HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 4178 ORDINANCE NO. 4178
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CRITERIA TO ASSESS AND
REDUCE VISUAL AND LAND USE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS.
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville desires to provide a range of locations for wireless
communications facilities in all zones unless prevented by law; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville wishes to minimize the adverse visual impacts of towers and
antennas by encouraging antenna location on existing structures, including utility poles, signs, water towers,
buildings, and other wireless communications facilities where feasible; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville encourages co-location and site sharing of new and existing
wireless communications facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville wishes to facilitate the use of public property and structures for
wireless communications facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville desires to enhance the ability of providers of telecommunications
services to provide such services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville wishes to maintain FCC compliance (in the event there is a
conflict between these regulations and FCC or FAA regulations, the latter regulations shall govern).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 . Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to protect the health, safety and welfare
of the community by establishing criteria to assess and reduce visual and land use impacts associated with the
development of wireless communications facilities.
Section 2. Conditional Use Approval Required in all Zoning Districts.
A. That Chapter 161, Zoning Regulations, § 161 .03, District A- 1 , Agricultural,
B. 1 , Permitted Uses, Unit 3, Public Protection and Utility Facilities; § 161 . 17, District I- 1 ,
Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial, B. 1 ., Permitted Uses, Unit 3, Public Protection and
Utility Facilities; and § 161 . 18, I-2, General Industrial, B. 1 . Permitted Uses, Unit 3, Public
Protection and Utility Facilities, of the Code of Fayetteville, are hereby deleted.
B. That Chapter 161, Zoning Regulations, of the Code of Fayetteville, is hereby
amended to add Unit 3, Public Protection and Utility Facilities to Sections 161 .03-161 .20,
Subsections B.2., Uses Permissible on Appeal to the Planning Commission.
Section 3. Definitions. That Chapter 151, Definitions, of the Code of Fayetteville, is hereby
amended to add the following:
Act: The Communications Act of 1934, as it has been amended from time to time,
including the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and shall include any future amendments,
thereto.
Alternative Tower Structure: Man-made trees, clock towers, bell steeples, light
poles, and similar alternative-design mounting structures that camouflage or conceal the
presence of antennas or towers and are built for the express purpose of serving as a tower
or for locating antennas.
• r r r I r 1 1 • r
r I : � rl r r • r Y r �
Page 2 4178
Ordinance No.
Antenna: Any structure or device used to collect or radiate electromagnetic waves,
including both directional antennas, such as panels, microwave dishes and satellite dishes
and omnidirectional antennas, such as whips but not including satellite earth stations.
Co-Location: Locating wireless communications equipment for more than one
provider at a single communications facility, on a building, or on an alternative tower
structure.
FAA: The Federal Aviation Administration.
Fall Zone: The area within which a Tower or Antenna might cause damage to
persons or property should the tower or antenna be knocked down, blown over or fall on its
own.
FCC: The Federal Communications Commission.
Guyed Towers: A communication tower that is supported, in whole or in part, by
guy wires and ground anchors.
Height: The vertical distance measured from the mean elevation of the finished
grade to the highest point on the tower or other structure, even if said highest point is an
antenna or antenna array.
Lattice Tower: A guyed or self-supporting three or four sided, open , steel frame
structure used to support telecommunications equipment.
Monopole Tower: A communication tower constructed without the use of guy
wires and ground anchors and consisting of only a single pole.
Original Tower Height: Height of a tower on the date of the passage of this
ordinance.
Personal Use: "Personal Use" refers to a non-commercial use by a resident of the
subject property. If any revenues are generated from the operation of the tower, it will not
be for personal use as such term is used.
Stealth Technology: Systems, components and materials used in the construction
of wireless communications facilities to make it compatible with the surrounding property.
Telecommunications: The transmission, between or among points as specified by
the user of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the
information as sent and received.
Tower or Communications Tower: Any structure that is designed and
constructed for the primary purpose of supporting one or more antennas, including lattice
towers, guy towers, or monopole towers. The term includes radio and television
transmission towers, microwave towers, common-carver towers, cellular telephone towers,
alternative tower structures, and the like. This term is imLintended to describe buildings or
other structures that have been constructed primarily for a purpose other han supporting one
or more antennas, despite the fact that such structure may currently, or in the future, actually
support one or more antennas.
Page 3
Ordinance No. 4178
Wireless Communications Facility (WCF): A land use facility that transmits
and/or receives electromagnetic signals for the purpose of transmitting analog or digital
voice or data communications. It includes antennas, microwave dishes, homs and other
types of monopoles, or similar structures supporting said equipment, equipment buildings,
shelters or cabinets, and other accessory development. Wireless communications facility
includes personal wireless services as defined in the Federal Telecommunications Act of
1996, and as subsequently amended.
Section 4. Wireless Communications Facilities. That Chapter 163, Use Conditions, of the
Code of Fayetteville, is hereby amended to add the following:
§163.29. Wireless Communications Facilities.
A. The following general requirements shall apply to all new wireless
communications facilities.
1. Noise Requirements. Equipment used in connection with a tower or antenna
array shall not generate noise that can be heard beyond the site. This prohibition does not apply to
air conditioning units no noisier than ordinary residential units or generator used in emergency
situations where regular power supply for a facility is temporarily interrupted; provided that any
permanently installed generator shall be equipped with a functional residential muffler.
2. Compliance With Federal Regulations. Applicant shall comply with
all applicable federal regulations. Proof of compliance shall be provided upon request of the
City Planner.
3. Lighting and Signage
a. Wireless communications facilities shall be lighted
only if required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Security
lighting or motion-activated lighting may be used around the base of a
tower and within the wireless communication facility, provided that the
lighting is shielded in such a way that no light is directed towards
adjacent properties or rights-or-way.
b. Signs shall be limited to those needed to identify the
property and the owner and warn of any danger. No signs, symbols,
identifying emblems, flags, or banners shall be allowed on towers.
B. New Towers. New wireless communication towers shall meet the following
requirements:
1. Type of Towers Allowed. New towers shall be limited to monopole
type structures or alternative tower structures.
2. Tower and Antenna Height Limitations. Towers or alternative
tower structures are permitted to a maximum height of one hundred and fifty (150') feet.
3. Fall Zone. The minimum distance from the base of any tower to any
residential dwelling unit shall be the tower height or required setback, whichever is greater,
unless all persons owning said residences or the land on which said residences are located
Page 4
Ordinance No. 4178
consent in a signed writing to the construction of said tower. This setback is considered
a "fall zone". In the event that an existing structure is proposed as a mount for a wireless
communication facility, a fall zone shall not be required.
4. Camouflaging or Stealth Technology for New Towers. If the
applicant demonstrates that it is not feasible to locate on an existing structure, towers shall
be designed to be camouflaged to the greatest extent possible, including but not limited to:
use of compatible building materials and colors, screening, landscaping and placement
within trees.
5. Color of Towers. To the extent that any antenna extend above the
height of the vegetation immediately surrounding it, they shall be a neutral color, painted or
unpainted, unless the FAA requires otherwise.
6. Information Required To Process New Tower Requests.
a. Provide a map of the geographic area that your
project will serve.
b. Provide a map that shows other existing or planned
facilities that will be used by the wireless communication service provider
who is making the application.
c. Provide a map that shows other potential stand-alone
locations for your facility that have been explored.
d. Provide a scaled site plan containing information
showing the property boundaries, proposed tower, existing land use,
surrounding land uses and zoning, access road(s) location and surface
material, existing and proposed structures and topography. The plan shall
indicate proposed landscaping, fencing, parking areas, location of any
signage and specifications on proposed lighting of the facility.
e. Describe why the proposed location is superior, from
a community perspective, to other potential locations. Factors to consider
in the community perspective should include: visual aspects, setbacks and
proximity to single family residences.
I. Describe your efforts to co-locate your facility on one
of the poles or towers that currently exists, or is under construction. The
applicant should demonstrate a good faith effort to co-locate with other
carriers. The Planning Commission may deny a permit to an applicant that
has not demonstrated a good faith effort to provide for co-location. Such
good faith effort includes:
( 1 ). A survey of all existing structures that may be
feasible sites for co-locating wireless communications
facilities;
(2). Contact with all the other wireless
communications licensed carriers operating in the City
and Washington County; and
(3). Sharing information necessary to determine if co-
Page 5
Ordinance No. 4178
location is feasible under the design configuration most
accommodating to co-location.
(4). Letter from tower owner stating why co-location
is not feasible.
g. Describe how you will accommodate other antenna
arrays that could co-locate on your facility. Describe how this
accommodation will impact both your pole or tower, and your ground
mounted facilities. Provide documentation of your provider's willingness
to accommodate other providers who may be able to co-locate on your
facility.
7. Required (after condition) and Balloon Test or Crane Test
Photographs. The proposed tower shall be photographed from four locations taken 90°
apart and 300' from the center of the tower. The proposed tower shall be superimposed on
the photographs. A balloon or crane test shall be performed to illustrate the height of the
tower and photographed from the same four locations. The time period, not to exceed one
week, within which the test will be performed, shall be advertised in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City at least 14 days, but not more than 21 days prior to the test. The four
locations shall be approved by the City Planner.
S. Sight Line Representation. A sight line representation shall be drawn
from four points 90° apart and 100' from the proposed tower. Each sight line shall be
depicted in profile, drawn at one inch equals 40 feet. The profiles shall show all intervening
trees and buildings.
9. Structural Integrity and Inspections of Towers.
a. The applicant shall provide a certification letter that
states the tower meets or exceeds design criteria and all local, state, and
federal requirements regarding the construction, maintenance, and
operation of the tower.
b. If a tower fails to comply with the requirements and
criteria above and constitutes a danger to persons or property, then upon
written notice being provided to the owner of the tower, the owner shall
have thirty (30) days to bring such tower into compliance with such
requirements and criteria. If the owner fails to bring such tower into
compliance within thirty (30) days, the City may terminate that owner's
conditional use permit and/or cause the removal of such tower (at the
owner's expense).
c. By making an application hereunder, the applicant
agrees to regularly maintain and keep in a reasonably safe and
workmanlike manner all towers, antenna arrays, fences and outbuildings
owned by applicant which are located in the City. The applicant further
agrees to conduct inspections of all such facilities not less frequently than
every 12 months. The applicant agrees that said inspections shall be
conducted by one or more designated persons holding a combination of
education and experience so that they are reasonably capable of
identifying functional problems with the facilities.
Page 6
Ordinance No. 4178
10. Security Fencing and Anti-climbing Device. Through the use of security
fencing, towers and equipment shall be enclosed by wood board fencing not less than six (6) feet in
height. The tower shall also be equipped with an appropriate anti-climbing device. The facility shall
place signs indicating "No Trespassing", "High Voltage" or other pertinent information on the outside
of the fence, unless it is decided that the goals of this ordinance would be better served by waiving
this provision in a particular instance. Barbed wire fencing or razor wire shall be prohibited.
