08-21-1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Existing ReguLatione • Over the last 60 days, the city staff has received numerous inquiries from wireless tekcommuaication providers regarding the location of antennas and towers cc city owned and privately owned land. 'These ioguinies along with the;recent passage of the Federal T Act have forced a re-evaluation of Bloomington's mining restrictions on wireless telecommunications facilities. In the past,cellular tomes m Bloomington have been considered `public utility uses" for the purposes of obtaining detelopment approval. Ass`public utility use",the towers are allowed as a permitted use in all zoning districts and are exempt from the height restrictions. Moreover,there arc no design requirements or performance standards in place to ensure that the tower blends into its surroundings to the maximum event possible. As a"public utility me"the;existing regulations could, in theory, allow the placement of a 140 foot metal frame tower on a vacant residential lot Wireless telecomnamications providers do not fit well into the classic `public utility"image. True public utilities have a monopoly on the provision of as essential service and are heavily regulated. Today, with five private providers competing for arstomets,wireless telecorrununications is moving even farther away frau what we think of as a `public utility". If, for development approval purposes, wireless telecommunication facilities were not considered `public utility uses", towers would be subject to a very diSeremt set of restrictions under Bloomington's current zoning ordinance. First of all, none of the zoning districts reference telecornmin iratiaa towers as a permitted or conditional use. This fact leaves open to iaterprotrtion where towers would be allowed. Moreover, the towers would also be subject to the height limitation for structures. Under these height limitations,a tower over 80 feet in height(which most towers are) would have to be located at least 600 feet from the nearest `protected residential property". Them height restrictions would preclude placement of towers in large arras of Bloomington and would leave the city open to the challenge that the regulations "have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal • wireless services"as specified in the Federal Telecommunications Act. In suaorcary, the regulation of towers under Bloomington's current zoning ordinance depends largely on whether or not they are classified as `public utility uses". When classified as `public utility uses", the existing regulations clearly do not provide Bloomington's residents with adequate protection against the negative impacts of telecornstninicaticet towers. When not classified as `public utility uses", the existing meas become so restrictive that they may violate federal law. Either interpretation is very undesirable for the City of Bloomington. Ordinance Revisions Clearly the inning regulations mood to be revised. Ordinance revisions are necessary 1) to facilitate the provision of increased wireless teles wumuaicarien service,and 2)to provide adequate performance, design, structural, and location standards to protect the public safety and welfare. The revisions will include a clear de finitina of`public utilities"and will specify the zoning districts in which towers will be allowed. The revisions will also include reasonable height restrictions for towers near residential uses, incentives to locate smtennas on existing towers or buildings, incentives for providers to share tower space in order to au>rrasrixe the total number of towers, structural requirements, design requirements, setbacks, and other elements.impotent Use of City Owned Land Each of the providers have expressed interest in leasing space on city owned land for their wireless telecommunications facilities. While some city owned land would be inappropriate for such uses, other IDsites may provide suitable locations and supply a potential revenue stream. It is necessary that the city prepare and adopt a consistent statement of policy regarding the placement of such facilities on city owned land, especially in light of the Federal Teleconmunicaticns Act which stipulates that cities may not "discriminate wrong providers of functionally equivalent services". A formally adopted policy will ensure that requests from competing providers are handled on a consistent basis. v-2