Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Land Use and Planning Board - 06/23/1997 CITY OF !V �\ rS`JIT Jim White, Mayor Planning Department (206)859-3390/FAX(206) 850-2544 James P Harris,Planning Director LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Public Hearing June 23, 1997 The meeting of the Kent Land Use and Planning Board was called to order by Chair Steve Dowell at 7 00 p m. on June 23, 1997, in Council Chambers of Kent City Hall LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Dowell, Chair Brad Bell, Vice Chair Tom Brotherton Jerry Daman Ron Harmon David Malik Sharon Woodford • LAND USE & PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None PLANNING STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: James Harris, Planning Director Fred Satterstrom, Planning Manager Teresa Beener, Administrative Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Board member Tom Brotherton MOVED and member Sharon Woodford SECONDED a motion to approve the June 2, 1997 minutes as written The motion carried. ADDED ITEMS TO THE AGENDA None. COMMUNICATIONS None. NOTICE OF UPCOMING MEETINGS Planning Director Jim Harris informed the Board that the City Council will be hearing the . Downtown Subarea Action Plan at the July 1, 1997 City Council Meeting #ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities 220 4th AVE SO i KENT WASHINGTON 98032-5895/TELEPHONE (20W59-3300 1 FAX#859-3334 _ • Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 23, 1997 Page 2 #ZCA-97-4 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION FACILITIES (T Brubaker) Chair Steve Dowell asked that the letters received by the Land Use and Planning Board be made a part of the record(Exhibit"A1-5"). Assistant City Attorney Tom Brubaker identified the following letters for the record 1. Phil Kitzes, PK Enterprises -representing AT&T Wireless 2. Amy L Kosterhtz, Buck & Gordon - representing AT&T Wireless 3. Erik K. Farstad, JM Consulting Group Inc - representing GTE 4. Joel R. Paisner, Ater Wynne Hewitt Dodson & Skerritt - representing GTE Wireless 5. Cyndly L. Smith, Western Wireless Mr. Brubaker explained the changes that were made to the draft ordinance that was presented to the Board at their June 9, 1997 Workshop Some of the changes he discussed are as follows: A.1 The word"potential'was added before adverse impacts. There were concerns expressed that not all impacts from the telecommunication facilities would be adverse. A.7 There was some concern regarding the preemption of federal law Although,that was never the intention of this ordinance the statement "except where preempted by other laws, rules, and regulations" was added to this item. (A 7 Considering potential adverse impacts to the public health and safety from these facilities except where preempted by other laws, rules, and regulations.) B.1.a The period of abandonment was increased from ninety(90)days to one hundred eighty(180) days Mr. Brubaker explained that some of the industrial responses indicated that ninety(90) days was too short of period to be deemed abandoned. B.Lb Concerns regarding reducing the radiated power of an antenna by seventy-five percent(75%) to be constructive abandonment Mr Brubaker explained that as technology improves and the number of locations increase the amount of radiation from each antenna naturally decreases. The time frame was adjusted from ninety (90) days to one hundred eighty (180) days as in section(a) and the statement was added"unless new technology allows reduction of effective radiated power by more than seventy-five (75%), so long as the operator still serves essentially the same customer base." Mr Brubaker explained that staff is concerned with the possibility that a tower that is basically abandoned will continue operating at a minimum to avoid be classified as abandoned Establishing • criteria to better define abandonment is necessary to give the City authority and yet address the industry concerns #ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 23, 1997 Page 3 B.1 c Deleted in its entirety. Mr Brubaker explained that there is a way to measure the effective radiated power of an antenna; however, this is very difficult to calculate without the provider's assistance. B 11 The height requirement is further clarified to identify that the measurement begins at the finished grade of the parcel at the base of the facility Mr. Brubaker explained that with a parcel of varying degrees of topography, you can be left wondering where the starting point is. D.5 Mr Brubaker explained that there had been a lot of response regarding cells on wheels (COW)outlined in Section D.5 He explained that the original allowance of one week would not be sufficient in cases where an antenna needs rebuilt, modified, and repaired due to weather damage The language has been modified to allow COW placement for thirty (30) days and gave the Planning Director the authority to extend this period E.3 Establishing a priority review for multiple antenna/tower plans was eliminated. Mr Brubaker explained that the City will continue to encourage co-location, however, since specific criteria or standards had not been developed as to how the priority would be generated, this proposal was deleted. F.1 Eliminated the requirement for engineering evidence. The industry argued that the City would not have the background to evaluate the evidence and therefore it should not be a requirement The city concurred but still required the applicant to demonstrate that the facility's proposed location is the most appropriate location F.5 The standards in this section establishes height guidelines unless "further restricted or expanded elsewhere in this Section 15 08 035 " Mr Brubaker explained that these standards are established to create a default section If there is anywhere in the ordinance that a height limit is not identified then the default height would prevail. F.5 Mr. Brubaker suggested inserting the phrase"if designed"at the beginning of sections F.5.