Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-2010 workshop - City Council of Peachtree City Workshop Minutes of Meeting April 12, 2010 6:30 p.m. The City Council of Peachtree City met in ajoint workshop session on Monday, April 12, 2010, at 6:30 p.m. Council Members in attendance were: Mayor Don Haddix, Vanessa Fleisch, Eric Imker, Kim Learnard, and Doug Sturbaum. Planning Commission Members in attendance were: Chairman Patrick Staples, Joe Frazar, Larry Sussberg, Theo Scott, and Lynda Wojcik. The purpose of the workshop was to discuss proposed amendments to the Animal Control Ordinance and to hold a joint workshop with the Planning Commission on telecommunications towers. - Proposed Amendments to the Animal Control Ordinance Public Information Officer/City Clerk Betsy Tyler and Police ChiefH.C. "Skip" Clark addressed Council. Tyler noted that, at the November 5, 2009, meeting, a citizen had requested Council consider banning a specific breed (pit bull) or adopting additional legislation specific to the breed. Staff had been directed to bring back more information, and the topic was discussed again on January 21. On January 21, staff had recommended that there were better mechanisms to address any problems than breed specific legislation. Council had supported staff s recommendation to work with tht) C?unty to enhance the "vicious" or "dangerous dog" process/ordinance, to eliminate the "voice command" option from the leash law, and to regulate the unattended tethering of dogs. Tyler went over the dog complaints received by the Police Department in 2009. There were 40 dog complaints for the year. There were seven cases of dogs biting humans - two were unattended dogs leaving yards, four bites were in the dog's own home or yard, one dog at a vet's office snapped at another patron, and one dog was ruuning loose. Five incidents occurred on the paths, none involving bites to humans - three involved at-large dogs menacinglbiting dogs with the owner present, and two involved dogs with both owners present (one of these was a leashed dog that had pulled free). Tyler said that the proposed changes in the ordinance (voice command or tethering) could have possibly addressed seven of the complaints, but would not have addressed any of the bites. Tyler continued that the current ordinance prohibited allowing dogs to run at large unattended, required restraint or control to keep a dog from leaving its owner's property, required restraint or control when a dog was off the owner's property, and identified vicious dogs, requiring them to be secured on the owner's property and leashed and muzzled when off the owner's property. -- Tyler said she had contacted Fayette County Animal Services to clarify their concerns. Fred Sisson, the department director, who was in attendance, and Tyler said he had indicated they preferred an ordinance that was uniform with the County's, but they could enforce the "voice command" portion of the City's ordinance. Sisson had also clarified that the County responded to neighborhood calls (running at large), but they did not patrol neighborhoods or the paths. ~ City Council Workshop April 12, 2010 Page 2 Tyler said the revised staff recommendation was to make no changes to the existing ordinance. The recommendation was based on the limited number of total dog complaints to the Police Department in 2009, the much sITmller percentage of these incidents that might have been prevented by the changes under consideration, and the lack of staffing to proactively enforce the more proactive ordinance. Sisson said there were two different ordinances - one for failure to control a pet on the owner's property, and another for failure to control the pet when it was off the owner's property. Sisson said that, while it was a good thing to be able to let dogs run on their own, most places did not allow voice command. lmker asked if the ordinance said "vicious dogs," or did it use other terminology. Tyler said the definition was for "vicious animal," and read the definition from the Code of Ordinances. She also pointed out the precautions for vicious animals required by the ordinance. Imker asked what constituted a "staff' recommendation. City Manager Bernard McMullen said that, in this case, staff was Tyler and Clark, who reviewed the information and sent their recommendation to him to for final concurrence. -. Fleisch asked what happened to the owner of the pit bull that attacked the citizen who requested the change in the ordinance. Clark said the owner had been cited for the violation of the ordinance and for the bite. He did not know the outcome of the case. Sturbaum read Section 51-2-7 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA): 51-2-7. Liability of owner or keeper of vicious or dangerous animal for injuries caused by animal A person who owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of any kind and who, by careless management or by allowing the animal to go at liberty, causes injury to another person who does not provoke the injury by his own act may be liable in damages to the person so injured. In proving vicious propensity, it shall be sufficient to show that the animal was required to be at heel or on a leash by an ordinance of a city, county, or consolidated government, and the said animal was at the time of the occurrence not at heel or on a leash. Sturbaum referred to a neighbor who had a dog bite case that went to court. The judge was quite clear that the state allowed one free bite unless another incident had occurred. The judge had called Georgia