Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-02-2010 Workshop ,...., City Council of Peachtree City Workshop Minutes of Meeting February 2, 2010 6:30 p.m. The City Council of Peachtree City met in a joint workshop session with the Planning Commission on Thursday, February 2,2010, at 6:30 p.m. Council Members in attendance were: Mayor Don Haddix, Vanessa Fleisch, Eric Imker, Kim Leamard, and Doug Sturbaurn. Planning Commissioners in attendance were Chairman Patrick Staples, Joe Frazar, Larry Sussberg, and Lynda Wojcik. Planning Commission Alternate Lisa Curtis also attended. !'""" , The purpose of the workshop was to provide the following: · An overview of the City's telecommunications tower ordinance as it related to the potential for identifying locations for additional towers throughout the City, with representatives from American Tower, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile invited to discuss their planning strategy to upgrade their service within the City and to answer questions as needed. · An overview of the recently adopted Transition Buffer Yard Ordinance as it related to new development · An overview of the City's Buffer Ordinance as it related to new development along the City's thoroughfares · An overview of recent updates to the Vegetation Protection and Landscape Ordinance · Discussion of developing an ordinance requiring owners of vacant land and buildings to register the property with the City Staff members attending were:. City Manager Bernard McMullen, Interim Community Development Director/City Planner David Rast, and Planner/Economic Development Coordinator Tony Bernard. Copies of the PowerPoint presentations are included in the meeting file. Rast gave an overview of the City's Telecommunications Ordinance, noting the changes made based on the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was designed to open up markets to competition by removing unnecessary regulatory barriers. In response to requests from various wireless carriers in 1997, staff requested that Council impose a 90-day moratorium on all new telecommunication tower applications. Staff worked with the Planning Commission and various wireless providers, including companies that constructed and leased towers, to develop an ordinance and identify potential locations for new towers. The amended ordinance was adopted March 19, 1998. The highlights of the amendments included no new towers being permitted unless the applicant demonstrated that no existing tower nor any towers in the approval process could accommodate the applicant's proposed antenna. The applicant had to demonstrate that the proposed new tower was designed to accommodate as many additional antennas as possible. No single-purpose towers were to be permitted. All new towers had to comply with current building and electrical codes. Towers and antennas had to comply with current standards established by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Communications ....... Commission (FCC), or any agency ofthe federal government authorized to regulate them. Rast continued that the ordinance limited the height of the towers and antennas to 350 feet and restricted them to the following zoning districts - Agricultural Reserve (AR), Open Space (OS), Light Industrial (Ll), and General Industrial (GI). He then provided an overview of where the City Council Workshop February 2, 2010 Page 2 f'" current towers were located in the City, including the zoning, height, and type. A 190-foot tower was located on the Hicks tract on Line Creek Drive. The lattice tower was approved on April 22, 1991, and was located in General Commercial (GC) zoning. AlltelNerizon, Powertel, and lntercel were located on the tower. The 300-foot lattice tower behind City Hall was approved on December 16, 2001, and was located in OS zoning. Powertel, LLC International, Inc., and T- Mobile were collocated on the tower. American Tower's lOO-foot monopole on Senoia Road behind Carmichael-Hemperley Funeral Home was approved on July 6, 2005, and was located in AR zoning. The carriers collocated on the tower included T-MobiIe, AirTouch, Verizon, and Sprint. American Tower's 235-foot lattice tower on Huddleston Road was approved in July 6, 1995, and located in GC zoning. AT&T, Velocita, MetroPCS, and USA Mobility were collocated on the tower. The 195-foot monopole located on the Powers tract on Huddleston Road was approved on June 24, 1996, and was located in 11 zoning. AirTouch, Verizon, and Nextel were collocated on the tower. American Tower built the l80-foot lattice tower located on City property near the Recycling Center and Meade Field. The tower, located in GI zoning, was approved on September 14, 1998, and AT&T, Verizon, MetroPCS, Nextel, XM Satellite Radio, Sprint, and T-Mobile were collocated on it. American Tower also built the 190-foot lattice tower located on the Tieman & Patrylo property in Industrial Park that was approved on September 29, 1998. The property was zoned GI, and AT&T, Verizon, MetroPCS, Sprint, AirTouch, and PowerTel were collocated on the tower. ~ , David Kirk of Troutman Sanders, a legal firm serving as counsel to telecommunications companies and local governments; Kimberly Adams of COMPASS Technology Services, Inc.; and Liz Hill of American Tower presented information from the industry perspective. Yanisa Buice, Site Acquisition Inc., LLC; Pete Meadows, South Metro regional manager of External Affairs for