(a) and (b) The idea was suggested by an industry response and Mr Brubaker felt that it was appropriate being that the City is trying to encourage co-location of towers. G.1. Tower setbacks received a lot of industry comments. Mr. Brubaker explained that the original proposal required towers to be set back a distance equal to at least seventy-five percent(75%) of the height of the tower from any adjoining lot line He explained that the basis for that idea was essentially the fear of a fall down from the tower If a tall structure falls you do not want it to hit an adjoining building. #ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 23, 1997 Page 4 Mr Brubaker stated that the consultant has reassured the city that the towers are extremely well constructed and it's highly unlikely they would fall. He explained that the City already requires that the towers comply with the EIA standards which impose specific construction and design requirements As a result,the additional set back restrictions were removed and simply made the towers subject to the same set back requirements that any structure would be in a particular zoning district. G.3 A monopole tower is preferred,however,if the applicant can show that another tower would cause less impact or is needed in order to co-locate more than one provider, the city authorized the Planning Director or the Hearing Examiner the authority to make this allowance. G.6 c Concerns were made requiring the location of the towers to minimize the view from the public right-of-way. Mr Brubaker explained that the least offensive place for a tower to locate was away from residential, retail, and commercial neighborhoods, and they would almost always be near a public right-of-way Therefore,the public right-of-way requirement was removed and the language was amended. • G 8 This section was modified to give the Planning Director the authority to reduce the distance requirements The distance between monopole towers of seventy-five feet(75') or higher was reduced from 1,500 feet to 1,000 feet. Mr. Brubaker explained that this distance can be reduced even greater by an administrative variance and again through the conditional use permit process. H.2.a The height restrictions were clarified indicating that the ninety (90) and one hundred twenty (120) feet restrictions apply in the industrial zoning districts. H.2.b (i) Mr. Brubaker recommended increasing the maximum length allowed of a whip antenna from fifteen (15)feet to twenty (20) feet. H 2.e The Planning Director was given the authority to extend the thirty day allowance of a COW when the applicant can show an extreme necessity Purely economic convenience shall not be considered a viable factor in making this determination I.2.i New subsection adding "obstruction of or interference with views " J.1. Increased time period from ninety (90)to one hundred eighty (180) days for the removal of abandoned towers. Mr. Brubaker discussed Mr Brotherton's suggestion to add language that would require a selected location to have the minimum visual and safety impacts of all available alternate sites. Mr. Brubaker #ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 23, 1997 Page 5 commented that this was adequately stated in subsection G.6. He wasn't sure what Mr Brotherton was looking for. Mr. Brotherton explained that in the instance where there may multiple sites that are equally adequate the applicant should choose the site that causes the least visual impairment of the neighborhood. Mr Brotherton commented that he finds it highly unlikely that there would only be one site available that is adequate, more likely an applicant will have several sites to choose from. Mr Brubaker questioned whether subsection G 6 thoroughly covered what Mr. Brotherton was looking for. Mr. Brotherton stated that he was more concerned that an applicant has to prove that a given site is the only site in that area where it can be located Mr. Brotherton would like to encourage the applicant to chose the best site in terms of visual or safety concerns Mr Brubaker suggested the following amendment"that the proposed facility _....st be 10eate J at that stt-- is located at the least obtrusive and the most appropriate location to function in the applicant's grid system." Mr Brubaker asked for clarification to Mr.Brotherton's suggestion to amend section F.14 regarding Backhaul providers Mr Brotherton explained that in all other referrals to licensing,permitting, etc. the