law old and antiquated. He said, based on the state law, he believed a judge would dismiss a dog bite case against a plaintiff because the law did not recognize voice command. Leamard asked what "at heel" meant and whether it was different than voice command. Haddix said a dog that was "at heel" would not attack. Haddix said it meant by the owner's side, not _ moving. Sturbaum said if an owner claimed their dog was "at heel" when an attack occurred, then the injured party would have no case. He said Council needed a legal opinion on how the City's ordinance stood up to the County's and OCGA 51-2-7. "...,.." City Council Workshop April 12, 2010 Page 3 Haddix asked how accurate the reporting of problems with dogs was. He knew of two cases that had not been reported, one of which involved a dog attacking him in his own yard. Clark said the Police were doing the best they could, and the data was not as accurate as they would like. Residents who spoke included Patrick Staples, Brian Baird, Rick Lanteris, Joe Frazar, Lynda Wojcik, Steve Perry, Larry Robinson, Bill Maisey, David Moulds, Mike Owen, Pam Kemp, Kathie Cheney, and Larry Sussberg. The concerns and questions included: ~ · The rights of dog owners were appreciated, but "on leash" was preferred, especially on the paths. · Voice command was a quality ofIife issue and a great allure to the community. · Individual responsibility was the issue. · Electronic collars should be required in addition to voice command. · There should be a certification program for voice command, as well as a fee, with a special collar issued if dog and owner passed the certification requirements. · Dog Park Association could oversee a certification program, and the fees could be used to maintain the dog park. · Some dogs behaved better off a leash; owners should always have leash available. · Irresponsible owners were the issue. · The presence of a leash would not necessarily stop bad behavior. · Dogs should not be unrestrained on public property. · Most owners believed their dogs were good and under control, but dogs were animals that responded to instinct. · Many incidents with dogs were not reported because there were either no injuries or very minor injuries. · Dogs might be good and well-behaved, but many people, adults and children, were afraid of dogs whether they were on a leash or not. · Dogs did not have rights; people had a right to walk in the City without fear of dogs. · There should be a way to determine who was a responsible dog owner. · Penalties for owners that had dogs out of control should be higher. · The City could designate certain areas, such as Drake Field, where dogs could run off leash so other path users would know to avoid the areas or would be prepared when they went there. · The only way a person could be responsible for their dog was when it was on a leash. · The issue was public safety, not quality of life. ~ Clark said he had talked to some dog trainers about a voice command certification and found no trainer willing to certify voice command of a dog due to the liability involved. They would certify the dog had attended training, but they always recommended an owner have a leash with them. He asked those attending if they were willing to use an electronic collar. The answers were mixed. Sturbaum said he would like for City Attorney Ted Meeker to research Georgia law on dog bites and whether electronic collars were accepted as a leash. City Council Workshop April 12, 2010 Page 4 Haddix asked if anyone at the meeting had a problem with having electronic collars as a requirement. Several members of the audience indicated they did not favor the requirement, asking where it would stop. Haddix said that claiming a dog was under voice command did not hold water when a person was attacked. Council was trying to find a way to protect the public interest. No side would get 100% of what they wanted. Learnard noted that four of the seven dog bites in 2009 occurred on the owners' property. She said she had felt threatened on the paths, but only by dogs that were running loose. Sisson said electronic devices worked well when the batteries worked. Many dogs that came to the Animal Shelter were wearing electronic collars. There were dog bites that did not get reported, including dog on dog. His own dog was aggressive with other dogs and could not be off leash when around other dogs. There was no perfect answer. He did not know of any federal or state park that did not require dogs be leashed. He did not see why the cart paths were any different from those public lands. It would be easier to enforce a uniform law throughout the County. Sturbaum said the dog owners attending the meeting were responsible. His concern was the people who were not responsible. He challenged citizens to be responsible pet owners. Haddix said the purpose of the workshop was to find a solution, and he was not hearing any offered except for a potential electronic collar, forgetting the whole thing, or putting all dogs on a leash. He asked if anyone had any other suggestions. Sturbaum said Georgia law was clear about the "one free bite" rule and specifically stated, "on a leash by an ordinance of a city, county, or consolidated government." He said they needed to look at the terminology and whether an electronic collar could be considered a leash because it would bridge the gap, allowing the City to move forward with a maximum penalty as some form of remediation. He believed the City's ordinance could be challenged in court. Sturbaum said that, based on his research, the "one bite rule" had been in place since 1776 and was recognized by the courts. Some counties had very tight dog laws. If the City put a remediation plan in place, the City needed to ensure its laws and OCGA 51-2-7 were copacetic if the ordinance was challenged in court. Imker said he had not made up his mind yet, but something was needed to prove a dog was under voice command, then consider electronic collars. Leash length needed to be identified in the ordinance, such as the leash being no longer than six feet when in the proximity of another person. Any certification program needed to consider a "small child" scenario. Fleisch pointed out that none of the suggestions would have helped with the pit bull bite. She wanted the ordinance strengthened and owners held accountable, but nothing that had been discussed would have helped in that incident. Haddix asked staff if they had the guidance they needed. McMullen said they would get Sturbaum's questions answered about state law, do more research, gather the statistics, and schedule another workshop. The current ordinance had been in existence since 1980. It was an City Council Workshop April 12, 2010 Page 5 emotional issue on both sides. McMullen felt Council needed to make an informed decision with a gradual process so any changes would be done right. The discussion on the proposed amendments to the Animal Control Ordinance ended at 8:04 p.m. Joint workshop with the Planning Commission on telecommunications towers After a brief recess, the workshop reconvened at 8:13 p.m. to discuss telecommunication towers. Representatives from Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and T-Mobile were in attendance as was Mr. David Kirk, an attorney from Troutman Sanders representing Verizon Wireless. City Planner David Rast gave an overview of the current status of telecommunication towers in Peachtree City. He reviewed the areas of the City that were currently zoned for cell towers: Agricultural Reserve (AR), Open Space (OS), General Industrial (GI), and Light Industrial (LI). He explained how the airport overlay zones, which included both horizontal (APH) and conical (APC) zones, affected tower height and location. He noted there were some limitations on the ultimate tower height in those areas as well. ,..... Mr. Rast stated that two members of the Planning Commission, one City Council member, and several representatives from City staff had met in Atlanta with representatives of Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and T-Mobile. Their radio frequency (RF) engineers had identified seven areas within the City where they thought towers were needed in order to boost their coverage. The radio frequency (RF) studies were incorporated into the City's GIS and zoning maps and were part of this presentation. He I10ted that the 6,000' radius was not generated by the carriers but was incorporated by City staff to provide uniformity as to where the general areas were located. The RF studies considered coverage in vehicles, buildings, and on the street as well as the areas in which they had received complaints from their customers. Since the RF studies were proprietary, staff could not mesh the areas the carriers identified with these drawings but did interpolate them on our maps as shown. Mr. Rast stated that staff had looked at various parcels within these general areas and had identified those that were large enough to accommodate a tower. The setbacks required were: . 200' from adjoining residential development; . 200' from a public street right-of-way; and · 50' from adjoining non-residential development. Staff was not recommending any sites at this time, as the purpose of this workshop was to solicit input from the Planning Commission, City Council, and the public. Mr. Rast then described the locations of the seven areas identified by the wireless carriers. The areas where they needed additional coverage were primarily residential and developed. ~ City Council Workshop April 12, 2010 Page 6 r- . General Area 1 was located on the south end of the city, primarily in the Rockspray/South Peachtree Parkway area. A portion of it was covered by the airport's horizontal zone and a portion was covered by the conical zone. In response to a question from Mr. Sturbaum about the approximate tower height, Mr. Rast stated that the carriers were anticipating a monopole tower of no more than 200'. Mr. Sturbaum noted that the only place on the Braelinn Recreation Complex property where a tower could be located was behind Field 2. He further stated that there had already been discussion about expanding that field in conjunction with the expansion of the girl's softball fields. Mr. Rast stated the carriers had indicated the compound at the base of the tower would be approximately 100' x 100'. The tower would be located in the center of the compound and would allow enough room for multiple carriers to place their equipment within that area. This size was necessary because on two separate occasions, through the variance process, the size of the compound area on one of the older tower sites had to be increased. Most of the tower sites that were erected since 1998 were pretty much maxed out both with space on the tower and space within the compound. Mr. Staples pointed out that the landscaping around the tower site was included in the 100' x 100' area. Other questions that were raised during the workshop included the following: ~ . Were there stealth technologies that might affect the size of the compound? . Could a tower be located on top of a