AT&T; Butler Fevrier, owner and principal radio frequency engineer of TeIicel; Robert Downie, director of asset management for Communications Infrastructure Group, LLC; and Jen Blackburn of Troutman Sanders also participated. Hill noted that one in five Georgia households had "cut the cord" and relied entirely on wireless service for communication. The range of services and devices available for businesses and homes were increasing rapidly. There was a mobile to mobile explosion and the amount data and speeds were also increasing rapidly. Wireless carriers had been modifying and upgrading existing sites by changing out antennas and adding capacity when possible. Significant new service had been added through collocation on existing towers owned by tower companies or other carriers. New towers were added to increase coverage and capacity where necessary. Hill showed examples of the basic tower types - monopole, self-supporting tower (lattice), and guyed tower. She continued that stealth design was a tower design intended to blend into the surrounding landscape, both urban and natural, and there were a wide variety of applications. There was a trade-off between stealth design and service quality, including the height of the facility and the ability to collocate additional towers. fI"""-! Adams explained the first phase of the site selection process. She said carriers constantly monitored service, and the areas of limited coverage/capacity were identified and evaluated. Towers were built only where the need and demand existed. A radio frequency engineer identified the search area (the geographic area where the new site must be located to provide the desired service) and the height needed. City Council Workshop February 2, 2010 Page 3 - During the second phase, a site acquisition specialist identified candidate sites within the search area, with a strong preference for existing towers or other tall structures in the area. The local requirements/processes were researched, and the property and tower owners were contacted. The site acquisition specialist worked with the radio frequency engineer evaluated the suitability of the candidate site(s) to fill the gap. In the third phase, the site acquisition specialist negotiated the lease with the property owner. The specialist then worked with the land use attorney and others to identify the local zoning action needed, then prepared and submitted the required applications and documents, and attended public hearings. The specialist also helped coordinate the permitting and construction of approved facilities. Adams then gave an example of a search area and radio frequency coverage without the new site and with the new site. Kirk went over the legal/regulatory framework for the industry. He pointed out that the Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996 overhauled federal regulation of wireless communications companies and provided a pro-competitive, deregulatory national policy framework that supported rapid deployment of wireless infrastructure. It also preserved state and local authority while imposing certain limitations. Section 704 of the TCA was the grant of authority.. ."except as provided.. ..nothing. ..shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities." Section 704 of the TCA also placed P limitations on the authority: · "Regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless services facilities.. . shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; and shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of ... services." · "A state or local government...shall act on any request for authorization...within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed..., taking into account the nature and scope of such request." · "Any decision...to deny a request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record. " · "No state or local government.. .may regulate.. .personal wireless service facilities on the basis ofthe environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that facilities comply with the [FCC's] regulations concerning such emissions." Kirk continued that Section 704 also guaranteed carriers the right to expedited review, adding that some jurisdictions took six months for an application to be processed and approved, while others could take four years. The TCA required applications be processed in a reasonable time period. Section 704 requirements included: · "Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a state or local govemment...that is inconsistent with [Section 704 of the TCA] may, within 30 days.. . commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction." · "The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis." Kirk added that an FCC declaratory ruling was issued on November 18, 2009, on an industry group petition that cleared up the legal question in federal courts over the "one provider" rule. City Council Workshop February 2, 2010 Page 4 ,-. The ruling set outer limits for local review and action, and included 90 days for collocation and 150 days for new structures. Hill discussed how the carriers, governmental entities, and citizens could work together by recognizing the role and importance of the wireless communications infrastructure in supporting economic development and public safety. She noted many of the calls made to 911 centers came from cell phones, and public safety employees used many types of wireless communication in performing