11. Vegetative Screening Requirements. Wireless communications facilities
shall be surrounded by buffers of dense tree growth and understory vegetation in all directions to
create an effective year-round visual buffer. Trees and vegetation may be existing on the subject
property or installed as part of the proposed facility or a combination of both.
12. Setbacks from property lines. Wireless communications facilities
shall meet current setbacks as required by zoning.
C. Co-location. Applicants for co-location shall meet the following requirements:
1. Administrative Approval for Antenna Co-locations and Locations
on Other Structures. The City Planner, following an administrative review without
requiring the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, may approve the following antenna
installation:
a. Locating on Existing Structures. Installation of
an antenna on an existing structure other than a tower (such as a building,
sign, light pole, electric transmission tower and similarly scaled public
utilities /facilities, water tower, or other free-standing non-residential
structure), provided that the addition of the antenna does not add more
than twenty (20') feet to the height of the original structure.
b. Locating on Existing Towers. Installation of an
antenna on an existing tower of any height, and the placement of
additional buildings or other supporting equipment used in connection
with such additional antenna, so long as the proposed additions would add
no more than twenty feet (20) of height to the original height of the
tower. The addition or modification, to the extent possible, should be
designed to minimize visibility.
c. For the purposes of co-location, the applicant must
submit information from a licensed professional engineer certifying the
capacity of the tower for additional providers and a letter of intent from
the applicant indicating their intent to share space.
D. Other requirements.
1. Wireless Communications Facilities Placed on Top of Buildings.
When a wireless communications facility extends above the roof height of a building on
which it is mounted, every effort shall be made to conceal the facility within or behind
existing architectural features to limit its visibility from public ways. Facilities mounted on
a roof shall be stepped back from the front facade in order to limit their impact on the
buildings's silhouette.
Page 7
Ordinance No. 4178
2. Wireless Communications Facilities Placed on Sides of Buildings.
Antenna which are side-mounted on buildings shall be painted or constructed of materials
to match the color of the building material directly behind them.
E. Exemptions.
1. Personal Use. Towers for personal use which, including the height of
all antenna arrays, do not extend more than 80' from the ground and shall meet the current
setbacks as required by zoning.
2. Temporary Structures. Temporary structures designed to be used for
not more than 14 days in connection with a special event or for any reasonable period of
time in and immediately following an emergency, including without limitation those towers
which are identified as "C.O.W.s." or "Cellular on Wheels."
3. Existing Towers. All existing towers may be replaced with the same
type and height of tower structure as currently exists.
4. Emergency and Utility Towers and Antennas. Towers and antennas
under thirty five (35') in height used for 9-1- 1 services and utility monitoring (gas, water,
sewer, traffic lights, etc.)
F. Municipal Profits from Towers. The City of Fayetteville should actively
market its own property and existing structures as suitable co-location sites. As noted above
the review process is shortened and simplified when co-location on city property is
submitted by applicant. An annual lease amount should be charged according to the fair-
market value of the location. The revenues can be earmarked to improve the public area
within which the tower is located. In cases where the company no longer needs the tower,
the City may require it to be removed. Applicants can provide co-location space for city-
owned antenna.
G. Abandoned Antennas or Towers. At such time that a licensed carrier
abandons or discontinues operation of a wireless communications facility, such carrier will
notify the City of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations. Such
notice shall be given no less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinuation of
operations. In the event that licensed carrier fails to give such notice, the wireless
communications facility shall be considered abandoned upon such discontinuation of
operations. Upon abandonment or discontinuation of use, the carver shall physically remove
the wireless communications facility within 90 days from the date of abandonment or
discontinuation of use. "Physically remove" shall include, but not be limited to:
1. Removal of antenna, mount, equipment shelters and security barriers
from the subject property.
2. Proper disposal of the waste materials from the site in accordance with
local and state solid waste disposal regulations.
3. Restoring the location of the wireless communications facility to its
natural condition, except that any landscaping and grading shall remain in the after-
condition.
Page 8 4178
Ordinance No.
H. Notification of Change of Ownership/Operator. Upon assignment or
transfer of a Conditional Use Permit or any of the rights thereunder to a new wireless
telecommunications operator, the owner or operator shall provide written notice within thirty
(30) days to the City Planner.
Section 5. Public Notification. That Section 157.04 is hereby amended to add the following:
B.6. Wireless Communications Facilities. Applicants requesting permits for new
towers shall notify property owners within a 500' radius from the center of the tower;
applicants requesting pemilts for co-location shall not require notification. Notification shall
be certified mail for adjoining property owners, including across streets and regular mail for
the remaining property owners within the notification area.
Section 6. Emergency Clause. This ordinance is necessary to preserve the public peace, health,
safety, and welfare, and because of such, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in full
ce and effect from the date of its passage and approval.
PVE� Tcv`/tom
•�\ SED AND APPROVED this I ]_' day of August, 1999.
APPROVED:
A •� .` Fre Hanna,Ivlayor
Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
FAYE 'I'TEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Tim Conklin, Planning Director
From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
Date: September 9, 1999
Attached is a copy of the new Cell Tower ordinance for you records. Please distribute to your
staff.
CC. Engineering
Public Land Maintenance
Inspections
l
RECEIVED
STATE OF ARKANSAS
DEC 2 2 1999
County of Washington ss.
ACCTG. DEPT
I , JEFF JEFFUS, hereby certify that I am the publisher of THE
NORTHWEST ARKANSAS TIMES, a daily newspaper having a second class
mailing privilege, and being not less than four pages of five columns each,
published at a fixed place of business and at fixed (daily) intervals
continuously in the City of Fayetteville, County of Washington, Arkansas for
more than a period of twelve months, circulated and distributed from an
established place of business to subscribers and readers generally of all
classes in the City and County for a definite price for each copy, or a fixed
price per annum, which price was fixed at what is considered the value of the
publication, based upon the news value and service value it contains, that at
least fifty percent of the subscribers thereto have paid for their subscriptions
to the newspaper or its agents or through recognized news dealers over a
period of at least six months and that the said newspaper publishes an
average of more than forty percent news matter.
1 further ify that the legal notice attached in the matter of
was published in the regular daily issue of said newspaper for
consecutive insertions as follows:
The first insertion on the day of 19
the second insertion on the day of 19 —
c� the third insertion on the day of 19
the fourth insertion on the a —
ubhsher/General Manager
Sworn to and subscribed before me on this day of
194
[ Catherine
ill, StateD, X kansas ; Notary Public
Notaryin toncounty 105 '
My Commission Expires:
� tqy Commission
«cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
Fees for Printing.......................................................$
Costof Proof.............................................................$
Total.........................................................................$
. F /e c✓, 7,C� /pcQ�Q . a,�
STAFF REVIEW FORM
X AGENDA REQUEST
CONTRACT REVIEW
GRANT REVIEW mT ^ 0016/
For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of December 5 , 200( I /
FROM : 1112J61)
Tim rnnklin Planning pul t tri! _
Name Division Depar ment
ACTION REQUIRED : To approve an amendment to the Wireless Communication Facility Ordinance 4178.
COST TO CITY :
Cost of this Request Category/ Project Budget Category/Project Name
Account Number Funds Used To Date Program Name
Project Number Remaining Balance Fund
BUDGET REVIEW : Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached
Budget Manager Administrative Services Director
CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW : GRANTING AGENCY : _
Acco ting Manager Date Internal Auditor Date
xoodf l-�ozz
City Att ney Date ADA Coordinator Date
Purchasing Officer Date
STAFF RECOMMENDATION : Staff forwards the recommendation of the Planning Commission and Ordinance Review
Committee to amend the Wireless Communication Facility Ordinance 4178.
�i ision nHea`d / �p Date Cross Reference
(�fl��ltJ "� New Item : Yes
Vctor a�-t
Ad Is J1- '� Prev Ord/Res # :
rvices Director to� Orig Contract Date :
Date
Orig Contract Number :
FAYE'TTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS
113W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone:
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE 501-575-8264
TO: Ordinance Review Committee Members
Interested Citizens
Tower Service Providers
Cellular and PCS Service Providers
FROM : Tim Conklin, City Planner
DATE: November 6, 2000
SUBJECT: Wireless Communication Facility Ordinance 4178
Proposed Amendment for Replacement Towers
The Ordinance Review Committee will meet on November 14, 2000 to consider amending
Section 163 .29 (E)(3) "Exceptions" to clarify the intent of the section which regulates
replacement towers. The Planning Commission met on September 25, 2000 and voted to amend
the ordinance with the following language:
• This amendment shall apply only to existing guyed towers
0 A demolition permit shall be issued prior to a building permit being issued for the
replacement tower
• The demolition permit shall expire within 90 days and shall require the existing tower to
be demolished within 90 days from issuance of the building permit for the replacement
tower
• The new tower shall be constructed as close as technically feasible to the existing tower
• The replacement tower structure height may be increased 20' above the existing tower
structure height. The existing fawet: struettire height shAdi -FIR- t- t-h-A height of HR51
• The replacement tower structure may be increased in width to a maximum of 36" .
Existing guyed towers over 36" shall not be increased in width with a replacement tower.
Attached are minutes of the Planning Commission meeting, staff report, interpretation of the
current ordinance and current ordinance. Please call me if you have any questions or comments
regarding this proposed amendment.
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 23
AD 00-32.00: Administrative Item (Amendment to Ordinance #4178) Wireless
Communication Facilities to clarify Section 163.29(E)(2), exemptions regarding same type and
height of existing tower structures.
Odom: Item number four, if we can make it there, is AD 00-32.00 which is an
Administrative Item, Wireless Communication Facilities to clarify Section
163.29(E)(2), exemptions regarding same type and height of existing tower
structures. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve an
amendment to clarify the intent of section 163.29(E)(2) "Exemptions" regarding
the same type and height of existing tower structures by determining the
maximum distance a replacement tower can be built from an existing tower and
determining if replacement towers should be allowed to be increased in width.
Staff does not recommend changing the maximum height allowed for existing
towers or new towers. Staff does support allowing the same 20 foot increase in
height allowed for existing towers to apply for the replacement towers. Do you
want me to read the background or do you want to talk about it?
Conklin: Why don't I just briefly go over why I have brought this to the Commission this
evening. Several weeks ago Arkansas Western Gas approached the City of
Fayetteville with a request to replace their existing tower that is located up on
Mount Sequoyah. Our ordinance that was passed a year ago last August allows
for the replacement of existing towers of the same type and kind. What they
brought to me was a request to replace their tower with a tower that is 42 inches
wide. The current tower is 15 inches wide. It's a guy tower which means you
have the lattice type structure with guy wires supporting the tower. The other
issue was that they wanted to replace it 20 feet to the north of their existing tower.