commercial structure? . Could the towers be located outside of the city limits of Peachtree City? . Was there a burning need to improve what was already a good system? Mr. Rast explained that after applying the required setbacks to some of the City's parcels within the general areas as identified by the wireless carriers, it did not appear there would be enough room to accommodate a tower. He added that many of the areas within these general areas were wooded and would require the removal of a significant amount of vegetation to accommodate a tower compound. In response to a question from Mr. Frazar, Mr. Rast stated that there were schools of thought that 1500' was the generally accepted precautionary distance a tower should be located from elementary schools, day care facilities, and other assemblages of children. However, staff could not substantiate that information and did not include these dimensions in this presentation. He indicated they would continue to research this issue and would report their findings at the next workshop. I'!""'" Mr. Rast stated that the existing buildings in the City were not tall enough to accommodate a tower on top of them. The tower companies had checked on the World Airways building, Holiday Inn, etc. Relative to locating the towers outside the city limits of Peachtree City, Mr. Kirk stated that the wireless carriers were trying to addiess two needs: filling in the existing gaps of service as well City Council Workshop April 12, 2010 Page 7 "",.,.. as supplementing the capacity of the network as a whole. He noted that their customers included the people who lived in residential areas and used wireless devices. The towers needed to be relatively close to the areas they were servicing, and this could not be accomplished from several miles away. This was particularly true if there was an intent to keep the towers at a relatively low height. The carriers believed they could serve the customers' needs with a monopole of 200' or less which would not require lighting. He acknowledged that in some of the airport protection zones, it was possible the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) would require the towers be lit. Mr. Kirk admitted that health issues were a valid concern, but the Federal Communications Division (FCC) had extensive regulations by which all wireless carriers had to abide and federal law did not allow concern about RF emission exposure as a basis for denial of a tower. He stated that the exposure from using a mobile device was 20 times higher than the exposure from a cell tower could possibly be and added that even some elementary school children had cell phones these days. ,.... i f This information was documented in FCC regulations and Mr. Kirk thought it was 1.6 watts per kilogram body weight exposure and for a cell tower it was .02 watts per kilogram. If they had not already done so, they could provide this documentation. In response to an inaudible comment from a woman in the audience, he said a person could check the amount of radiation a device emitted by going to the manufacturer's website. Ms. Learnard stated that she was sUrprised to learn at one of the earlier workshops that under FCC regulations, a municipality could not refuse a cell phone tower based on the municipality's concerns about health effects of the RF. Mr. Sussberg suggested that Mr. Rast finish his presentation. Mr. Rast continued: · General Area 2 was somewhat close to Clover Reach subdivision but was more along the Highway 74 South Corridor. A portion of this area also fell within the airport's horizontal zone so there would be some limitations on the height of the tower. To address the question about why the towers could not be located along the perimeter of the City, he stated that in 1998 when the telecommunications ordinance was first updated, the needs of the wireless carriers were based primarily along the Highway 54 and Highway 74 corridors. Within a couple of years, three or four tower applications came in to fill those needs. Now due to the number of people going from land lines to wireless and the increase in the number of wireless devices in each house, the need for these towers was more internal to the city. This was the primary reason the areas identified by the wireless carriers were located through the heart of the residential areas. General Area 2 included the Flat Creek Nature Area, the Police station, the Water and Sewerage Authority (W ASA), as well as properties owned by the City (Shakerag and the Amphitheater). There was properties within this area owned by the City and W ASA where a tower could City Council Workshop April 12, 2010 Page 8 ~ potentially be located that might not be as obtrusive as other areas. Two carriers had indicated a need in this area. Shakerag and even the Dog Park were other areas where a tower could be located. · General Area 3 was located in the heart of the City and included Peachtree Parkway and McIntosh Trail. Because of existing development, this was a difficult area. Setback requirements severely limited the sites that would be available for a tower location in this area. He did not think a tower on the new dam on Lake Huddleston would be well received. The only tracts of land suitable in these areas were owned by the City and zoned OS. · General Area 4 was located in the central portion of the City and included Lake Peachtree, the Wyndham Peachtree Conference Center, Flat Creek Golf Course, and portions of Highway 54 East and West and Peachtree Parkway North and South. Portions of this area were completely built out and contained significant floodplain. Potential tower sites on the City-owned property were very limited. Two carriers had expressed interest in locating a tower in this area. It appeared the Flat Creek Golf Course was the only parcel where a tower might be located. ",.