licensor was required to keep the license current. The backhaul providers were required to show proof of necessary franchises,permits, and certificates only at the time of application They did not have to show any proof of continuing licensing Mr. Brubaker suggested amending section F-14 adding the words "and maintain". Chair Steve Dowell asked Mr. Brubaker to identify the suggested changes discussed thus far Mr. Brubaker explained the changes discussed were to F1, 175(a) and (b), F14, and H 2 (b)(i) Board member Tom Brotherton commented that letters had been received that objected to the reduction of power as being a form of abandonment due to the natural consequence to reduce the power of an antenna if additional cells are constructed in the area He commented that this would not have anything to do with the customer base nor technical improvement. Mr. Brubaker questioned if he was suggesting that we allow them to reduce in power greater than 75%for any reason Mr Brotherton commented that the only instance that they made a case for here is if additional cells are created they would have to reduce the power from an existing WTF in order to prevent an interference; that would be a reasonable case. Mr Brotherton suggested adding language to exclude this instance. Mr Brubaker suggested amending section B.1.(b) as follows: (b) to reduce the effective radiated power of an antenna by seventy-five percent (75%) for one hundred eighty (180) or more consecutive calendar days, unless new technology or the construction of additional cells in the same locality allows reduction . . . ." #ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 23. 1997 Page 6 Board member Brotherton discussed his concern regarding additional setback requirements. He questioned the expected life of a tower and if there were any inspection requirements. Mr. Brubaker explained that he could not answer that question. He explained that it is his understanding that the facilities are subject to the Electronic Industries Association(EIA) standards which are very exacting and must also comply with local Building Codes He commented that providers are not in the business to construct a flimsy tower because they need it to withstand extreme weather conditions in order to continue providing service without interruptions. Mr Brotherton commented that he was concerned that over twenty (20) or thirty (30) years the structure might lose its integrity. He explained that these towers are so tall they could fall on two or three properties. Mr Brubaker explained that as long as these towers are in vital use it behooves the providers to maintain these towers so that they do not lose their coverage. He commented that if a tower is abandoned, the tower will be removed either by the provider or the City. Mr Brotherton confirmed that Mr. Brubaker is unable to answer his concerns regarding the life expectancy of the towers and the inspection process. Mr. Brubaker explained that he would get with Mr Simmons and bring this issue up with the City Council with either a modification or a clarification. Mr. Brotherton was in agreement to that. Mr Brotherton questioned the rationale for reducing the distance required between two monopole towers 75 feet in height or greater to 1,000 feet. He commented that since an applicant is afforded the opportunity to reduce the distance not only once but twice, through an administrative variance and a conditional use permit, he feels that the original 1,500 feet separation is still merited. Mr Brotherton questioned what the decision to reduce this distance was based upon Mr. Brubaker stated that setback and separation distances were the most stagnate comments that were received from industry He explained that they looked at ways to accommodate that. Mr. Simmons suggesting reducing the separation from 1,500 to 1,000 feet Mr. Simmons also suggested reducing the distance between other monopole towers from 750 to 500 feet. The city is not recommending that Mr Brotherton clarified that the Planning Director and the Hearing Examiner can both reduce the distance between towers through an administrative variance and a conditional use permit Therefore, Mr Brotherton is reluctant to reduce the separation from 1,500 to 1,000 feet He commented that reducing the distance between towers increases the chance of an antenna farm. • Board member Jerry Daman supported the 1,500 feet separation. Board member Ron Harmon stated that allowing an applicant to appeal to the Planning Director to reduce this distance and the ability f #ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 23, 1997 Page 7 to appeal to the Hearing Examiner to reduce this distance further is excessive He supports keeping the distance at 1,500 feet separation. Mr Harmon questioned whether the language in section F.6 regarding security fencing was strong enough Mr Brubaker explained that it is sufficient He commented that unless the tower poses a nuisance, the security is to protect the facility not the public. The requirement was in case the tower was an attractive nuisance to the children in the neighborhood. Mr Harmon questioned the time period for the removal and abandonment of towers He commented that ninety (90) days would be