In my opinion, I do not consider that to be the same type and height of tower
under that section of the ordinance. I could issue a permit if they want to
demolish their 15 inch tower and replace it with the exact same type and height in
the exact same location. I could issue that permit administratively without any
public hearing at the Planning Commission however, it's my opinion that when
you start having a different location, a different width, it's something different.
The reason why they can't demolish their current tower and build a new one is
that Arkansas Western Gas currently has their facilities on there including up to
seventeen other providers including Washington Regional Medical Center with
the hospital ambulance service and Washington County share this. Therefore,
demolishing the existing tower would discontinue the communication service
provided to the gas company and the other providers. In my opinion, it does seem
reasonable that if you are going to replace the tower, especially if you have
emergency providers on the tower, that you would have to build a new one next to
it and relocate the antenna and the equipment over there and then demolish the
S
I
f
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 24
existing one. Therefore, I agreed to bring this forth to the Planning Commission
for clarification. This is not a public hearing on whether or not Arkansas Western
Gas should build an additional tower up on Mount Sequoyah. The request is to
clarify that section. Should we allow replacement towers to be within a certain
distance of their existing tower structure and should we allow the width of the
actual tower structure to be increased. The reason for the increase is to be able to
co -locate additional providers and antennas on the tower. That is in support of the
purpose of the ordinance that was passed a year ago. A decision was made in
Fayetteville to encourage co -location versus numerous towers serving very few
providers. This is not a cell tower. There are no cell or PCS providers located on
this tower. It is primarily radio communications between emergency offices, the
hospital, Washington County, Arkansas Western Gas and others. It's a little
different from when we talk about cell towers or PCS towers. Typically, those are
monopole, meaning that it's just one single pole not supported by guy wires. In
agenda session on Thursday, there was a lot of discussion with regard to .
amending the ordinance and that impact that ordinance would have on all existing
tower structures. You requested that I speak with our City Attorney, I did talk
with the City Attorney this morning with regard to my interpretation of this
ordinance and what can be done to look at what Arkansas Western Gas is
proposing. Basically, I've already stated and it's in your staff report that I'm
uncomfortable approving anything administratively that has a different location
and a different width and if the Planning Commission would like to clarify that
section, I want something on paper within the ordinance that gives me the
authority to approve something administratively with regard to something like
what Arkansas Western Gas is proposing. Since then a lot of concern was
brought up also with regard to self support towers and towers that don't have guy
wires- Reference was made to the self supporting tower on Highway 45 that is
east of 265. In order to try to more narrowly look at what we are trying to attempt
with this amendment, I have handed out a memo that I drafted today with regard
to the type of towers and that is if we want to consider amending the ordinance to
only look at guy towers and also look at possibly limiting the maximum width the
tower may be. It could be three feet, four feet or two feet. I'm not sure what the
maximum width would be for an existing guy tower. One of the questions that
came up is why limit it to this type of tower? Typically, a guy tower the actual
tower structure is going to be more narrow than a self supporting structure
because they have the guy wires to support the tower. Typically, visually, there
are some arguments out there that they are more aesthetically pleasing, from up on
top of the hill you really can't see the guy wires, versus having a self supporting
tower that has to be much larger in size in order to have the height that is needed
to broadcast their signal. That's one thing that I have recommended this evening
is to limit it just to guy towers. If you are going to look at allowing increased
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 25
width to only allow that on a guy tower. Overall, I can understand Arkansas
Western Gas, their concerns, with trying to replace this tower. What they are
trying to do is to provide a tower that will have more co -location. They have
requested that they be allowed also to utilize the 20 foot extension on top of an
existing tower, that can be approved administratively. For example, they have
their existing 170 foot tower, they wanted to put a 20 foot extension on that tower
and put an additional antenna on that extension. That's administrative.
Therefore, I think they somewhat get punished by, I hate to make someone
actually put that extension on there and then come to my office to get their new
tower approved with 190 feet. I think that could be clarified too, with regard to
allowing that 20 foot extension on replacement towers also since they
automatically have that on their existing tower. Overall, the ordinance, in my
opinion, needs to be clarified. If the Planning Commission decides that the same
type and height means exactly the same type, a guy tower, with exactly the same
height they currently have and the exact location that is fine if you want to amend
the ordinance, that will definitely provide some clarification for me. Once again, I
have to look at these as an administrative approval on replacement and I believe it
is a replacement but there need to be some limits on the size of expansion and
width and how far from the original tower can it be located. If you have any
questions, I would be more than happy to answer them.
Odom: I know we are not talking about Arkansas Western Gas but this amendment would
directly affect that installation up there. Their proposal is to replace the existing
tower and they specifically state if we were allowed to build a 210 foot tower, a
few feet of extra height, we would be able to accommodate additional co -
locations. However, under the terms of what you are proposing, they would not
be allowed to build a 210 foot tower. The maximum they would be allowed to
build would be 190 feet which is what they currently have plus the administrative
20 feet, is that correct?
Conklin: 170 feet is the current tower and then they have some antenna up above that. The
ordinance allows the 20 foot extension including antenna height. For example if
you have a cell tower or panel up there you would have to actually build some
tower structure to get it 20 feet higher. I look at that as a 20 foot extension. No, I
am not recommending that they be allowed to build a 210 foot tower. I'm trying
to meet the intent and spirit of this ordinance when it talks about replacing the
same type and kind. If it's decided that that means exactly the same type, kind,
location and everything, and they want to choose to move it 20 feet to the north,
my interpretation of the ordinance that they would have to comply with all the
provisions in the newly enacted ordinance, which would require them a monopole
tower, maximum height of 150 feet tall with Planning Commission approval.
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 26
They have some concerns with regard to that requirement in the ordinance with
regard to the actual height with the antennas they place on the tower that they
cannot communicate through a solid monopole type structure and that's another
argument they made with regard to the need for a guy tower at this location.
Bunch: Before we entertain comments, how much of this are we able to accomplish as a
Planning Commission? Since this is a city ordinance, would we merely be
recommending an amendment to the ordinance to be sent to City Council to have
them vote on it.
Odom: Yes. As much as we would like to have the power to amend ordinances we don't
have that power. What we would do would be nothing more than a
recommendation for the City Council to take the final action on.
Bunch: In other words, in this recommendation that we have in our packet it should read
that "staff recommends Planning Commission recommend approval to the
Council" rather than us doing the approving. We would just merely be
recommending an amendment and a clarification to the Council.
Conklin: That is correct. Same as we do on a rezoning.
Odom: Any other preliminary questions before we begin with discussion? Okay.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Odom: Let me ask now if there are any members of the audience that would like to
address us on this issue, if you will please come forward at this time. Stand up
behind each other so we can sort of keep things moving along.
Smith: My name is Mike Smith and I'm with Smith Two -Way Radio. I'm here on behalf
of Arkansas Western Gas. It's real crucial that we get to replace this tower, there
is a lot of emergency services on this that is essential to the City of Fayetteville.
What I think that we are asking for is the twenty foot extension, making it 170
foot tower to 190 foot tower. You have to bear in mind that our antennas are on
top of our structure at this time. When you add that twenty feet to it, our antennas
will be on top of the 190 foot structure bringing it close to your 210 foot mark.
That's basically where we are at.
Odom: I need some clarification from staff on that. It's my understanding that if you
have a 170 tower and you are allowed a 20 foot extension that would bring the
height of your tower to 190 feet and I understand that you may have an antenna on
,
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 27
top of that.
Conklin: The height is measured from the top of the antenna so right now if they wanted to
extend their tower up and put some microwave dish on it or something, my
opinion is let them put a 20 foot extension from 170 feet up. Right now, they
have long antennas up above 170 feet. I would not include that as the existing
tower height. The tower height is 170 feet. They are allowed to go 20 feet up
more including the height of the top of the tallest antenna.
Smith: The problem with that is we don't gain anything. We are still at 170 feet.
Odom: I'm not really sure I understand. I tell everybody I'm 5'7" but in truth I have 2
inch tennis shoes on when I do that. Is that what we are talking about here. If we
give them 20 more feet, does the very tip top of the tallest antenna 190 feet?
Conklin: That's how the ordinance defines height. Once again, we are not talking about
Arkansas Western Gas. In a sense we are talking about Arkansas Western Gas
that's why we are here this evening but the ordinance, I'm trying to administer
this ordinance with regard to replacement of existing towers. Right now it says
"Existing towers may be replaced with the same type and kind." It also gives me
a provision in the ordinance to allow extension of height for existing towers. It
allows me to go up an additional 20 feet without bringing it back before the
Commission so anything above 20 feet is not allowed. If they want to build a new
tower, they can't build a tower 210 feet tall. The maximum height of towers is
150 feet. These are the ordinance requirements. Once again, I'm trying to look at
the intent of the ordinance. They have an existing tower. The City Council when
they past the ordinance stated that all existing towers can be replaced with the
same type and height. We are not really talking the same. I'm not recommending
that we change that. I'm recommending that we clarify it with regard to can they
be located adjacent to there, build it and for a two week period of time you are
going to have one tower side by side, two towers up on Mount Sequoyah and then
tear the old one down once equipment is moved and what's a reasonable
relocation distance for that and then also decide is it appropriate to increase it
from 15 inches wide to 42 inches wide? How much is too much? Is 6 feet too
wide? Is 30 feet too wide? There has to be a limit on the width of these towers.
I'm just trying to get some clarification and if you as a Commission believe that it
means you replace your tower with a 15 inch wide tower the exact same height,
that's fine. There's no need to change the ordinance because we can clarify that
and say it exactly means you have a 15 inch wide tower, you put a 15 inch wide
tower closest to that exact same location.
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 28
Smith: Our understanding about type was monopole, self supporting and guy. Type to us
is a guy structure versus a monopole or versus a self supporting structure.
Allen: Could you explain to us the necessity for the tower being that much taller. Is it
just non-functional at this height any longer? It won't suffice for the community
needs?
Smith: Well the tower is full at this time. It holds Washington County Firecom,
Washington Regional Medical Center and all of Arkansas Western Gas gas
pressure readings that come from all over the river valley back into here and all
locally right here. The tower is full and the tower won't hold another antenna on
it. What we are asking for is to give us 20 more feet so we can move those
antennas up to make more room for more antennas that will deal with the
Arkansas Western Gas more pressures that are required to come in, some of the
University plan issues that they need. That is a large hub right there for gas
control. Also, by moving the tower up 20 feet and being able to put those
antennas on top will increase the coverage for Washington Regional Medical
Center and Washington County Firecom. Right now all the ambulances like in
Madison County, soon Carroll County will be coming into Northwest Arkansas.