their jobs. Reasonable standards should be adopted and workable ordinances should be tailored to local conditions, staff abilities, time for review, and budget. Industry, citizens, businesses, and other stakeholders should be involved in drafting ordinances. Clear procedures should be established to minimize delays in considering applications. Staff should work cooperatively with applicants to provide a clear understanding of the process and review standards and consider the "fast track" for desirable projects. Working together included understanding the legal environment and monitoring changes in the law and regulatory environment, explicitly rejecting arguments regarding health effects of radio frequency emissions, and understanding the investment carriers made in licensing and designing their systems. In addition, staff skills should only be supplemented to the extent necessary to keep control of the project, and staff recommendations and final decisions on standards and on reliable, substantial evidence should be maintained in a written record. Haddix noted that there were three specific concerns Council had to address with City Attorney (""'" Ted Meeker - the health-related issue, the ability to say Council did not want a tower, and the ability to say there were enough towers and the City did not need more carriers. He wanted everyone to understand that Council was aware of those questions, and they were trying to find out where the City stood legally on those issues. There would be more meetings to solicit public input. Sturbaum said that Senate Bill 192 - Wireless Communications Tower Siting Act, which provided plauning for the construction of wireless facilities/wireless support structures, was under review by the State Senate Ways and Means Committee. One of his concerns was about the limitations on local jurisdictions as far as a timeline for review of applications and what constituted an emergency. Sturbaum said he was monitoring the bill closely and talking with the City's representatives. Kirk said he had followed the bill during the 2009 session, but not the current session. The industry had not been involved in submitting the bill. Lobbyists for the bill had indicated it probably would not make it through the current session either. Haddix said Council wanted to ensure due diligence was done and opened the floor to speakers. ~ Bill Jones, president ofthe Ardenlee Homeowners Association (HOA), said the carriers had been working on this for two years and asked why there had not been a map of the towers in the City now and plans for future coverage. Kirk said the charge for this meeting had been to provide general information, not to focus on specific sites or service levels. Jones said an application had been submitted to construct a tower next to his subdivision on St. Paul Lutheran Church's property that was near a residential neighborhood and an elementary school. Kirk clarified that the carriers did see a need for more towers in the City, but there was not an application submitted for a specific location at this time. McMullen said that the City had received a rezoning request from St. Paul's, but an application for a tower had not been included. Dee Marriott, vice- president of the Ardenlee HOA, said the reason the church was asking for a rezoning was for a City Council Workshop February 2, 2010 Page 5 ,..., tower. She said that, specifically in the presentation, they said they did not want towers in residential areas. She did not feelthat was accurate as they were looking at residential areas and asking for rezonings. There was a commercial area across the street. Haddix explained that the church had asked for the rezoning, but Council did not know why at that point. It had not been presented to Council yet. Wojcik explained that the Planning Commission and staff had looked at breaking the Open Space (OS) zoning into two categories - Open Space-Conservation (OS-C) and Open Space- Public (OS-P) - for quite some time, and at whether or not to include churches in one of those categories since they could be located in a myriad of zoning areas. The City had initiated the OS rezonings. The church did not come to the Planning Commission asking for a rezoning. Kedron was to be the first area for the OS rezonings. The carrier approached the church because of the rezoning. The OS rezonings had nothing to do with cell towers. Marriott said she understood that. ",.-, Sussberg added that the zoning changes were part of the preparation for the next Comprehensive Plan/Land Use Plan update. The church had come forward and said they had been contacted by a carrier. When the rezoning issue came before the Planning Commission at its last meeting, Rast reported that the carrier had contacted the church and, if the land were to be rezoned, they would be able to move forward. Sussberg said the Planning Commission decided to postpone the rezoning until there was clear vision of what the City wanted. The church was waiting for a decision. Nothing was moving forward or happening behind the public's back. It started because of the preparation for the Comprehensive Plan update. Rast explained that there were four zoning categories in which towers could be located. If an application came in that met all the criteria in the ordinance, the City had very little that could keep the tower from being approved. Open Space was a broad classification. There were over 3,300 acres of land