-,. r · General Area 5 encompassed the Blue Smoke and Golfview areas as well as the western side of Lake Kedron. The City-owned parcels in this area were somewhat limited. When overlaid with the existing residential development, this area was 100% built out. Factoring in the required setbacks further limited the parcels that could be used for a tower in this area. Mr. Sturbaum wondered if a tower could be located by the dam. Mr. Rast said this property was owned by Fayette County and was located in the floodplain and a tower would not be permitted in the floodplain. · General Area 6 included portions of Highway 74 North, Senoia Road, and the Kedron loop. There was an existing tower on Senoia Road that was developed in 1994 prior to the telecommunications ordinance that was adopted in 1998. The tower was completely maxed out and there was no room for additional carriers. The City had granted two separate variances to the tower owner (American Tower) to increase the size of the compound. ~ Mr. Rast said there were some tracts of land where a tower could be located in this general area. Basically, everything east of Highway 74 was developed. There were some tracts ofland along Senoia Road that were zoned AR. There was also a sliver of land along the west side of Highway 74 and the rail line that was still zoned GI. The Hardy-Kidd-Whitlock tract was also in this area and was zoned AR. The setbacks from Highway 74 and the adjoining residential development potentially opened up some areas for tower locations within the Fieldhouse and Aquatic Center property. One provider identified a need in this area. There also was a site on the west side of Senoia Road that was not owned by the City where a tower could possibly be - City Council Workshop April 12, 2010 Page 9 located. The only access to one of the sites would be through the Wilksgrove Baptist Church. Mr. Rast was not sure how the cross easements worked in this area. · General Area 7 was also on the northern end of the city and included Highway 74 North and Crabapple Lane. This area overlapped with General Area 6 and was basically built out. There were some undeveloped GC and or parcels along Georgian Park. Based on current setback requirements, potential tower sites were pretty limited in this area. He noted there were already a lot of cross easements and utility easements to get back to the water tower and substation. Mr. Rast also said that looking at the setbacks that would be required for the St. Paul Lutheran Church, the area on that site where a tower could go was also limited. One provider had identified a need in this area. Mr. Rast explained that although all carriers were not represented at the meeting in Atlanta, that was not to say there was no interest from other carriers to locate on these towers. Typically, the other carriers would collocate on the tower after it was constructed. The current ordinance required that, before an application for a new tower would be approved, documentation must be provided that there were no existing towers in that area on which the carrier could collocate. - Mr. Rast stated that the tower companies planned to construct a steel monopole which would allow all of the cables that were typically strapped to the outside of a concrete monopole to be located inside the steel monopole. Although staff had been working closely with the wireless carriers throughout this process to keep them informed, he noted for the record that no tower applications had been submitted to the City. There had been discussion in previous workshops about the possibility of the City constructing towers and then leasing space to the carriers. However, the opinion ofthe City Attorney was that this was not something the City should be doing. It was possible the Development Authority of Peachtree City (DAPC) could construct the towers, but the leasing and operation of the tower would have to be outsourced. Mayor Haddix asked whether there had been any discussion with the providers about reducing the number of sites. Mr. Rast asked the representatives of the wireless carriers who were in attendance to respond to that question. He noted that four of the seven sites had been identified by at least two carriers as locations where they needed towers. Mr. Leamard wanted to emphasize that these were areas where the wireless carriers said they were short on coverage. This did not mean there was a need for seven towers. ,...,..." Mr. Kirk noted that Troutman Sanders was only representing V erizon Wireless. As part of their RF analysis, they had looked at the entire tower system both within and outside the City. He suspected the other carriers' studies had been done the same way. ,..