That happens every day. When those patients are sick in that ambulance, they call
the ER and the farther out we can reach them the better off we are. Adding 20
more feet to the tower will help that situation and also help Arkansas Western Gas
get their gas readings. I hope that clarifies that.
Allen: I understand the tower has been there about 50 years.
Smith: The tower has been there 40 plus years.
Allen: Would this extension, I know it's hard to project such things, but what period of
time do you see it sufficing if we allow it.
Smith: We want to build a tower for the next 40 years. Arkansas Western Gas doesn't
want to replace anything for a long period of time. We want to put the structure
there and leave it there for another 40 years. As the wireless world changes so
does Arkansas Western Gas needs change and so does EMS and Washington
County Firecom. Arkansas Western Gas has been gracious enough that they have
never charged those entities anything. They have let them on there for free just to
help serve the community. They way we read the ordinance is we could add
twenty feet to the tower. That means to us is that we add twenty feet to the tower
that pushes our antennas up. There was an issue about building a tower twenty
feet apart. That is just for construction needs. I have to keep that tower built until
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 29
I have the other one in place because I can't shut down the ER, Washington
County or the gas users. I have to move off twenty feet away from that tower to
build a new tower. We might be able to tighten that up a little bit and make it
fifteen feet but I can't build it so close that we will be getting into the foundation
of the original tower so I have to move it back a little bit.
Allen: Thank you.
Man: Just a point of clarification for me, I want to make sure this discussion, for me
anyway, doesn't turn into an approval or a denial of an Arkansas Western Gas
tower or an emergency tower, that we are looking at in terms of recommendations
for amendments for this particular thing. There is a part of me sitting here
thinking that an emergency, obviously the people who recommended the
ordinance felt the same way because there is already one exemption in here for
emergency towers under a lower height, I think it's important, at least for the
public, I'm not sure if today's thing is on the actual emergency tower, Arkansas
tower but more on the amendment comments. My thought is if we are going to
get into discussion on the reasons to have, in this particular case because of
emergency requirement or things of that nature, that we handle that specifically to
it's own item if it comes back to us. I don't know the protocol for it but my
decisions or the things that I would look at would be much brooder than this one
specific tower.
Hoffman: I agree with Commissioner Man and not trying to be real specific about it; I asked
the question in agenda session and I would like the gentleman that just spoke if he
would to please come back up and answer this question about relocation of some
of these antennas. In general, in looking at approving an amendment to an
ordinance, it seems to me that we should be considering all other options before
amending the ordinance. There seem to be different types of towers that have
different technologies. Under this type of technology, and I don't want to talk
about any specific user, could a two-way radio user a non -cell phone type user,
relocate onto another tower from this tower to avoid having to increase the
height?
Smith: Do you mean taking a user off this structure and putting it on another structure?
Hoffman: Yes. Moving it somewhere else. Is there any other structure available
technologically?
Smith: Not on Mount Sequoyah.
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 30
Hoffman: I think that's germane to the ordinance itself that if we are going to amend the
ordinance we need to know if the guy wire technology is the only one available
then we have to deal with it in this manner. So is your answer "No" you can't
relocate any of these types of users to other towers? There is several on Mount
Sequoyah but they are monopole or whatever.
Smith: There are a couple of monopoles on Mount Sequoyah, but the way the antennas
are set, you take a cell site - they have panels and they are all the way around the
tower. We use one antenna. On a guy tower, it can see through that instead of a
metal object that a signal hits. What it does, it creates a shadowed area. Instead
of using several antennas, we use one. That's the difference in technology. Is
there places on Mount Sequoyah that we can move the ER, Washington County
Firecom? Not at this time. No.
Hoffman: Thank you. That's all I needed to know. That to me establishes a need to re -look
at this ordinance in terms of replacement types of structures.
Stewart: My name is Roberta Stewart and I live on Rockwood Trail right across from the
gas field. I still did not understand about the size of this tower because as he said
the "same type tower" and if it is the same type tower but just a little bit taller, that
seems to be okay. I gather it's not from what I heard you say earlier.
Conklin: They currently have a 15 inch wide tower. One side is 15 inches wide.
Stewart: I understood the width.
Conklin: They want a 42 inch wide guy tower. It's 42 inches all the way from the ground
all the way to the top. It doesn't taper. Right now you have 15 inch wide tower
from the ground 170 feet up all the way up to the top. They want a tower that has
an increased width. I was sitting down in my office and trying to figure out, is
that the same type of tower? Then also the issue was that it's not going to be in
the exact same location which is another problem I had. I was sitting down in my
office going "Is this actually a replacement tower or is this a new tower?" That's
why we are here tonight, to look at the ordinance.
Stewart: Right. It seems to me it would be easy to... Is there a reason we couldn't see a
picture of this? There surely is a drawing or a picture of this tower that is
proposed, right? The gas company must have given it to you all or somebody.
Conklin: I believe the gas company has a photo of that.
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 31
Stewart: I want to be sure there are no dishes on the tower. Moving it up 20 feet, moves it
also higher as best I could tell by walking the road.
Conklin: According to Arkansas Western Gas it's about 37 or 38 inches higher, ground
elevation at 20 feet to the north.
Stewart: So it's
going
to
be higher in that respect already because the ground is going to
raise it
about
4
feet.
Conklin: That is correct.
Stewart: Who would object to Washington Regional using it or anybody else using it.
That's going against apple pie and mom right? I just want to be sure that if that is
what it's for, if they need to increase the height for that reason and service the
community in that way,. it's not for additional servers that's why they are trying to
raise the tower.
Conklin: The increase in width is to provide the capability for additional servers to go on
the tower.
Odom: Radio servers.
Conklin: Or cellular or PCS.
Stewart: Right but I'm
assuming this service
is for these emergencies or the things that
were listed
at
least, in the memo.
Conklin: No. Not necessarily. It would also include the potential for cellular or PCS
service.
Stewart: Does that mean that the tower could change and not be just a straight tower?
Conklin: You would have antenna raised like you see on cell towers with the panels. I
think they are about six feet long in three clusters around the tower. It would look
different.
Stewart: I don't
see how that is quite
the same type as
far as looking. Besides height and
width
which I can certainly
understand. The
ordinance needs to be addressed.
Prussel: I'm Ann
Prussel. Our family
lives at
the corner of Rockwood Trail and Ruth
Street. I
have put a memo in
the file,
which perhaps you all have read, expressing
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 32
some of my concerns. Some of the questions have been answered already but I do
have concerns about aesthetic both at the ground level, which probably this is not
the moment to go into that but I hope that you will consider it at some point down
the line when you deem it appropriate. I am concerned also because of the change
in the appearance but it sounds like the new replacement tower might have a
couple of different things that you are going to hang on it or that would be
possibly hang on it. You won't but they will. The microwave idea to me makes a
different looking tower. In the material that we received from you as adjacent
property owners, there was no mention of microwave dishes but there was a
memo in the file August 28, 2000.
Odom: You have to realize, even on the tower they have right now, they could strip all of
the antennas off of the monopole structure itself and put those type antennas up
there by right. There would be nothing to prevent them from doing that.
Conklin: We've never regulated the aesthetics of the actual antenna that go on the tower
just the actual type of tower.
Prussel: That cannot be an issue is what you are telling me?
Conklin: Right.
Prussel: I just think of Southwestern Bell thing a few blocks away that is more of an
eyesore and I guess that was the kind of thing I was hoping not to see.
Odom: I think that's more of a monopole. Is that a monopole out there for Southwestern
Bell?
Conklin: I think it's a self supporting, real wide tower that you are talking about.
Prussel: Yes. I understand that that's not their physical tower that they are talking about
but the thing that hangs on it is kind of awful too. That's what I'm talking about.
Also, I have spoken with Mr. John Kent of the gas company and he mentioned to
me, something that I have not heard discussed here yet, that there would be a
plateau at the top of the tower that would enable them at some future date to add
more antenna from the plateau upwards and my question was, with what you are
discussing here, would they have to come back to you?
Odom: Yes. This amendment would allow them to build no more than a 190 foot
structure at the very tip of the tallest antenna. They could not build anything taller
than that.
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 33
Prussel: Have you heard of this plateau word before?
Odom: Yes. On other antennas and stuff and there is always a plateau on the top.
Conklin: They typically try to design, especially the monopoles, with the ability to bolt on
an extension so you don't have to go up there and reconstruct it. I'm not sure
whether or not they build that in. Typically they do on the very top of the
antenna.
Prussel: Is it appropriate to discuss the aesthetics of the area?
Odom: Not really because all we are talking about right now is the amendment to the
ordinance.
Prussel: Might there be a time?
Odom: If in. fact this ordinance is passed... Even as it is today... Tim, let's just say that
they are not asking to replace that they are just wanting to add that additional
twenty feet, there is no additional requirement for additional screening or anything
at that time as it is currently, is that correct?
Conklin: That is somewhat correct. I apologize.
Odom: Are you a lawyer Tim?
Conklin: Nice answer huh? For all the cell companies and PCS companies, I have to
answer it that way because if you look at Mount Sequoyah and our water tank, I
required them to put a six foot high wood board fence on most of the sites in
town. When I've approved co -location, I have requested and gotten them to do
improvements for the aesthetics.
Prussel: Both Mr. Kent of the gas company and also Tom Sager with the gas company
have indicated to us that they are willing to consider that but I was hoping to get a
firmer commitment.
Odom: We would appreciate your efforts to continue in your past conduct on that.
Prussel: Okay. Thank you very much.
Malane: My
name is Michael Malane. I live at 1510
Anson which is
below the
tower on
the
back side of Sequoyah. As I understand
the issue before
you today
is whether
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 34
or not what they are asking to do falls within the ordinance and if it does fall
within the ordinance then they need not come to you for permission to do
anything nor therefore do any of the neighbors have any input. With that view in
mind I would like to suggest from what they have said the purpose here is to give
them a bigger more capable tower that will allow them to do more things
primarily, I assume, for their own economic benefit. He did say that Arkansas
Western Gas wants to add capability to this tower. The rest that they provide to
others I suspect they would not be incurring the cost of doing this tower solely to
reach out to Madison County for an ambulance ten minutes earlier than they can
currently. They are not replacing an existing capability. They want a bigger
tower to do more and they are trying to use this ordinance to avoid the necessary
or what would otherwise be, I assume, appearances before this Board and subject
themselves to public comments about the other issues that surround the use. I
would suggest to you that going from 15 to 42 inches is not the same type of
tower. That's approaching a 300% increase in the width of the tower. Giving
yourself that much bigger a tower, I assume, gives you that much stronger a tower
which would allow you to hang that much more from the top which they can now
hang from the top whatever the structure will bear. If they get a bigger group up
• there, they can hang a lot more from that tower which will again have a significant
impact on the neighbors. They say "type to us is type of structure" and if I were
an engineer that was charged with designing and erecting these things, I might
feel the same way but I'm not, I'm a citizen who looks at it often and frequently.