zoned OS, and the City was the primary owner. Two new zoning classifications had been created, OS-P and OS-C. Open Space-Conservation included areas like the Flat Creek and Line Creek nature preserves, as well as the City greenbelts. The uses for OS- C were definitive and included paths, boardwalks, playgrounds, and passive parks. Open Space- Public included areas such as the Baseball Soccer Complex, schools, and churches. Additional uses were in OS-P, including towers. Rezoning the OS areas to OS-C and OS-P would be a lengthy process. Staff originally thought there were 700 parcels zoned OS, but had found the number was into four digits. The new classifications would limit the areas where the towers could go. He continued that the carriers had approached the Board of Education regarding locating towers on school property, and the board had turned them down, as had the Fayette County Water System when asked about putting towers on the water tanks. The City would not be opened up to towers, but towers would be limited to certain areas. The OS-C zoning category would protect most ofthe areas located next to residential areas. Kai Wolter, a resident and business owner, said his hotel located in Kedron Village had 88 rooms with no cell reception. There were dead zones in Kedron. There needed to be a balance between form and function. He said the companies were welcome to put a tower in his parking lot. Staples said he was confident the answers would be found with everyone working together on the issue. The issue was trying to provide the necessary robust coverage needed today and tomorrow for the wireless market while minimizing the aesthetic impact. He referred to an area City Council Workshop February 2, 2010 Page 6 "'"'" on in the vicinity of SR 54 West/Huddleston Road where the towers were very close together. The opportunity had probably been lost to collate those carriers on one tower. They did not want to end up with multiple scenarios as opposed to a rational footprint. Rast said the City asked the carriers where they needed the towers when the ordinance had been updated. At that time, the carriers wanted the towers along SR 54 and SR 74, but the industry had changed considerably and the needs were different. Hill added that the tower industry was still in its infancy when most of the towers in the City were built. Everything had been done independently. American Tower acquired many towers an<;l started leasing space. There was not a business model to follow; it was a factor of how the industry developed. Ordinances did not originally require collocation. The City's towers now had three to six carriers each. Staples asked if there was a maximum on how many carriers could be on a single tower. Hill said generally three to six, depending on the tower. Pat Phillips said there was win-win situation. Phillips, a City resident who had worked for many years in telecommunications, said Council needed to drive the process. The City needed to take control from the top end down, including exploring options for City property. There was no reason the City could not enjoy the revenue from the tower leases. The City needed to explore owning the towers. There needed to be total transparency during the process. Improving the City's first responder communications should be part of any agreement. Frazar said he was disappointed that there was no commitment from the industry on where they r-' would restrict towers. While doing his own research, Frazar found there were industry standards on the proximity of towers to schools, playgrounds, and day care centers. There were Federal Communication Commission (FCC) standards and internationally accepted standards. He felt the carriers should have restricted areas before recommending to the City where a tower should be placed. Fleisch asked if a study of the radio frequencies in the City had been commissioned. Fevrier said it had not. Sussberg suggested setting up an independent panel (two from Council, two from the Planning Commission, and citizens) to work with independent consultants to look at the current coverage and try to come up with a plan that was best for the City. Haddix said Council would consider that idea, but was cautious given the history of task forces in the City, especially with the timeline that was needed. Bonnie Beerbower said that the website www.antennasearch.com provided information on the number of towers located within four miles of the address that was entered. She found there were 32 towers within that radius of her home on Crabapple Lane, although they were not all cell towers. Tyrone had a cell tower located in its industrial park. Elevations were important too, and St. Paul's property was pretty low. There should be an independent study done to determine where coverage was needed. She asked if there was an FCC regulation on the percentage of coverage cities had to provide. Fevrier explained that, in the early days of cell phones, there had been a limit on where to build a tower and the percentage of coverage the tower could provide for the carrier to retain its license. Carriers determined their needs and worked within the limits of the cities. Haddix said that was the reason the City Attorney needed to be consulted, to interpret the gray areas and terminology. Areas that were not absolutely defined were arguable points. City Council Workshop February 2, 2010 Page 7 ~ Kathy Cheney asked what "substantial evidence" the