- City Council Workshop April 12, 2010 Page 10 Mayor Haddix noted that the City did not have to give 100% coverage, but there must be a legal reason to deny. There was a federal law that could intervene and override the City's decision. This whole process was about deterniining where the City could and could not say "no." After looking over the seven general areas, Mr. Sussberg surmised the following: · General Area 1 - This area was very heavily populated with very little room for a tower. · General Area 2 - A tower by the police headquarters was doable because it was far away from residential, the setbacks Were fine, and it was not too populated. · General Area 3 - There was no space. · General Area 4 - This area was built out. · General Area 5 - This area was pretty tight. · General Area 6 - A tower could possibly be located on the private land near the funeral home and also behind the Field House away from residential He saw three possibilities for new tower locations: at the Police headquarters, in the woods behind Kedron Field House, and at. the funeral home. Two of these locations were on public property, far away from residential development with lots of open space, and one was on private property. He thought adding a second tower to the funeral home property would only be a technicality. He realized that this was not 100% what everyone wanted, but these locations -- would be visually more appealing as they would be set back away from residential development; coverage in the community would be improved without being offensive to anyone. In response to comments from the audience about how these towers would affect the appearance of Highway 74, Council Members Inlker and Sturbaum, Mayor Haddix, and others agreed that a tower located behind the Police Department and/or the W ASA property would most likely not be visible from Highway 74. There was a conversation between a citizen and a representative of one of the wireless carriers, neither of whom identified themselves or made their comments through the microphone. The only part of their conversation that was audible was a statement by the wireless representative that the lower the elevation of the land, the higher the tower would need to be. Mr. Kirk said Ms. Buice, representing T-Mobile was correct and added that this was a first step; none of the properties identified had been evaluated by any of the carriers. He commended Mr. Rast's efforts and felt they had been very helpful to everyone. He noted that in each of the general areas, there was at least one carrier who potentially could meet their coverage objectives and serve their customers better. In most cases, there were two or even more carriers who potentially could improve the service to their customers. A next step might be for the carriers to take a look at some of the more specific locations to see whether they would or would not work. He reiterated their pledge to stay below 200' so the tower would not be lighted which he felt r" would be more intrusive than an unlighted facility. Mr. Kirk wondered if the City anticipated making changes to the telecommunication tower ordinance that would allow towers in commercial areas. City Council Workshop April 12, 2010 Page 11 - Mr. McMullen felt that instead of a Variance process, the more ideal situation would be to look at the setback requirements, etc., in an additional zoning category, e.g., GC General Commercial, to see what additional opportunities that would open up. It would be necessary to review all of the properties within the City that were zoned GC and adopt standard criteria. He thought this would be a better process than approving a variance for one property owner and possibly not for another. Mr. Rast stated that when this process was done in 1998, all of the needs of the carriers fit into the four zoning categories where cell towers were currently allowed. The good thing about that was the OS properties were predominantly owned by the City. Even though the City had leased space to carriers in the past, as the property owner, we were not obligated to do so which provided some control as to where the towers could go. He felt, as did others, that if this were opened up to all GC properties, it would "open up the floodgates." The seven sites that the wireless carriers had identified were along the internal spine of the City. In 10 years when this process was repeated again, it was not known where the needed tower sites might be. Mayor Haddix did not think it would look very attractive to have a cell tower on top ofWa1-Mart or Westpark Walk. Ms. Fleisch thought it would be harder to control the proliferation of cell r-- towers in the City if the GC zoning district were added. In response to a question from Mr. Sussberg, Mr. Rast stated that he thought this presentation had shown that it would be very challenging to find suitable tower sites in two or three of these areas. He did not know at this point whether the City would rule them out entirely but felt that since the carriers had indicated a need in these areas, they should be examined more closely. He thought the next step was to sit down with the carriers and their RF engineers again to see if it would be possible to merge some of these areas. Staff was not at a point of recommending sites but only looking at potential sites. He did not want to drag this process out any longer than was necessary. Ms. Leamard wanted to know what was driving this process. She thought "lack of coverage" was a very ambiguous term. Mr. McMullen assumed that a good percentage of the citizens in attendance were not necessarily in favor of putting additional cell towers anywhere in residential areas. The wireless carriers were here because they had customers who were asking them for additional service or so they could sell additional service. He thought this decision would be much easier if there were 300 people at this meeting who were demanding additional service, but that was not the case. The wireless carriers had come to the City on a number of different occasions and had been working with staff to identify sites. Based on current ordinances, the