To us type is the aesthetic impact that it has upon the neighborhood as well as the
type of structure. I would suggest that the sense of the ordinance must take the
citizens views into account every bit as much as the engineers views and that this
clearly is not to replace an existing structure, it is to put up a bigger and better
structure for more and more use and therefore it clearly does not fall within the
existing ordinance. I would caution this Commission against suggesting that the
ordinance be improved to allow that type of increase in use and increase in
aesthetic impact as an automatic right for people who own such towers. Thank
you.
Allen: I wondered whether or not the neighbors, when you said the towers significant
impact upon the neighborhood are you talking about solely aesthetic or does it
have some other negative impact?
Malane: As long as it stays vertical the impact is aesthetic.
Hoffman: I have a question too.
Odom: Michael, apparently we want to grill you pretty hard so hang on a second.
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 35
Hoffman: I just also wanted to know on the same vein we have had request for newer towers
to be painted different colors, is that something that you would like? You have
not mentioned that.
Malane: As I understand all of those aesthetic issues were ruled basically out of order in
today's hearing. I came prepared to talk about a number of issues.
Odom: If somebody asks you about it, you can talk about it, in my opinion.
Malane: There are a number of issues that include the type of security fencing that they
use, the landscaping, the location of the fencing and I assume the paint but I quite
frankly have not talked to any of my neighbors about the color.
Hoffman: Color choices? The reason I asked that is because I have been making up a
laundry list of items that might possibly be included in a replacement ordinance in
order to enable our local businesses to keep up with technology and yet keep the
views of the neighborhood in tact.
Malane: Commissioner Hoffman, from our standpoint - at least from my standpoint if this
Commission takes the position that type means aesthetic impact as well as
structural type then we will talk about the details later.
Hoffman: Thank you sir.
Sypert: My name is Curt Sypert, I represent Central EMS. 1 have worked at Central EMS
for 15 years and we have talked off of Mount Sequoyah tower to the hospital and
there are dead zones in the county and areas around Fayetteville. The City of
Fayetteville is pretty well covered like it is now. Any consideration that could be
given to the elevation of the tower for communications with the hospital, I feel
that would enhance communications particularly our in reaches of the county.
Run volume has increased as the population has increased. There is no hospital
right now in Madison County. My colleagues over there are having to transport
long distances and they have to contact physicians at Washington Regional as
their receiving hospital. That would enhance their communications capabilities as
well. Any consideration to the elevation to the antennas that we could have there
and I understand that that would involve potentially in increase in the base of the
tower to support that elevation.
Wilson: My name is Brian Wilson. I work at Washington Regional Emergency Room as
an Assistant Director. One of the things that this gentleman spoke about was
reaching an ambulance ten minutes sooner in Madison County. That is a very
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 36
important issue. There is no hospital in Madison County now. We are now their
medical control at Washington Regional. We are in a pilot program with Madison
County EMS, Central EMS to deliver the drugs that you hear so much about out
actually in the field and if we can get those drugs in those people that much
sooner, which is how we would help. There is certainly a benefit there.
Luther: My name is John Luther. I am the Washington County 911 Coordinator. I want
to go on the record and thank the gas company for allowing the rural fire
departments to use this facility for communications. I have been in the business
15 years, over half my life and I have used it for every call that I have gotten.
When I started in the business as a volunteer fireman, that's where my signal
came from. If they called us out on a fire, medical run or problem with car wreck,
someone having a medical condition, that information came from Sequoyah. Her
question about the relocation and possibility of moving this to another tower, one
concern that comes in there is cost. Is someone going to charge us for this? The
gas company has given us this free space all this time and all the community has
benefitted. If I have to encourage anything, I would definitely encourage you
guys to allow them to increase the height. We don't ever back up when we do
something. We widen our streets, we add sidewalks, we don't keep things at the
status quo. Last night we were talking, this gentleman mentioned his neighbors, I.
had a neighbor out in the community and he walked in on his neighbor and the
gentleman was on the floor, he dialed 911 and in a matter of minutes they called
me on this pager that I have carried for so long, we rushed to his house and he's
on the fourth floor of the hospital now. He had a heart attack. We went in
because of the proximity and we helped the'man live. If that tower wasn't there,
that would not be possible. He would not be here today. If I have to recommend
anything, I have to say that we need to look at the needs of the community and we
need to see what will benefit the people the most. I know eyesore condition is a
big fact. They have to be considered but we need to take the welfare of the people
sometimes over what is appealing to us. That's all I've got.
Odom: Anyone else like to address us on this issue before we close the floor to public
discussion?
Dangeau: My name is Jeff Dangeau and I'm general counsel for Arkansas Western Gas and
I would like to express my opinion. I believe you can do what we are asking you
to do without amending the ordinance. Your talking about the issue seems to be
moving from point A to point B which is 20 feet and then a different width of
tower. The ordinance says you can replace existing tower with the same type of
tower, it doesn't mention width or change in location. What we have here is a big
site that is approximately two acres so it's not like you are really encroaching on
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 37
someone else's space we are just moving over 20 feet. There is a time element
involved in that we believe that due to the aging of the tower has become
important to replace this tower soon, preferably before winter and before the ice
storms hit. Otherwise, we may have to consider removing some of the antennas
that are currently there. There is a time issue with waiting for the ordinance to be
amended. If you think what we are doing is permissible under the ordinance but it
still needs clarification, you could allow us to go ahead with this move and still
send it up to City Council for amendment.
Odom: Jeff, at this point in time, I don't think that we have the authority to do that. We
have an administrator who has made ajudgment call on his interpretation of an
ordinance and feels as though what you are wanting to do did not meet that
ordinance. It's my understanding that we are not here tonight hearing an appeal
of his decision that it did not meet the ordinance. It's my understanding that we
are here tonight only to discuss a proposal to amend an ordinance to allow you to
do what you are wanting to do. I don't believe that we have the authority. I think
you may, correct me if I'm wrong Tim, did they have the right to appeal your
interpretation of the ordinance?
Conklin: Yes they do and that goes to the Board of Adjustment. Anyone can appeal my
decision and in the zoning regulations. It goes to the Board of Adjustment. Ira
Canny with Arkansas Western Gas did approach me on this. Once again, I
understand Arkansas Western Gas, their concerns with what they are trying to do
and I think the ordinance needs to be clarified. I already made my decision. In
other words, I don't think it's the same type and height tower. Height is very
clear in that replacement section of existing tower, that part of the ordinance. You
are asking for something different. That's why I agreed. I don't remember ever
doing this on a ordinance like this but I agreed to ask staff to bring this forward to
the Planning Commission and get your input and then take it to ordinance review
and City Council for clarification. I think it's difficult to replace a tower in the
exact same location unless you do require them to demolish it and disrupt the
service. I think there should be some, as I stated earlier with my recommendation,
there should be some reasonable distance from the existing tower that you allow
and there should be some reasonable increase in width to encourage co -location.
However, the Planning Commission can't change my interpretation. I would be
more than welcome to meet with you and get you the application to appeal my
decision and I believe the meeting in October you have probably passed the public
notification deadline on that but I would be more than happy to set up a special
meeting and get them convened and see if they disagree with my interpretation.
Dangeau: So the bottom line is, Mr. Conklin, if it looks like we need a speedier resolution
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 38
than the amendment we could go with you to the Board of Adjustment.
Conklin: You can have seven members appointed by the City Council overturn my
interpretation of the ordinance.
Dangeau: Thank you
Odom: That's even better, it goes in front of somebody else and not us. We do have
tonight before us the proposal to forward to the City Council or the appropriate
committee this administrative item, the amendment to the ordinance. Does
anyone else wish to address us on this issue? I'm going to close the floor to
public discussion.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Odom: I'll bring it back to the Planning Commission for questions and comments of the
staff.
Hoffman: I have two, I have one question and a possible motion. Tim, based on your
statements, I take it it's not possible to take this one tower and deal with it as a
Conditional Use in some way away from the ordinance?
Conklin: No. I believe it's under our exemption, what they are proposing as a new tower.
It does not meet our ordinance requirements.
Hoffman: In trying to balance the public emergency needs with the neighborhoods aesthetic
concerns I'm going to propose a amended ordinance be forwarded to City Council
or Board of Adjustment to whomever this is appealed.
Conklin: It's not an appeal. The Planning Commission needs to decide how to clarify the
ordinance. I've already made my decision on what I think it states and how I
should apply it here at the City. If you think it needs to be clarified, I can bring
those amendments to City Council. If Arkansas Western Gas, which they stated
this evening they believe the ordinance allows the tower to go from 15 inches to
42 and be located 20 feet from the existing tower, that's allowed under this
ordinance, they can appeal my interpretation to the Board of Adjustment.
MOTION:
Hoffman: I think that in approving that you do
not have the
power to
approve something like
that. That is not a replacement, it's a completely
different
tower. With that in
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 39
mind, I'm going to make the motion that your guidelines, your clarification letter
dated September 25, 2000, is acceptable with the following additions: demolition
permit for the existing tower be issued prior to a building permit for a new tower
with a 90 day expiration attached to the demolition permit so that two towers
cannot remain on the same site for any length of time. Again, let me reiterate, this
applies to a guy tower only. That the new tower be placed as close to the existing
tower as is technically feasible. Any site alterations comply with the tree
preservation and screening requirements of the city ordinances. That the 20 foot
height addition stands. Again, let me reiterate the 36 foot maximum width
condition applies which was also stated in your memo. That is my motion.
Bunch: 36 foot?
Hoffman: 36 inch, sorry.
Odom: hr other words, it can't increase more than 36 additional inches?
Hoffman: Yes. Do you want me to go over it again? Okay. Demolition permit be issued
prior to issuance of a building permit for the new tower. Demolition permit will
carry a 90 day expiration period so that the existing tower must be demolished
within 90 days of the issuance of the demolition permit. That this applies to guy
towers only. That the new tower be constructed as close as technically feasible to
the existing tower. That the newly constructed tower comply with the tree
preservation and screening requirements already contained in our ordinances.
That the 20 foot additional height applies and that the 36 inch maximum width
dimension applies.
Odom: Staff, did you have any comments on those changes?
Conklin: No. That's fine. I think I got them all. It will be on record in the minutes.
Hoffman: Is it possible for you to easily enforce this by staff should it be put into ordinance
form?
Conklin: Yes. It's going to provide clarification of how large a replacement tower can be
and how far from the existing tower it can be located and how long the two towers
can stand before the old one has to be demolished. That's why I brought this
forward is as staff I need clarification on these issues and I think you clarified the
ordinance with that amendment.
Hoffman: That is my motion.