sufficient time for a provider to notify the City and an additional ninety (90) days is sufficient for the provider to remove said tower. Mr. Brotherton suggested a word change for subsection J.1 to replace the phrase "cease using" with the word"abandon" Mr Brotherton MOVED and Tom Brotherton SECONDED a motion to open the public hearing. Motion carried. • Phil Kitzes, 23126 SE 285th Street, Kent. Mr. Phil Kitzes represents AT&T Wireless and commented that the ordinance is well written He explained the reasoning behind the deletion of additional setbacks was based on the facilities are structured much like a building. The towers are built to withstand weather and a lot of force. Mr. Kitzes stated the proposed separation distance between towers may inspire providers to look at additional sites and that could include residential sites He commented that the City would be encouraging providers to locate towers in residential areas. Mr. Brotherton questioned whether Mr. Kitzes would choose to locate a tower in a residential district rather than applying for an administrative variance through the Planning Director to reduce the required separation distance. He also questioned what Mr. Kitzes would recommend in terms of modifying this ordinance so the City could minimize the antenna farm effect and encourage co-location as much as possible. Mr Kitzes explained his process for locating an acceptable site He explained that if a location is found in an industrial zone 400 feet away from another tower and that site meets the criteria but would require additional permits and another acceptable site is located in a residential zone and does not require the additional permits, the residential site would be pursued. • Mr.Kitzes explained that with a separation distance requirement the City is promoting the possibility of multiple sites throughout the City He recommends a greater consolidation into specific areas to reduce the number of"eye-sores" within the City. He supports locating the towers in general #ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 23, 1997 Page 8 vicinities of each other in order to minimize the visual effects He commented that he would rather locate in the industrial or commercial zones. Mr. Brotherton questioned the difficulty of getting an administrative variance. Planning Director Jim Harris explained that an administrative variance can be obtained simply by justifying why a deviation is necessary The Planning Department would evaluate an application fairly It isn't the intent of staff to stop this type of development. Mr Brotherton questioned whether Mr Kttzes would still prefer a residential site versus applying for an administrative variance. Mr Kitzes responded that it would be dependent on the type of structure being proposed He explained that if it is a permitted use, if the residential site meets the criteria, and if a leaser is available, it is likely the tower would be placed in the residential area He commented that ordinarily they do not look for residential sites; however, if limitations or restrictions are placed on industrial or commercial locations alternative locations will be pursued. Andy King, The Meridian Group, 1910 N. 41st Street, Seattle, WA 98103 Mr. Andy King represents U S West and the New Vector Group cellular telephone company. Mr King recommended adding language to section D.5. He would like to see"or a site specific"inserted after area-wide in section D 5 He explained that something could happen to a specific site or tower that could be categorized as an emergency Mr King explained that carriers are limited by the willingness of property owners to enter into a lease agreement to locate on specific sites He suggested amending section F 1 "the proposed a facility is located at the least obtrusive and the most appropriate available site" by adding the word "available" He explained that there are some constraints that they have no control over and would like the language to indicate the sites available. Vice Chair Brad Bell questioned why the carriers aren't in control as to where they are going to locate. Mr. King explained that they are in the free market system, looking for a site in a specific geographic area They contact property owners of potential sites and some of them tell them thanks but no thanks The general requirements where they must demonstrate the least obtrusive is not always an available location. Mr King discussed the height requirements listed in section F 5. He commented that the limits are restrictive and arbitrary He recommended the development of different height restrictions based upon the individual zoning districts. The City should provide as much incentive as possible to promote the carriers to locate in the more intensive commercial and industrial zones and to provide • more flexible siting criteria and a less onerous land use approval process He commented that there are areas in the City that could support facilities above the ninety (90)foot threshold for a single user or above one hundred twenty-(120)for multiple users without generating significant adverse impacts. #ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 23, 1997 Page 9 Mr. King concurs with Mr Brubaker's recommendation to