potential sites for a tower were very f'"'" limited. Staff was looking for guidance from Council as to whether the ordinance should be changed. If Council did not want to broaden this up and the vast majority of citizens were satisfied with their service, the ordinance probably should not be changed. City Council Workshop April 12, 2010 Page 12 ~" An unidentified man in the audience felt it was important to find a balance between the citizens' desires for this utility with the citizens who would be adversely affected by the tower locations. An unidentified woman in the audience asked if it was possible to identify undeveloped areas where the elevation would allow taller towers. Mayor Haddix asked the cell phone companies what their reaction would be if the City said we did not want any more towers. Mr. Kirk did not know the answer to that question because every application and situation was different. They had an obligation under their FCC licenses to serve a community. He would talk to his client and they would decide whether they could serve the City through some other means. This would put the carriers in a very difficult position, being obligated to serve the community and the community not being willing to accommodate in some way that additional service. ~ h Mr. Sturbaum reminded everyone that the Board of Education was a player in this as well, and they could put a tower on their property. He also noted that Council could not commit the resources of an adjoining municipality without an intergovemmental agreement. The providers had asked the City to take a look at some areas based on an RF study and Mr. Rast had done a commendable job of identifying the areas where the zoning and setbacks would and would not allow a tower location. Mr. Sturbaum thought the carriers should find out if they could go to other areas. The proper role of Council at this point was to do the diligence, study this information, and talk to the citizenry. Ms. Leamard wanted to know what the legal ramifications were if citizens decided they really did not want any additional towers. She was not clear on the impetus for all ofthe work that had been done and was still required relative to this request. She wanted to see the facts, the demands, the number of complaints, etc. Mr. Imker noted that cell phone companies were in it for money and they had identified the optimum places where they could maximize their revenue. He agreed that the City was not required to give them tower locations within the areas they had identified. If Council could find a location that was acceptable to everyone, Council would offer it to them; Council would not offer them something the citizens did not want. He thought locations that were not obtrusive to anyone should be offered to the carriers. If they did not like it, they would walk away. Ms. Fleisch said that she had wanted to be involved in all of these meetings from the beginning. As a realtor, she was concerned about property values and construction of a monopole would affect property values in that area. She thought the City was far more in the driver's seat with the current ordinance and felt it had prevented the proliferation of cell phone towers in the City thus far. ",.-" Mayor Haddix summarized by stating the towers should be as hidden as possible and as far away from residential as possible. This presented issues because the City was built out. He suggested the carriers look outside of the seven general areas and bring those locations to the City for l- \: ,...... City Council Workshop April 12, 2010 Page 13 consideration. The City would be very cautious about changing zoning or instituting a variance process to accommodate cell towers. Mayor Haddix further stated that he thought the Council was in agreement about the following: · The wireless carriers needed to nail down their desired locations. · The City needed to determine how these locations: o complied with the City's ordinances and o maximized as much as possible the desires of the people. · There should be a clear statement of the legal issues and the legal repercussions if the City decided against the towers. The citizens needed to understand that it was possible that a tower could end up in their back yard on private property and the City would have no say in it. Mayor Haddix thought it was time for the rubber to hit the road. There were many kudos to Tony Bernard for his efforts in getting this information on the website. It was very beneficial to the citizenry. Mr. Rast stated for the record that he was "at the beach last week with my cell phone" and that Mr. Bernard had prepared this presentation. r-, It was noted there was already language in the ordinance that required any cell towers not in use for a continuous period of 12 months to be removed. In response to an inaudible comment from the audience, Mr. Rast stated that the biggest issue with locating tower facilities within floodplain areas was the fact the base would need to be cleared out. There could not be disturbance in the floodplain and they would have to elevate the site. He said everything in there was mechanical, electrical, propane, etc. The ordinance was pretty strict about development in the floodplain. There was also a suggestion from the audience that the City reexamine the Kedron Dam area. Below the dam was floodplain, but there was an elevated piece of land where the dam was located. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:54 p.m. a~ ,Jk(~ Don Haddix, Mayor /~ Patrick Staples, Chairman Planning Commission / / / r-.. ~