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 40
Bunch: Before we proceed with this motion, the question I have, what is the driving force
to address that at this time since a path has been chosen or lined out for the
applicant to pursue for their specific tower? What we are doing here is proposing
an recommendation for something that is going to be a fairly long term process.
My question is, do.we need to act swiftly at this time and not deliberate a little bit
before we make a motion? Maybe we need to consider broaden the scope and
consider some other things like Fayetteville Police Department currently having
shadows in their coverage and they are wanting to relocate from Robinson
Mountain to Mount Sequoyah. Staff might tell me where they are planning on
relocating.
Conklin: Sure. We actually have met with the Police Department and I shared with them
the information from Arkansas Western Gas and their consultant did take a look at
this site. This site is still number two. Our water tank on Mount Sequoyah is the
preferred site and that's where they plan to relocate.
Bunch: I agree with Commissioner Hoffman that we need to make strides in resolving this
but my question is do we need to move that expeditiously. Could we send this
back to Subdivision Committee or table it until later.
Odom: I don't think Subdivision Committee is the proper place for ordinance review.
Hoffman: These are just my ideas to send on to whomever else wants to hear them.
Odom: You have to remember this is going to be going forward to a committee.
Bunch: Right. It will go to an ordinance review committee.
Odom: Before it even goes to the City Council. There will certainly be opportunity for a
lot more review before then.
Shackelford: Mr. Chairman?
Odom: Just a second. Commissioner Bunch are you done?
Bunch: For now.
Shackelford: I've got two things, first of all the way that I'm viewing this is basically we have
been asked by Tim to address this and try to close up some ambiguities that are in
this. There is some areas that weren't defined very well in the original ordinance
and I think that we are not moving too quickly on this. I think we are just
I
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 41
recommending some guidelines on how we are going to look at this going forward
because I think it will probably come up again. Even though we do have this
specific problem to possibly address with the Board of Adjustment issues, I still
think that we are adding some definition in some areas on an ordinance that needs
some issues. I've also got a question for Tim. We talked about addressing the 20
foot extension, in my eyes and I apologize if I'm beating a dead horse here but
there are three ways to measure height. You have the tower height, you have the
tower plus antenna height and you've got elevation height. Do we need to define,
in the ordinance, how it's going to be measured so that we can compare apples to
apples as far as the 20 foot extension?
Conklin: With regard to height, it's defined as "the vertical distance measured from the
mean elevation of the finished grade to the highest point of the tower or other
structure, even if said highest point is an antenna array." Once again, I'm charged
to make interpretations, I would make an interpretation that it's from the ground
elevation at the base of the tower to the very top of the tower including antenna
height, even at the new location which is 38 inches higher. That is howl would
measure height of the tower.
Hoffman: Because this is an ordinance amendment and not being specific to the people on
the tower, I didn't want to propose any change to the height other than what's
already permitted as the 20 feet. If they choose to go to the Board of Adjustment
and make the case for the necessity for the additional coverage area, I think that
that's a more proper forum than trying to cover that in this ordinance. I would
rather not make sweeping changes for this one group but yet leave the door open
to clarify the ordinance and then you have the Board of Adjustment to present the
case in more detail.
Odom: Before we have any further discussion on the underlying motion, I would like to
know if we have a second from anybody? I'll second the motion.
Hoffman: Thank you.
Shackelford: Just to clarify my point, I'm not trying to make any changes to the ordinance for
this specific tower. I guess I'm looking at it, assume that you have a 180 foot
tower on a piece of property that you have another 40 foot of elevation that you
can move the tower, is your definition Tim, that you can make a 200 foot tower
and move it 20, 30 or 40 feet elevation on up the property within the ordinance
and change the overall height of the tower by more than the 20 feet that's defined
in the ordinance?
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 42
Conklin: I'm going to measure the height of the tower from the ground elevations to the top
of the antenna height.
Odom: But as it stands now, he's not going to allow that at all because under his
interpretation it's not moving from the spot that it's on. I think that that
Commissioner Hoffman's motion sort of addresses that by requiring them to be as
close as technically feasible. They may get a few extra inches but they are not
going to be able to go to the very tip top of their property.
Shackelford: Okay. Thank you
Odom: Do we have any further discussion? Commissioner Bunch?
Bunch: One of the questions I have, I know we have tried to limit this to narrow the guy
lattice type towers but if we are opening a can of worms or looking at amending
an ordinance rather than treating a specific deal here, towers can be shored up and
can be enlarged and I just wondered if we could ask for the expertise from the
tower people here and also Tim as staff what if the request were to put a
strengthened based on this tower up so many feet? Maybe come up so many feet
at 36 inches, 42 or whatever, taper in and then have the existing tower and then
put a 20 foot section on top of it that that would be a retro fitting of an existing
tower. If we are looking at re -writing an ordinance and suggestions on re -writing
the ordinance then we need to broaden our scope and consider these types of
things. One of the questions I have is, how would you view that if the applicant
came with a suggestion to maybe increase the number of guy wires and to
strengthen or shore up the mast, how would you interpret that under the existing?
Conklin: I get 100 questions a day. There is so many different scenarios. If it's for a safety
reason, we need to put another guy wire on it, I probably would let them put
another guy wire on it because it's an existing tower and they need to do it for
safety reasons. If they are building another structure that is 20 feet wide, 40 feet
high, no, I don't think that's the same type of tower. I think that's different. I
would say no to that. With these ordinances, you are exactly right, I try to think
of as many different scenarios as possible. With regard to Arkansas Western Gas,
on that tower, the result of this ordinance was not designed because of the towers
like Arkansas Western Gas, it was the number of cellular, PCS towers that were
occurring in Fayetteville. We do now have an ordinance that regulates all types of
towers and we did make a decision that we all want monopole type towers. No
more guy towers, no more self support towers. Now we have a situation where
they are trying to replace it and I'm not sure if I could have ever envisioned that it
was going to be 15 inches to 42 and how we could have clarified the ordinance a
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 43
year ago on that. It's come up now and I think that's why we make amendments
to our ordinances. When we find issues, we need to clarify these issues and take
care of it.
Mari: I guess my comments on this are that, first of all there was a committee that was
put together to write this ordinance. It took a lot of input to begin with of which
no Planning Commissioner was a part of that committee. Rather than me sitting
here trying to determine definition to what they meant when they talked about
existing towers, type and height it would be my recommendation that we send this
thing either back to the committee who wrote it and ask for clarification and to
say that we suggest you look further not only existing tower or replacement tower
but also on emergency tower requirements if there is going to be anything
different than those because obviously you addressed it for 35 foot or lower
towers. As opposed to giving any specific recommendations, particularly since no
one on this Commission was a member of the committee. I personally would like
to see that and that's why I won't support the motion because I'm not sure we are
the place that should be addressing this specifically.
Odom: Typically, Commissioner, when the staff wants to amend an ordinance they sort
of start out here or where they think is the best place to start so they can get as
much comment as they can. Even though you may not support the motion, your
comment is in the record and that helps.
Man: I appreciate that: I'm just saying I'm not sure that we are the best place.
Bunch: Admittedly when this ordinance that we have before us came into existence, it
was done quickly because of the proliferation of cell towers and the considerable
back lash because of that. However, at that time this Commission was solicited
by the Planning office. We were given copies of proposed ordinances and I can
remember sitting in Tim's office going over some of the proposals with him at his
request. We may not have served on the committee but our input had been
requested because we were given copies of existing and proposed ordinances and
our opinions were solicited. I will be the first to admit I did not foresee this
situation and it's impossible to write an ordinance without very lengthy research
to cover all contingencies and again I'll admit I looked at the ordinance and
various proposals and I did not foresee this contingency. We are still faced with
the problem and we have a possible path for Arkansas Western Gas and their
other users to put a tower up that will better serve our community and we also
have a responsibility to see what we can do to help improve the situation and I'm
at a loss as to exactly how to solicit our input. I question if a motion at this time
would be appropriate if maybe we can get some information from Planning and
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 44
then we could put our input and return that information to Planning and then
maybe bring it back to this Commission for a unified proposal. I think right now
to try to come up with a proposal that we'll get mired down in technicalities and
that sort of thing but I think if we have a little bit of time to reflect on it and with a
little bit of back-up information and to submit that to the Planning office so that
they can coordinate our thoughts and then bring it back to us then we can as a
Commission can make a more sensible and unified recommendation to the
ordinance review committee and the City Council.
Odom: Is that a motion for table.
Bunch: I can make it that. We have a motion on the floor that has been seconded.
Odom: A motion for table takes precedence over any underlying motion.
MOTION:
Bunch: I will move to table the motion on the floor.
Odom: Do we have a second?
Man: I'll second that.
Odom: We have a motion and second to table this item. Is there any discussion on the
motion to table?
Marr: Just to make it clear, I am certainly not interested in giving the opinion that I don't
care or that I don't want to resolve the issue. My point is to try to get clarification
from those individuals who wrote this ordinance to begin with. If I am to
interpret this and ask for clarification, I think it is my point to talk about exactly
what's in here which is, existing towers may be replaced with the same type and
height. Am Ito know that they considered width, am Ito know that they
considered replacement or am Ito clarify type and height and what those
requirements would be. That was the reason for my comments. I certainly think
that we should address it and I just wanted that in record. I don't think that we
have enough information to do that today which is why I support tabling it.
Odom: Any further discussion on the motion to table?
Hoffman: I'm so fond of my own motion I want to explain why I won't be in favor of
tabling it. It seems to me that staff has asked us to send this in a particular
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 45
direction. Cell towers, communications towers, technology is moving at a rapid
rate whether or not this tower is the topic of discussion today, it's going to be
another one tomorrow. I think that we will be sending, I'm willing to hear if
anybody has any additional items they would like to add to the laundry list, I think
we will just be sending a clarification to the City Council to say "Okay, here is
our replacement and here is our first replacement tower and here is the direction
that seems to be reasonable." The citizens will again have a chance to provide
input at that level. There will be public hearings. The City Council has three
readings of this so I'm not inclined to table just because I think we can study,
study, study to death. That's my reason for wanting to go forward.
Conklin: Mr. Chairman? I just want some clarification if you do table, what are you
expecting from staff to provide to the Commission?
Odom: I'll let Don work that out with you later. Tim, do you feel as though you would
be able to provide us with any additional information which would allow us to
come to any different conclusion than we have before us on the underlying
motion? Just say "No" Tim. Just say "No."
Conklin: I really don't think so. The only thing I can think of I can give you a list of the
existing guy towers in Fayetteville. Like on Dinsmore Trail and there is some at
the radio station over on Holly Street, there is some a.m. radio stations off of
Highway 112. I'm not sure. Once again, with regard to the committee, I
participated as staff when this ordinance was drafted and we talked about existing
towers. I don't believe there was any discussion with these issues that I have
brought before this Commission tonight. Can they replace that 20 feet away from
it or can it go from 15 inches to 42 inches? I'm not sure if members of that
committee will be able to give me any insight of what they thought the intent of
that section was. Once again, I'm just looking for clarification. If the
Commission needs more time and you need more information, let me know and I
will be happy to provide it.