City could use to limit cell towers in residential areas. She did not get dropped calls with her carrier, and the towers were where they belonged, in the Industrial Park, not back yards. She asked if the Planning Commission could stipulate future sites for the towers. Wojcik said she had dropped calls on her personal phone and work phones and only one bar on her wireless computer. The City could not show a preference to anyone company. The Industrial Park did not extend to the north end of the City. In the beginning, cell coverage was available along interstates. There were many more products using the technology now. The problem was the City was almost built out, and it was a residential city. If towers were not allowed in commercial or residential zoning, then there were very few areas left. Cheney asked if additional towers could be constructed near the current towers. Karen Davis said she was willing to pay for a land line to keep the poles/towers out of neighborhoods. Aesthetics were important, but so was the location. She asked Council to consider what was important to residents. Haddix told those attending the meeting that he felt the issues were being confused. The workshop was for technical information. Council was not permitting an actual tower location at this meeting. There were many comments made from the audience by unidentified people who did not use a microphone. Haddix assured the residents they would know when the City i""""- received any applications for permits. David Cheney referred to the presentation, noting that local authorities had the final say and that citizens could not say they did not want it. Kirk said that was correct. Except for the provisions stated in the law, local jurisdictions had final say. David Cheney said the top and bottom bullets conflicted with each other. Sturbaum said there had been municipalities that had blocked the use and fair trade under various FCC regulations. There had been a conflict of federal and local law. The federal law said City had a right to act, but had must conduct itself from a business perspective. There were also property rights issues. The City had to listen to both sides, act in a reasonable time period, and ensure that due diligence was done. Sussberg said the City could be proactive by working with companies such as American Tower and with the carriers to identify the areas with holes and locations best suited the City's needs. - Rast said that was the next step. The City had chosen to be proactive in 1998 when the ordinance was developed. The next step was to identify the needs and gaps, and find areas suitable for the towers. He did not see the process dragging out, adding it should be done within the next 30 _ 45 days. Another workshop would be scheduled to present the facts. Staff had been talking with T-mobile for the past year, and T-mobile had identified the areas where they needed coverage. Staff had identified sites owned by the City, which would require action by Council to enter into a lease agreement. Once the sites were identified, the process was very expensive for the carriers, which was one of the reasons staff had asked what direction Council wanted to go. He said all of the information staff had should be on the website by the next day. Mary Giles said she lived south of SR 54 and want to ensure her area was represented. It was not just about zoning, and the FAA and Falcon Field needed to be involved in any decision made south of SR 54. She asked what effect the airport would have on tower placement south of SR City Council Workshop February 2, 2010 Page 8 .-. 54. She noted that, at the November 5,2009, meeting, a former Council Member had stated the airport would block any towers coming into that area. McMullen explained that the zones in the circles on the map around the airport did not mean antennas could not be located in proximity to the airport. Within those areas, antennas over a certain height were an issue, and applications would be reviewed by the Airport Authority and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The maximum height allowed in the inside circle was 150 feet above the airport elevation, and the height changed depending on the distance from the airport in the area between the inner and outer circles. Those areas were more restrictive because they were part of the airport zoning. Giles asked if that meant it would be more difficult for a carrier to locate a tower in that area in the Industrial Park. McMullen said only if the tower exceeded the height limit. Giles asked the industry representatives if they would exceed the height limit. Fevrier said all the carriers followed strict FAA guidelines. Giles asked that, for the south side of the City, the carriers and the City focus their efforts on any needed towers in the Industrial Park. Bob Beerbower asked whether Conncil would have the final say on towers and whether it would go through zoning. As an example, he asked if the City could stop him from building a tower on his property ifit was zoned properly. Haddix said Council would not see the application ifit met all the zoning and telecommunications requirements. An application would only come to Council if a variance or rezoning was needed. McMullen said the City could not stop an - application if it met all the ordinance requirements and met all the requirements for site plan approval. Leamard said that was why it was such an important zoning