eliminate the additional setback l requirements and the underlying zones building setbacks simply apply. Mr. King addressed Mr Brotherton's question regarding the longevity of the WTF. He explained that this buildings if properly designed, constructed, and maintained will last a long time, surely well past the 20 or 30 years Mr Brotherton alluded to. He commented that WTF's are generally over engineered, over designed and will be around a while. Mr. King was concerned with the statement in GA requiring applicants to provide specific information about the location, height, and design of each facility Mr King suggested added verbiage to indicate "non-proprietary"information only Mr King stated that he would like to see the separation distances between towers take into consideration the underlying zoning districts. He's supportive of the availability to apply for relief through the administrative variance process and the conditional use process. Mr Brotherton commented that it was his intent to siting in section F.1. to mean the least obtrusive and most appropriate of the sites available. Mr. Brubaker suggested adding the word "available"to t this subsection. Mr Brotherton and Mr. King agreed. Mr Brotherton questioned Mr. King as to how high the industry would like to put the towers. Mr King stated that this is site specific. He commented that his overall concern is to make it as easy as possible for his client to build these sites in the more intensive commercial and industrial zones and to minimize the impact to the performance requirements in the zoning code Mr King commented that ninety (90) feet does not strike him as a particularly tall or generous allowance although given the topography and where you are in the valley floor ninety(90) feet could be adequate He stated that there will be areas where ninety (90) feet is not adequate. Mr King explained King County's process in which they identify the type of structure,the zoning district and the structure in relation to height and the structure type governs the approval process. He commented that this process encourages specific guidelines to speed the processing Mr. Brubaker questioned whether Mr. King considered co-location. Mr King commented that it depends greatly on the location,the market,who the other party may or may not be. He stated that it is often difficult to get two carvers to look at the same site at the same time He remarked that more often one tamer will get a site build a tower and then another will come along and ask to put an antenna on that site. • Planning Director explained that the height limits of ninety and one hundred twenty feet are administratively what can be done outright Mr Harris explained that towers taller would have to give the neighbors a chance to respond before the tower is approved. He explained that a conditional #ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 23, 1997 Page 10 use permit application process would notify the surrounding property owners and allow them a chance to comment at a public hearing. Chair Steve Dowell questioned the height of the existing tower located behind Van's Furniture. Planning Manager Fred Satterstrom stated that the tower and antenna is 100 feet. Board member Jerry Daman questioned whether the City is being unreasonable in assuming there would be a lot of co-location Chair Dowell commented that based on the industry response, co-location does not seem as likely Chair Dowell questioned Mr Kmg's stand on co-location. Mr King stated that he can not speak collectively for the industry and stated that his clients will evaluate co-location on a case by case basis He commented that there is a lot of resistance to co-location in the industry on some of the established carriers; why would you want to help out a potential competitor, develop a system This is what you are doing if you are allowing them to co-locate on a tower Chair Dowell questioned whether there were motivations for co-location. Mr. Harris commented that the consultants have encouraged the City to try to foster the co-location of carriers Mr Harris . stated that diverse users would be able to co-locate Dowell questioned if there are additional uses beyond the competitors. Mr. King explained that the Emergency broadcast service and local fire service Patrick Hewes, 1128 Sixteenth Avenue,Seattle,WA 98122-4534. Mr Patrick Hewes represents Page Net. Mr. Hewes asked the Board to add the word"average"to section B 19 He explained that adding the word average would assist for one reason because many omnidirectional dipole antennas „ or whip antennas look like broom sticks are often tapered. They are often 1/3 or even '/z as wide at the top as they are at the bottom and by including the word average you might be able to allow certain designs that would be narrow at the top and maybe 6'/4 of 6'/z at the base There are many designs of whip antennas but this may allow a wider choice for finding an antenna that is thinner at the top which would have a better visual impact. Chair Steve Dowell commented that it would seem difficult to average the diameter and asked if it would be easier to specify the maximum diameter at the base. Mr Hewes explained that he recommends average because there is