Odom: Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion to table? Seeing none will you
call the roll.
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call the motion to table AD 00-32.00 fails on a vote of 2-6-0 with Commissioner
Bunch and Commissioner Marr voting "yes".
Odom: The motion to table fails. Any further discussion on the underlying motion? Will
Planning Commission
September 25, 2000
Page 46
you call the roll?
ROLL CALL:
Upon roll call AD 00-32.00 passes on a vote of 6-2-0 with Commissioner Bunch and
Commissioner Marr voting "no".
Odom: Staff do we have further items before us tonight?
Conklin: There are no additional items. I would like to remind you of a Planning
Commission training workshop coming up November 17, 2000. That will be here
• in Fayetteville. The City will pick up the cost of that training. I encourage those
who did not attend last year's training to attend this year's training. You can get
that information to Sheri and she will do the travel request and take care of that.
Also, there is a upcoming conference sponsored by the Historic Preservation
Alliance of Arkansas, October 11 through 14, 2000. I handed that out for your
information and if you need any more information just let me know.
Odom: Thank you Tim. We are adjourned.
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (501) 575-8264
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Conklin, City Planner
DATE: September 25, 2000
AD 00-32.00: Administrative Item (Amendment to Ordinance # 4178) Wireless
Communication Facilities to clarify Section 163.29(E)(3) "Exemptions" regarding same type and
height of existing tower structures.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve an amendment to clarify the intent of
Section 163.29(E)(3) "Exemptions" regarding same type and height of existing tower structures
by determining a maximum distance a replacement tower can be built from an existing tower and
determining if replacement towers should be allowed to be increased in width. Staff does not
recommend changing the maximum height allowed for existing towers or new towers. Staff does
support allowing the same 20increase in height allowed for existing towers to apply for
replacement towers.
BACKGROUND
Arkansas Western Gas currently owns a 170' tall, 24" wide guyed tower with 18.5' high antennas
located on Mt. Sequoyah at the southwest comer of Rockwood Trail and Ruth Ave. Several
weeks ago they contacted the Planning Division with a request to replace their existing tower
with a 210' tall tower that is 42" wide. Under Section 163.29(E)(3) they are allowed to replace
the same type and height of tower. This section doesn't address the issue of a different location
or width. Staff has brought this issue to the Planning Commission to clarify the ordinance on
whether this should be considered a "new" tower and not a replacement tower. If classified as a
new tower it would be limited to a 150' tall monopole and would require conditional use
approval.
HEIGHT
The current ordinance would allow the existing tower to be increased 20' in height from 170' to
190' to support additional antennas. Staff is in support of allowing the new tower to have the
same opportunity to be increased in height as the existing tower under the current ordinance.
The maximum height would be 190' which includes the height of any antennas.
163.29(C) Locating on Existing Towers. Installation of an antenna on an existing tower of any height,
and the placement of additional buildings or other supporting equipment used in connection with such
additional antenna, so long as the proposed additions would add no more than twenty feet (20) to the
original height of the existing tower. The addition or modification, to the extent possible, should be
designed to minimize visibility.
WIDTH
The existing tower is 24" in width. The proposed tower is 42" in width. The request for
additional width is to be able to co -locate additional antennas. Staff is not opposed to having
some maximum limit on the increase in width to encourage co -location as stated in the purpose
of the ordinance. There is not a maximum width in the ordinance for new monopole towers.
LOCATION
The applicant proposes to replace the existing tower 20north of the existing tower. The existing
tower would not be taken down until the antennas are relocated to the new tower in order to
minimize the disruption of service for Arkansas Western Gas and others currently on the tower.
Staff is not opposed to having some maximum distance from the existing tower to allow
replacement and avoid disruption of service. . .
TYPE
The current tower is a guyed tower. The proposed replacement tower is a guyed tower. If the
proposed tower is classified as a replacement for the existing tower, a guyed tower would be
allowed. If the proposed tower is classified a new wireless communication tower, the ordinance
only allows for monopole towers with a maximum height of 150'.
163.29(E)(3) Existing Towers. All existing towers may be replaced with the same type and height of
tower structure as currently exists.
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYE'ITEVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone:
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE 501-575-8264
Arkansas Western Gas Co. approached the City Planning Division with a proposal to replace the
existing wireless communication facility (tower) located on Mt. Sequoyah at the southwest
comer of Rockwood Trail and Ruth Ave. The current facility is a 15" wide guyed tower which is
170' tall with 18.5' antennae on top. The replacement facility is proposed to be a 42" wide guyed
tower which is 210' tall and is located approximately 20' from the current structure.
The following is the interpretation of Ordinance No. 4178 "Wireless Communications Facilities"
with regard to replacement of existing towers.
§163.29 (E) Exemptions.
3. Existing Towers. All existing towers may be replaced with the same type and height of
tower structure as currently exists.
What is a same type and height of tower structure?
Same is
defined in
Webster 's New World Dictionary as " 1.
being the very one;
identical
2. alike in
kind, quality, amount, etc.
I interpret "same" to mean identical to what currently exists. The applicant is
proposing a tower in a different location which is wider and taller.
Tyne is defined by the existing construction of the tower structure which can be
one of three types: self supporting, guyed, or monopole. This tower structure is a
guyed tower structure. The applicant is proposing a guyed tower.
Height of tower structure is interpreted as the actual existing tower structure
height and doesn't include the height of existing antennas. I believe the word
"structure" clearly means the actual tower structure and does not include existing
antennae higher than the structure as part of the "tower structure". Furthermore,
its my opinion that antennae are something you attach to a structure and are not
part of the structure.
§163.29 (C) Co -location. Applicants for co -location shall meet the following requirements:
1. b. Locating on Existing Towers. Installation of an antenna on an existing tower of any
height, and the placement of additional buildings or other supporting equipment used in
connection with such additional antenna, so long as the proposed additions would add no
more than twenty feet (20') of height to the original height of the tower. The addition or
modification, to the extent possible, should be designed to minimize visibility.
What is
an allowable
increase in height for existing
towers when adding antennae and is this
section
applicable for
replacement towers?
The ordinance allows for an antenna to be added on an existing tower of any height so long as
the proposed additions would add no more than 20of height to the original height of the tower.
In order to add cellular or PCS antennas, the tower structure has to be increased to allow for
adequate separation which I classify as a proposed addition to the tower structure itself. The
ordinance is referring to extending antennas and not tower height.
Arkansas Western Gas has requested that this section apply for replacement towers. The current
Arkansas Western Gas tower is 170 feet tall with 18.5' antennas on top. I do not agree with the
argument that the existing tower height should be considered to be 188.5 feet by combining the
height of the tower structure and the height of the existing antennas. Under the exemptions
section, the ordinance refers to the height of tower structure and not the combined height of the
tower and antennae.
Furthermore, the argument that the definition of "height" includes the height of the antennas and
therefore the tower should be considered 188.5' doesn't meet my interpretation of a replacement
tower structure. If the existing tower is considered 188.5 feet tall and a 20 foot antenna is
allowed to be installed on top, it would not be feasible to attach this antenna without increasing
the tower height.
Overall, a 170' tower with 18.5' of antennae exists which is allowed to have a 20' increase in
height by placing additional antennas on top. The ordinance doesn't allow the tower structure to
be increased by 20 feet in height in order to then add additional height above the 20 foot limit
with antennas. This section refers to only adding antennas and not tower structure height.
ORDINANCE NO. 4178
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CRITERIA TO ASSESS AND
REDUCE VISUAL AND LAND USE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE DEVELOPMENT OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS.
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville desires to provide a range of locations for wireless
communications facilities in all zones unless prevented by law; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville wishes to minimize the adverse visual impacts of towers and
antennas by encouraging antenna location on existing structures, including utility poles, signs, water towers,
buildings, and other wireless communications facilities where feasible; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville encourages co -location and site sharing of new and existing
wireless communications facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville wishes to facilitate the use of public property and structures for
wireless communications facilities; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville desires to enhance the ability of providers of telecommunications services to provide such services to the community quickly, effectively and efficiently; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Fayetteville wishes to maintain FCC compliance (in the event there is a
conflict between these regulations and FCC or FAA regulations, the latter regulations shall govern).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1 Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to protect the health, safety and welfare
of the community by establishing criteria to assess and reduce visual and land use impacts associated with the
development of wireless communications facilities.
Section 2_ Conditional Use Approval Required in all Zoning Districts.
A. That Chapter 161, Zoning Regulations, § 161.03, District A-1, Agricultural,
B.1., Permitted Uses, Unit 3, Public Protection and Utility Facilities; § 161.17, District I-1,
Heavy Conmrercial and Light Industrial, B.1., Pcsmitted Uses, Unit 3, Public Protection and
Utility Facilities; and §161.18,1-2, General Industrial, B.1. Permitted Uses, Unit 3, Public
Protection and Utility Facilities, of the Code of Fayetteville, are hereby deleted.
B. That Chapter 16I, Zoning Regulations, of the Code of Fayetteville, is hereby
amended to add Unit 3, Public Protection and Utility Facilities to Sections 161.03-161.20,
Subsections B2., Uses Permissible on Appeal to the Planning Commission.
Section 3. Definitions. That Chapter 151, Definitions, of the Code of Fayetteville, is hereby
amended to add the following:
Act: The Communications Act of 1934, as it has been amended from time to time,
including the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and shall include any future amendments.
thereto.
Alternative Tower Structure: Man-made trees, clock towers, bell steeples, light
poles, and similar alternative -design mounting structures that camouflage or conceal the
presence of antennas or towers and are built for the express purpose of serving as a tower
or for locating antennas.
Page 2
Ordinance No. 4178
Antenna: Any structure or device used to collect or radiate electromagnetic waves,
including both directional antennas, such as panels, microwave dishes and satellite dishes
and omnidirectional antennas, such as whips but not including satellite earth stations.
• Co -Location: Locating wireless communications equipment for more than one
provider at a single communications facility, on a building, or on an alternative tower
structure.
FAA: The Federal Aviation Administration.
Fall Zone: The area within which a Tower or Antenna might cause damage to
persons or property should the tower or antenna be knocked down, blown over or fall on its
own.
FCC: The Federal Communications Commission.
Guyed Towers: A communication tower that is supported, in whole or in part, by
guy wires and ground anchors.
Height: The vertical distance measured from the mean elevation of the finished
grade to the highest point on the tower or other structure, even if said highest point is an
antenna or antenna array.