issue. Haddix said the next step was to work together, narrow the areas of coverage down to specific sites, then meet to look at how the City wanted to proceed. It was also important to discuss the gray areas with the City Attorney. McMullen said they needed to look at the zoning throughout the City to see if any changes to the zoning restrictions were needed. Once the locations had been specified and any proposed changes to the ordinances were made that applied to everybody, then the City would have the rules and guidelines for the Planning Commission to use. Haddix asked if the companies were on board with that process. Those attending the meeting were, but the five major carriers all needed to present what they needed for the future. McMullen said the City had done the same thing in 1998, and it had lasted for 12 years. Now it needed to be done again, and they needed to look at ~hat would be needed 15 years in the future. Tim Powers noted that he had a variance request on the February 18 agenda regarding a cell tower on his property in the Industrial Park, so there was an application on the table. McMullen said the request was for a 300-foot tower, and the Airport Authority had already notified staff they would not support the variance. ,..... . Transition Yard Standards between Dissimilar Zoning Districts - Section 916 of Zoning Ordinance Rast said there would be an overview on buffers and landscaping, noting that the transition yard ordinance was approved in January 2009 and was designed to enhance buffers between dissimilar zoning districts. Rast showed the site plan for the Line Creek retail development, which featured a 75-foot transition yard between the development and the CardiffParkIPlanterra Ridge subdivisions. He also showed how the transition yard standards would have applied to the Christ Our Shepherd Lutheran Church site if the rezoning request to rezone the property to City Council Workshop February 2, 2010 Page 9 ,.-. office/commercial zoning had been approved several years ago. lInker asked if any commercial developments had been grandfathered in at the previous 10-foot requirement. McMullen said no projects had to be grandfathered. In the future, any buffer between residential and commercial would have to be 75 feet. Fleisch asked how 75 feet had been decided. Rast said that they had looked at "in the field" conditions at 25 feet, 50 feet, and 75 feet. They also looked at site plans, and 75 feet was a substantial buffer, especially if fully vegetated. He asked Council to let him know if they wanted to work on any part of the ordinance. Buffer Ordinance Requirements Rast gave an overview of the ordinance requirements, noting that the standards differed based on the several road classifications in the City. The intent was to preserve the vegetation along major thoroughfares, while still being able to see the commercial developments from the highway. Future development along SR 74 would have to comply with the ordinance as much as possible given the changes during the road-widening. The ordinance was working with the exception of SR 74 South. Wojcik was concerned that the same thing could happen on SR 74 North if the state decided to add additional lanes to match what was done on SR 74 South. She asked if the buffers started at the edge of the road right-of-way. Rast said they did. He hoped that in 10 - 15 years SR 74 ..... South would look like SR 74 North, after the rights-of-way re-naturalized with second growth pines. Some of the work being done with the Gateway grant would assist with that. Wojcik said the City should look at increasing the buffer in areas where the state might widen the highways. Rast said SR 74 North had very few undeveloped lots. He would contact the Department of Transportation (DOT) to see if any future widening could be done in the median, as it was done for any further widening on SR 54 West. Haddix asked Rast to look at the "save" areas, as well as minimum plant and replacement areas. Overview of Updates to the Landscape Ordinance Rast said tree replacement requirements depended on the amount of impervious surface on a site, including the area reserved for stormwater detention. Trees removed needed to be replaced with plant material. The plan required one canopy tree and one understory tree for every 1,000 square feet of impervious surface. The minimum caliper for canopy trees was two inches, and the caliper size for understory trees was increased to minimum of two inches. Minimum sizes were also set for multi-trunked trees such as hollies. Maintenance requirements were added for once the plants were installed, as well as replacement requirements. Limits were also placed on limbing and trimming up of trees. ..... . Sussberg asked if there was a time limit on replacing trees that had fallen due to storms. Rast said the trees would have to be replaced, with a guarantee of two years after acceptance, then staff inspected them. Owners were notified in writing if replacement was required. Haddix asked if one canopy tree and one understory tree was enough. Wojcik said the ordinance needed to be beefed up. Developers went for the minimum, and the minimum needed to be better. Sussberg said that, as a business owner who rented space in a development hit by armed robberies, there were security concerns related to dense vegetation. Rast said there might be City Council Workshop February 2,2010 Page 10 - another solution rather than requiring