05-19-1997 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Larkin , Hoffman , D aly & Lindgren , Ltd . Members of the Planning Commission April 24,1997 Page 2 2. Residential districts, only if located on municipal, school or institutional property, or if integrated into an existing structure (i.e. church steeples, light standards, etc.). SECHQN 7 (B-1. RETAIL SALFS BUSINESS niSTRICTV Snhpart H tPersonal Wirele«;«; Service Antennas and TowersV a.Ilein2. This provision requires personal wireless service antennas mounted on a municipal structure to comply with certain conditions. (1)Paragraph (f) -- This provision require all transmitting, receiving, and switching equipment to be housed within the existing structure, or, if necessary, in a new structure located in the rear yard of the principal use. APT’s ground-equipment is designed for outdoor use. This design, together with the screening and fencing requirements of the Proposed Ordinance, eliminates the need to require such equipment to be housed in a building. Therefore, we request that this provision be revised to specifically allow for placement of ground-equipment without the same being housed in a building. Paragraph (j) -- This provision requires an applicant to demonstrate, by providing a coverage/interference analysis and capacity analysis prepared by a “registered professional engineer,” that the proposed antenna location is necessary'. This provision raises two concerns. First, APT’s Federal Communication Commission (the “FCC”) license virtually assures non-interference. In addition, this is a federal licensing issue w ithin the jurisdiction of the FCC. Section 704(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “Act”) (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(iv)) provides that: No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC’s] regulations concerning such emissions. Although the Act prohibits the City’s regulation of personal wireless service facilities based upon radio frequency emissions, we would consider it a reasonable requirement if an interference report was required only when the facilities in question are to be co-located with other public or private wireless facilities. The newest provider of such services w’ould then be required to provide an interference report prior to being allowed to install its facilities at that co-location. Second, this provision requires the coverage/interference and capacity analysis to be prepared by a “registered professional engineer.” Our understanding of the various issues to be evaluated by an engineer in connection with the siting of