a big difference between the diameter at the bottom and at the top. Mr. Hewes stated that if there is an incentive to have a thin top there might be an incentive to have a wider base He stated there are many different options out there this would lust give the providers a little broader choice and somewhat of an incentive to use a smaller diameter at top. Mr Brubaker commented that to you and I it may seem difficult to average the diameter of a whip r; antenna but with the sophisticated computer programs out today this would not be difficult • i #ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 23, 1997 Page 11 Board member Ron Harmon commented that as technology improves the base of the antenna could continue to grow to maybe eight inches. Mr Hewes stated that it is possible that it would expand. Mr Harmon stated that the average seems appropriate. Mr. Hewes questioned the intent of section H.2(b)(iii) and whether it was the intent to disallow the rooftop for placement of the equipment cabinetry. Mr. Harris explained the reasoning was to ensure the structure was compatible in character and materials and gave an example of when the cabinetry was located on the ground near an existing building Mr Harris suggested a word change replacing the word "building" with the word"structure" Mr Hewes commented Paging Network of Seattle seeks only locations on existing structures. Chooses not to build new antenna support structures or towers. He commented that they are very willing to co-locate. ,a Mr Daman questioned the weight of the components added to an existing building or structure. Mr Hewes stated that the whip antennas weigh between 15 and 20 lbs and there is usually two, three, or four in a given design and the equipment cabinet weighs approximate 500 lbs and there is usually one or two cabinets. The weight would total less than 1500 lbs. Mr Daman questioned v whether he encountered any structural problems when located the components to an existing structure Mr. Hewes stated that it is almost always possible whether it is the flat roof top of an office or industrial building or an existing antenna support structure that has been over engineered for attachments. Mr. Daman questioned whether the weight of the components would be a factor in the ability to co-locate on a structure Mr. Hewes explained that he has never encountered a problem from the weight of antennas especially whip antennas which are very light He explained that the cabinetry on an existing tower would be located on the ground on a concrete pad Mr Daman questioned if Mr. Hewes could comment on the possibility of multiple users not being able to co-locate on a site because it would be dangerous as far as the structure goes. Mr Hewes explained that an additional challenge to co-locate is that the coaxial cable has to be taken into consideration. Usually one or two is sufficient, three won't work Mr Daman questioned the towers and what different uses could accommodate. Mr. Hewes stated that typically there is voice and paging communication, and various emergency and public service uses All of these basically operate in the same manner with differing numbers of antennas and shapes of antennas and cables going from the antennas to an equipment cabinet in the base 4 . Chair Steve Dowell commented that they are somewhat challenged by not having the consultant here tonight He asked if the Board was having a problem with the many changes that have been `w i #ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities ; Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 23, 1997 Page 12 discussed tonight. Chair Dowell questioned whether the Board felt comfortable without the consultant to make a recommendation tonight. The Board wanted to move forward. Mr Brubaker stated that he has a few responses to the public testimony and a couple additional changes. Mr. Brubaker asked the Board to disregard his previous request to change F 5.(a)&(b) adding in the term "if designed", now eliminated the phrase "if designed". Mr. Brubaker recommended amending section H.1. as follows- the Planning Director shall either approveaporove with conditions, or deny the application . . ." Mr. Brubaker explained that this is implied but felt it should be stated outright Vice Chair Bell questioned whether one of the conditions could request more information Mr Brubaker stated that it could. Mr Bell questioned if that would go against the sixty day time frame. Mr. Harris explained if it is not a properly executed application the time line stops similar to building permits Mr Brubaker explained that PP P g P P there is no regulation mandating the sixty day period and the application time frame was written similar to existing application processes. • Mr Brubaker commented on the suggestion by Mr King to add verbiage to D.5. regarding COW exemptions is unnecessary. He explained that because the Planning Director is given the authority to extend the use of COWs beyond thirty (30) it is not necessary to add language for a site specific emergency. If there is a site specific emergency the COW can be extended on site with the notification and approval of the Planning Director. Mr Brubaker commented that he is uncomfortable with adding the