more trees. It was sometimes difficult to get the current number of trees required on a site. They had to make sure trees were healthy, planted properly, and had room to grow, or trees would be lost. He recommended looking at the possibility of going to a three-inch caliper requirement for canopy trees to provide, more substantial trees. Staples referred to the Delta Credit Union building as an example of landscaping that did not fit the scale of the building, saying that the trees needed to be four times larger. He said there needed to be a minimum coverage standard that considered the massing of the building. Wojcik suggested that the landscaping could be based on the number of stories. Rast said they had looked at that, but pointed out that the larger the tree caliper the longer it took for the roots to spread and the tree to grow. Wojcik said it might take longer for a larger tree to grow, but it would look better from the beginning. Mike Lorber suggested increasing the caliper inches and pushing the bigger trees out to the front. Rast suggested looking at total caliper inches, rather than the number of trees, which would give the option of planting larger trees. He said the City did not accept landscape plans until construction started so they would have a better idea of the building scale. McMullen recommended taking a couple of site plans and using the new criteria to see if it worked. ~ Sussberg said that, as a business owner, he was concerned with the canopy blocking wall signage. There needed to be a balance between aesthetics and sensible business practice. Discussion of Proposed Vacant Building Registration Ordinance Rast said this would be a new ordinance, adding that the housing code official had researched several jurisdictions to see how thy issue was addressed. There was a growing number of vacant buildings in the City. Some were not maintained, some were a blight to the neighborhood, and the owners for some were unknown. The highlights of the proposed ordinance included the following: · Vacant structure defined as a structure or building that is unoccupied for a period of 90 days; · Administered by Housing Code Official; · Housing Code Official would provide written notice to the owner of the existence of a vacant structure, building, or dwelling; · Within 10 days, property owner must register the structure with the City; and · Registration must be renewed every six months. Rast continued that the owner would be required to submit a plan to care for the building while it was vacant. When a structure was registered, the property owner would submit the following: · The length oftime the owner expected the vacancy to continue; · The proposed rehabilitation or improvements to be made to the structure; · A form in which the owner granted permission to inspect the property; and · A description of what would be done to secure the structure so it would not become open to the general public. The aspects of the proposed ordinance included the following: · Periodic inspections by Housing Code Official, Fire Department, and Police Department as necessary to ensure property was maintained and not open to the general public; City Council Workshop February 2, 2010 Page 11 ~ · Identified procedures for permitting board-up permits; · Issuance of vacant building permit; · Identified standards for securing a building; and · Identified protocol for addressing real property maintained in a blighted condition. Rast said staff would like to know whether to move forward with the registration ordinance. If so, then there were several changes that needed to be made regarding Code Enforcement and the Building Code. He would like to bring it to Council the first meeting in March. Fleisch asked how the ordinance would be enforced. McMullen said that, currently, Code Enforcement attempted to identify banks/owners and contact whoever was managing the property. It was through good will that they Were encouraged to maintain the property. The proposed ordinance would give more leverage, especially with the banks, but it would not cure everything. Sometimes the City had gone in to cut the grass. McMullen continued that staffhad worked with the City Attorney to place liens on some properties due to the use of taxpayer money to maintain private property. Even with a lien, the City usually did not get any money back by the time everything was settled. ~ Haddix asked how the proposed ordinance would apply to condominiums due to the type of ownership. McMullen said security was an issue. If the outside walls of a condominium were owned by the association, then the association was responsible for taking care of it unless it went into foreclosure. The ordinance would apply. If the building itself was vacant for more than 90 days, then the security requirements would apply. Fleisch asked about homeowner's insurance cancellation by homeowners who were not living in homes for sale. It might not be universal throughout the industry, but many insurance companies cancelled the coverage when they found out the house was vacant. Imker said he would like to pursue the ordinance. Haddix agreed, but said it would take more care in drafting the sections pertaining to condominiums since the condominium association would have the right to secure the inside of the property. He would rather the association intervened than the City. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 10:16 p.m. ~"D 19~1~+, 1"""'1