan staff is now conducting a final series of reviews before the new ordinance is
considered for adoption.
College Station staff has reviewed this draft and found it to be a good basis for a new
College Station ordinance because 1) it is beneficial for both cities to have similar
ordinances, 2) it is partially based on input from the local service industry, 3) it is based
on research and contains elements similar to those already adopted by municipalities
throughout the U.S. and, 4) it is in line with the new federal legislation. A focus group
m.ade up of College Station residents and staff has been formed to review the draft
ordinance and cotnl11ent on its compatibility with College Station's needs and public
interests. Their first meeting will be this. Friday. Upon approval by this focus group and
the legal department, an ordinance amendment will be presented to. the Commission.
Hopefully this will occur som.etime. in November.
1-'
1
~.~
COLLEGE STATION
P. O. Box 9960
1101 Texas Avenue
Tel: 409 764 3500
College Station, TX 77842
MEMORANDUM
RE:
Planning & Zoning Commiss;t!,
Lee BattIe, Staff Planner 'f.1(:;j-
Discussion on telecommunication towers
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
September 2, 1997
...
The current telecommunications ordinance, adopted in May 1994, allows towers in A-P,
C-l, C-3, and A-O, as determined to be appropriate by the Commission through a
Conditional Use Permit. At the time of its adoption the FCC was working on legislation
that could affect, or even preempt, local zoning authority. The current ordinance is
purposely flexible and nonrestrictive in order' to deal with tower requests while also
allowing for the uncertainty of the developing legislation. In February 1996, the
TeJecommunications Act of 1996 was formally signed into law. This legislation was
designed to ensure growth and competition in the telecommunications industry. Since its
passage it has been unclear how much this would impact local governments and their
ability to regulate the industry. Recent analysis and interpretation of the 1996 act has
helped to clarify when and how local planning agencies can regulate telecommunication
providers. Recent requests to erect towers in College Station have brought to light some
of the concern and controversy related to their design and placement. With the rapid
growth of the industry, it is likely that many more requests will be made in the near future.
Staff believes that this is a good time to review our current ordinance and consider any
possible changes.
There are basically five conditions set forth in the act that affect local zoning authority:
1. "Local zoning requirements may not unreasonably discriminate among wireless
telecommunications providers that compete against one another."
2. "Local zoning requirements may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of wireless telecommunications service."
3 . "A . local government must act within a reasonable period of time on requests for
permission to place or construct wireless telecommunications facilities." .
Home of Texas A&M University
Ir'
4. "Any city or county councilor zoning board decision denying a request for permission
to install or construct wireless telecommunications facilities must be in writing and must
be based on evidence in a written record before the councilor board."
5. "If a wireless telecommunications facility meets technical emissions standards set by the
FCC, it is presumed safe. A local government may not deny a request to construct a
facility on grounds that its radiofrequency emissions would be harmful to the environment
or the health of residents if those emissions meet FCC standards."
While this act does protect service providers, it also affirms local zoning authority over
placement and construction of telecommunication facilities and allows several areas for
regulation. Some of these areas. include siting. of towers, application requirements, co-
location incentives, safety concerns (other than emissions ), aesthetics, and abandonment
policies. Because of the speed at which towers are being erected across the nation, some
cities are implementing short (3-6 months) moratoriums on new tower construction until
ordinances .can be reviewed and modified. Through discussion of these options for
regulation,. . staff would like to get some input. on what the Commission feels should be
included in a. telecommunications ordinance for College Station.
~!-.
Existin2 Telecommunications Ordinance
Permitted in M-2
Allowed in A-P, C-l, C-3, A-O, M-l with a Conditional Use Permit when:
· . conform to. setback requirements in that zoning district
· within reasonable height restrictions set by the Commission
· do not jeopardize the health, safety or welfare ofthe public
· consistent with the spirit, intent, and objectives of this ordinance
· do not negatively damage, affect, or curtail surrounding land uses
TelecomolUnications Act of 1996
1. Local zoning requirements may not unreasonably discriminate among wireless
telecommunications providers that compete against one another.
2. Local zoning requirements may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of wireless telecommunications service.
3. A local government must act within a reasonable period of time on requests for
permission to place or construct wireless telecommunications facilities.
4. Any city or county council or zoning board decision denying a request for permission
to install or construct wireless telecommunications facilities must be in writing and must
be based On evidence in a written record before the councilor board.
5. If a wireless telecommunications facility meets technical emissions standards set by the
FCC, it is presumed safe. A local government may not deny a request to construct a
facility on grounds that its radiofrequency emissions would be harmful to the environment
or the health of residents if those emissions meet FCC standards.
0:\... .\Lee\Telepres.doc
1
Recent concerns expressed from local citizens:
· aesthetics, towers are unsightly and an eyesore
· they could negatively affect surrounding property values
· health and safety risk, from accidents, debris, and emissions
· not an appropriate use close to a single family neighborhood
· not appropriate located close to major entrances and gateways to the city
· efforts should be made to locate transmitters on existing buildings or structures
· towers are "out of scale" with residential areas
· main concern occurs with towers over 100 ft in height.
Zonin2 Authority Available
:> Conditional Use Permits - public hearing
:> Regulating placement and siting
:> Application requirements
:> Co-location. incentives
:> Safety and aesthetic requirements
:> Extrajurisdictional requirements
:> Abandonment regulations
:> Incentives for city facilities or ROW's
:> Temporary moratorium on. new permits
0:\. ...\Lee\Telepres.doc
2
:> Re2ulatin2 placement and sitin2
.req. distance from residential areas (R-l thru R-4??)
. req. distance residential as function of tower height (75 ft height = 200 ft. dist, etc.)
. req. distance from parks, schools, healthcare facilities, daycares, playgrounds, etc.
. req. distance from historical buildings, structures, areas.
· req. distance between towers
.. req. distance from certain roads or ROW's
It req. distance from certain city gateways and entrances
:> Co-location
It must exhaust all colocation possibilities
· must "over build" towers to provide co-location opportunities
. providers must provide co-location option to new providers
:> Safety and Aesthetics
. setbacks as function of tower height (for example, setback = tower height)
· screening and landscaping
· req. setback from other structures
· camouflage requirements in certain areas
· color, texture, and materials in certain areas
. monopole construction in certain areas (for example, within half mile of residential
zones)
:> Other Opportunities
· Extrajurisdictional requirements (FCC, FAA, Elect. Ind. Assoc., etc.)
. Abandonment Policy - tower must be removed if unused for 6 -18 mos.
- provider must notify city of intent to stop use
· Application Requirements
· Program for using city facilities, towers, or ROW's
0:\. ...\Lee\Telepres.doc
3
. Can city be served from outside city limits?
:> Temnorarv Moratorium
· 4 - 6 months or until new ord. adopted
. to allow staff time to develop and adopt new ord.
. will prevent additional towers that will become nonconforming
0:\.. ..\Lee\Telepres,doc
4