Lattice Tower: A guyed or self-supporting three or four sided, open , steel frame
structure used to support telecommunications equipment.
Monopole Tower: A communication tower constructed without the use of guy
wires and ground anchors and consisting of only a single pole.
Original Tower Height: Height of a tower on the date of the passage of this
ordinance.
Personal Use: "Personal Use" refers to a non-commercial use by a resident of the
subject property. If any revenues are generated from the operation of the tower, it will not
be for personal use as such term is used.
Stealth Technology: Systems, components and materials used in the construction
of wireless communications facilities to make it compatible with the surrounding property.
Telecommunications: The transmission, between or among points as specified by
the user of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the
information as sent and received.
Tower or Communications Tower: Any structure that is designed and
constructed for the primary purpose of supporting one or more antennas, including lattice
towers, guy towers, or monopole towers. The term includes radio and television
transmission towers, microwave towers, common -carrier towers, cellular telephone towers,
alternative tower structures, and the like. This term is n4Lintended to describe buildings or
other structures that have been constructed primarily for a purpose other than supporting one
or more antennas, despite the fact that such structure may currently, or in the future, actually
support one or more antennas.
Page 4
Ordinance No. 4178
consent in a signed writing to the construction of said tower. This setback is considered
a "fall zone". In the event that an existing structure is proposed as a mount for a wireless
communication facility, a fall zone shall not be required.
4. Camouflaging or Stealth Technology for New Towers. If the
applicant demonstrates that it is not feasible to locate on an existing structure, towers shall
be designed to be camouflaged to the greatest extent possible, including but not limited to:
use of compatible building materials and colors, screening, landscaping and placement
within trees.
5. Color of Towers. To the extent that any antenna extend above the
height of the vegetation immediately surrounding it, they shall be a neutral color, painted or
unpainted, unless the FAA requires otherwise.
6. Information Required To Process New Tower Requests.
a. Provide a map of the geographic area that your
project will serve.
b. Provide a map that shows other existing or planned
facilities that will be used by the wireless communication service provider
who is making the application.
c. Provide a map that shows other potential stand-alone
locations for your facility that have been explored.
d. Provide a scaled site plan containing information
showing the property boundaries, proposed tower, existing land use,
surrounding land uses and zoning, access road(s) location and surface
material, existing and proposed structures and topography. The plan shall
indicate proposed landscaping, fencing, parking areas, location of any
signage and specifications on proposed lighting of the facility.
e. Describe why the proposed location is superior, from
a unity perspective, to other potential locations. Factors to consider
in the community perspective should include: visual aspects, setbacks and
proximity to single family residences.
L Describe your efforts to co -locate your facility on one
of the poles or towers that currently exists, or is under construction. The
applicant should demonstrate a good faith effort to co -locate with other
carriers. The Planning Commission may deny a permit to an applicant that
has not demonstrated a good faith effort to provide for co -location. Such
good faith effort includes:
(1). A survey of all existing structures that may be
feasible sites for co -locating wireless communications
facilities;
(2). Contact with all the other wireless
communications licensed carriers operating in the City
and Washington County; and
(3). Sharing information necessary to determine if co-
I . ;
Page 5
Ordinance No. 4178
location is feasible under the design configuration most
accommodating to co -location.
(4). Letter from tower owner stating why co -location
is not feasible.
g. Describe how you will accommodate other antenna
arrays that could co -locate on your facility. Describe how this
accommodation will impact both your pole or tower, and your ground
mounted facilities. Provide documentation of your provider's willingness
to accommodate other providers who may be able to co -locate on your
facility.
7. Required (after condition) and Balloon Test or Crane Test
Photographs. The proposed tower shall be photographed from four locations taken 90°
apart and 300' from the center of the tower. The proposed tower shall be superimposed on
the photographs. A balloon or crane test shall be performed to illustrate the height of the
tower and photographed from the same four locations. The time period, not to exceed one
week, within which the test will be performed, shall be advertised in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City at least 14 days, but not more than 21 days prior to the test. The four
locations shall be approved by the City Planner.
8. Sight Line Representation. A sight line representation shall be drawn
from four points 90° apart and 100' from the proposed tower. Each sight line shall be
depicted in profile, drawn at one inch equals 40 feet. The profiles shall show all intervening
trees and buildings.
9. Structural Integrity and Inspections of Towers.
a. The applicant shall provide a certification letter that
states the tower meets or exceeds design criteria and all local, state, and
federal requirements regarding the construction, maintenance, and
operation of the tower.
. b. If a tower fails to comply with the requirements and
criteria above and constitutes a danger to persons or property, then upon
written notice being provided to the owner of the tower, the owner shall
have thirty (30) days to bring such tower into compliance with such
requirements and criteria. If the owner fails to bring such tower into
compliance within thirty (30) days, the City may terminate that owner's
conditional use permit and/or cause the removal of such tower (at the
owner's expense).
c. By making an application hereunder, the applicant
agrees to regularly maintain and keep in a reasonably safe and
workmanlike manner all towers, antenna arrays, fences and outbuildings
owned by applicant which are located in the City. The applicant further
agrees to conduct inspections of all such facilities not less frequently than
every 12 months. The applicant agrees that said inspections shall be
conducted by one or more designated persons holding a combination of
education and experience so that they are reasonably capable of
identifying functional problems with the facilities.
Page 6
Ordinance No. 4178
10. Security Fencing and Anti -climbing Device. Through the use of security
fencing, towers and equipment shall be enclosed by wood board fencing not less than six (6) feet in
height. The tower shall also be equipped with an appropriate anti -climbing device. The facility shall
place signs indicating "No Trespassing", "High Voltage" or other pertinent information on the outside
of the fence, unless it is decided that the goals of this ordinance would be better served by waiving
- this provision in a particular instance. Barbed wire fencing or razor wire shall be prohibited.
11. Vegetative Screening Requirements. Wireless communications facilities
shall be surrounded by buffers of dense tree growth and understory vegetation in all directions to
create an effective year-round visual buffer. Trees and vegetation may be existing on the subject
property or installed as part of the proposed facility or a combination of both.
12. Setbacks from property lines. Wireless communications facilities
shall meet current setbacks as required by zoning.
C. Co -location. Applicants for co -location shall meet the following requirements:
1. Administrative Approval for Antenna Co -locations and Locations
on Other Structures. The City Planner, following an administrative review without
requiring the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, may approve the following antenna
installation:
a. Locating on Existing Structures. Installation of
an antenna on an existing structure other than a tower (such as a building,
sign, light pole, electric transmission tower and similarly scaled public
utilities /facilities, water tower, or other free-standing non-residential
structure), provided that the addition of the antenna does not add more
than twenty (20) feet to the height of the original structure.
b. Locating on Existing Towers. Installation of an
antenna on an existing tower of any height, and the placement of
additional buildings or other supporting equipment used in connection
with such additional antenna, so long as the proposed additions would add
no more than twenty feet (20) of height to the original height of the
tower. The addition or modification, to the extent possible, should be
designed to minimize visibility.
c. For the purposes of co -location, the applicant must
submit information from a licensed professional engineer certifying the
capacity of the tower for additional providers and a letter of intent from
the applicant indicating their intent to share space.
D. Other requirements.
1. Wireless Communications Facilities Placed on Top of Buildings.
When a wireless communications facility extends above the roof height of a building on
which it is mounted, every effort shall be made to conceal the facility within or behind
existing architectural features to limit its visibility from public ways. Facilities mounted on
a roof shall be stepped back from the front facade in order to limit their impact on the
buildings's silhouette.
i•.
1 • i
Page 7
Ordinance No. 4178
2. Wireless Communications Facilities Placed on Sides of Buildings.
Antenna which are side -mounted on buildings shall be painted or constructed of materials
to match the color of the building material directly behind them.
E. Exemptions.
1. Personal Use. Towers for personal use which, including the height of
all antenna arrays, do not extend more than 80' from the ground and shall meet the current
setbacks as required by zoning.
2. Temporary Structures. Temporary structures designed to be used for
not more than 14 days in connection with a special event or for any reasonable period of
time in and immediately following an emergency, including without limitation those towers
which are identified as "C.O.W.s." or "Cellular on Wheels."
3. Existing Towers. All existing towers may be replaced with the same
type and height of tower structure as currently exists.
4. Emergency and Utility Towers and Antennas. Towers and antennas
under thirty five (35') in height used for 9-1-1 services and utility monitoring (gas, water,
sewer, traffic lights, etc.)
F. Municipal Profits from Towers. The City of Fayetteville should actively
market its own property and existing structures as suitable co -location sites. As noted above
the review process is shortened and simplified when co -location on city property is
submitted by applicant An annual lease amount should be charged according to the fair -
market value of the location. The revenues can be earmarked to improve the public area
within which the tower is located. In cases where the company no longer needs the tower,
the City may require it to be removed. Applicants can provide co -location space for city -
owned antenna.
G. Abandoned Antennas or Towers. At such time that a licensed carrier
abandons or discontinues operation of a wireless communications facility, such carrier will
notify the City of the proposed date of abandonment or discontinuation of operations. Such
notice shall be given no less than 30 days prior to abandonment or discontinuation of
operations. In the event that licensed carrier fails to give such notice, the wireless
communications facility shall be considered abandoned upon such discontinuation of
operations. Upon abandonment or discontinuation of use, the carrier shall physically remove
the wireless communications facility within 90 days from the date of abandonment or
discontinuation of use. "Physically remove" shall include, but not be limited to:
1. Removal of antenna, mount, equipment shelters and security barriers
from the subject property.
2. Proper disposal of the waste materials from the site in accordance with
local and state solid waste disposal regulations.
3. Restoring the location of the wireless communications facility to its
natural condition, except that any landscaping and grading shall remain in the after -
condition.
S
Page 8
Ordinance No. 4178
H. Notification of Change of Ownership/Operator. Upon assignment or
transfer of a Conditional Use Permit or any of the rights thereunder to a new wireless
telecommunications operator, the owner or operator shall provide written notice within thirty
(30) days to the City Planner.
Section 5.. _ - Public Notification._ That Section 157.04 is hereby.amended to.add the following: .
B.6. Wireless Communications Facilities. Applicants requesting permits for new
towers shall notify property owners within a 500radius from the center of the tower;
applicants requesting permits for co -location shall not require notification. Notification shall
be certified mail for adjoining property owners, including across streets and regular mail for
the remaining property owners within the notification area.
Section 6. Emergency Clause. This ordinance is necessary to preserve the public peace, health,
safety, and welfare, and because of such, an emergency is declared to exist and this ordinance shall be in full
e farce and effect from the date of its passage and approval.
c. TTY Vl
. , SSED AND APPROVED this 11 day of August, 1999.
APPROVED:
ijq�
'� Fred Hanna, ayor