term"non-proprietary"to section G 4 as requested by Mr. King He stated that the information is necessary to process permits and applications and commented that he does not want to give them a source to hide behind when information is requested Mr. Brubaker stated that the City requests information all the time that developers would like to consider as proprietary about the kind of subdivisions, the type of homes, the price range. There are all kinds of information that we need from developers even though they may not always want to provide it to us. Mr Brubaker recommends not adding the phrase "non-proprietary"to section GA He commented that there is no legal standard that guarantees their proprietary information cannot be divulged Mr King explained that there business is very competitive and their continued success is dependent on certain trade secrets He was very adamant about not disclosing company secrets. Mr Brubaker argued that many developers would not want to divulged their design "secrets" if they had a way . around it but then the City would not be able review projects adequately to issue permits #ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 23, 1997 Page 13 Board member Jerry Daman commented that he is concerned that this ordinance is operating under the assumption that carriers would co-locate He stated that from the testimony tonight it does not seem as likely that co-location will occur. Board member Harmon MOVED and Malik SECONDED a motion to close the public hearing. The motion carried. Harmon MOVED and Bell SECONDED a motion to recommend approval of the Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Ordinance and send to the City Council with the following amendments: F.1. Siting. Anyone who applies to construct a WTF or to modify or add to an existing WTF shall demonstrate to the City's satisfaction that the proposed facility mess be located at 4,__t stte is located at the least obtrusive and the most appropriate available site to function in the applicant's grid system." F.14. Backhaul providers. Backhaul providers shall be identified and have and maintain all necessary approvals to operate as such,including holding necessary franchises,permits, and certificates. The method of providing Backhaul, wired or wireless, shall be identified. H.2(b)(i) The antenna does not extend more than fifteen-(15) twenty(20) feet above the highest point of the structure if a whip antenna, or ten (10) feet above the highest point of the structure if a non-whip antenna; and H 1 Time for approval. Within sixty (60) calendar days from the date the City receives a complete, valid, and properly executed application, the Planning Director shall either approve,approve with conditions, or deny the application within this sixty (60) calendar day period, then the application shall be deemed approved Table 1: Amend the grid table distance between the two Monopole 75 ft in Height or Greater towers to 1,500 from 1,000. J.1. Abandonment and removal. The owner or operator of any abandoned tower shall notify the City, in writing, of that abandonment and shall remove the same within one httttdre4 etg+tt)' (180) etdettdars ninety 90 Failure to remove an abandoned tower within o_ eighty(4"ninety 90 calendar days shall be grounds to remove the tower at the owner's expense. If there are two or more users of a single tower, then this provision shall not • become effective until all users eerie t►sttig abandon the tower. #ZCA-99-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Land Use and Planning Board Minutes June 23, 1997 Page 14 J 2. " . partial abandonment and shall remove the partially abandoned portion within one A ninety 90 calendar days. Failure to remove a partially abandoned tower within ninety 90 calendar days shall be grounds . . ." B 19 "Whip antenna" means an omnidirectional dipole antenna of cylindrical shape that is no more than six inches (6") in average diameter. H.2(b)(iii) All associated equipment is placed either within the same building or in a separate ling structure that matches the existing building or structure in character and materials. G.4. Inventory of Existing Sites. Each applicant for a tower shall provide an inventory of its existing WTF sites that are either within the jurisdiction of the City of Kent or within one mile of its borders, including specific structural information about the location, height, and za design of each facility. $ B 1(b) to reduce the effective radiated power of an antenna by seventy-five percent (75%) for on hundred eighty (180) or more consecutive calendar days, unless new technology or the construction of additional cells in the same locality allow reduction of effective radiated power by more than seventy-five percent (75%), so long as the operator still serves essentially the same customer base. Change the first number"2" on page 17 to a number"3". The motion carried. Chair Steve Dowell discussed the issue of CB radios. Mr Harris commented that this ordinance can be amended if needed in the future. Board member Ron Harmon MOVED and Vice Chair Brad Bell SECONDED a motion to adjourn. Motion carried. Respectfully Submitted, a Ja sfPHarris cret • r A 1PBMTG6 23 4ZCA-97-4 Wireless Telecommunication Facilities 1