Draft Master Plan and City of Grand Junction Ordinance Presentation - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Draft Master Plan and City of Grand Junction Ordinance Presentation City of Grand Junction & Mesa County

April 5, 2016 Susan Rabold, Project Manager CityScape Consultants, Inc.

The Goal of the Wireless Master Plan (WMP) is to facilitate the creation of an optimized wireless telecommunications environment that is efficient, capable, and meets the long- term forecasted user requirements of the businesses, residents and visitors in the City of Grand Junction and Mesa County. Expanding broadband capabilities and improving wireless and /or cell coverage to underserved areas are key

• bjectives of the Economic Development Plan.

What is a Wireless Master Plan

Summary

Nine Study Areas

Ø Area A

• Lower Valley
• Palisade
• DeBeque

Ø Area B

• Gateway
• Glade Park
• Whitewater
• Collbran

Ø City of Grand Junction/ 201 Boundary Ø Area C

• Corridors (4 Insets)

Project Study Areas

Ø Assessed all “qualified sites” within Mesa County including

a 1½ mile perimeter beyond each study area.

Ø “Qualified Sites” include: Personal Wireless Service

Facilities (PWSF), microwave, broadcast towers, towers in remote locations and base stations.

Ø 144 existing sites throughout Mesa County (multiple

sites have more than 1 facility).

Ø 151Towers; 17 Base Stations Ø 47 PWSF; 44 Eligible Facilities

Summary of Draft Wireless Plan

Towers with PWSF Base Stations with PWSF

Local Concealed Towers

Faux Louvers Flag Pole

Service Providers Include: Tower Owners Include:

Summary of Draft Wireless Plan

AT&T Clearwire Spectrum Holding Sprint Access 700 LLC Commnet Wireless T-Mobile Atlantic Wireless Dish Union Cellular Cleartalk Leaco Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. Verizon Wireless American Tower LLC Crown Castle International Government Agencies (City, County, State, BLM, DOT..) Independent Tower Owners AT&T SBA Unknowns/ Unidentified Broadcast Companies The Leasing Company

Inventory Analysis by Study Area:

Summary of Draft Wireless Plan

Study Area Existing Sites (In) (Out*) Projected Fill-In (10-15 Years) Estimated Build Out (Including public safety) City of Grand Junction/ 201 Boundary 50 5 11-18 11-18 Lower Valley 10 11 7 4 Palisade 4 8 6 6 DeBeque 2 3 1-3 Glade Park 29 9 1-4 Gateway 3 3 1 Whitewater 5 1 4 2-4 Collbran 4 39 15 2-4

* Out means within a 1.5 mile distance from boundary

Inventory Analysis by Study Area:

Summary of Draft Wireless Plan

Corridor Study Areas Projected Fill-In (10-15 Years) Estimated Build Out Inset 1 6 6 Inset 2 15 4 Inset 3 7 4 Inset 4 16 9

Ø Urban areas, Interstates and major highway corridors will

continue to have the most facilities and the greatest area of network coverage.

Ø Existing 2G network equipment (flip-type phones with only

voice and text) will be phased out and 3G is limited in its capacity to provide current data demands and will also be phased out.

Ø Current network deployments now and in the near future will

consist primarily of 4G services.

Ø 4G capacity sites will transition to quasi-5G sites over the next

3-10 years.

Ø 4G LTE and AWS 5G networks will include wireless broadband.

Summary of Draft Wireless Plan Continued

Ø Small cell capacity sites will be installed in the urbanized

areas with 4G network deployments to address increasing data demands by the subscribers.

Ø Public/private partnerships should maximize the use of

future emergency service sites to improve private wireless services in rural and remote study areas.

Ø Public broadband initiatives, fiber and backhaul access to

towers may incentivize private service providers in rural and remote study areas.

Ø Rural and remote communities should contact their service

provider to report network concerns and request solutions for poor network coverage in their geographic area.

Summary of Draft Wireless Plan Continued

Federal Statutory, Decisional and Regulatory Law

47 USC §332(c)(7) (a/k/a Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996)

Ø Preserves local zoning authority but requires local

government to regulate in a manner that does not:

§

unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services; or

§

prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.

Ø Requires local government to make written decisions on

siting applications that are based on substantial evidence and not on speculation or because of federally preempted reasons (such as concerns about Radio Frequency (“RF”).

Ø Must allow for the carriers to deploy their systems. Ø Must act expeditiously in these requests. Ø Must treat providers equally by providing equal access to

“functionally equivalent services” (Cellular/PCS/Data).

Ø Local government’s land development standards may not

supersede or undermine areas of federal jurisdiction.

Ø Enables Federal Government to use Federal property,

rights-of-way and easements for leasing for new telecommunications infrastructure.

Federal Legislation Section 704

Ø Requirements for tower lighting

and markings are exclusively regulated by the FAA/FCC.

Ø Local government may be able to

require dual lighting systems and can require support structures to be lighted as long as they comply with FAA codes.

Ø

Not ionizing radiation

Ø

Non-ionizing radiation

Ø

World Health Organization and American Cancer Society findings:

§ RF exposure is so low

that human and animal health is not affected

Radio Frequency emissions are exclusively regulated by federal standards

(http://eon3emfblog.net)

Definitions & Clarifications of Federal Law:

Ø Transmission Equipment – Any infrastructure that

supports equipment used for all Commission-licensed or authorized wireless transmissions. Further refinement:

Ø Wireless Tower – a structure built for the sole or

primary purpose of supporting any commission licensed

• r authorized antennas and their associated facilities.

Ø Base Station – equipment and non-tower supporting

structure at a “fixed” location that enable commission licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network.

Ø

Existing wireless towers and base stations that have been approved by a local government agency through a prescribed process for the tower or radio frequency is an “eligible facility”.

§

Collocations meeting the standards as defined in the Spectrum Act are to be approved within a 60 day time frame, excluding any tolling periods for incomplete applications.

Ø

If existing wireless tower or base station was built without local review, or wasn’t required to have local review, or doesn‘t have existing equipment that required local review, no obligation for local authority to approve collocation under Spectrum Act and the following applies:

§

The local government has 90 days (from the 2009 Shot Clock) to decide to approve or deny requested modifications.

For the purposes of co-location of “substantial increase to the size of a tower” as:

Ø

Addition of antenna on a tower that would increase its height by the greater of 10% or 20 vertical feet; or

Ø

Addition of antenna that requires installation of more than standard number of equipment cabinets (not to exceed 4),

• r more than 1 new equipment shelter; or

Ø

Addition of antenna that would increase the girth (width)

• f the tower by more than 20 feet; or

Ø

Addition of the antenna would involve excavating around the tower site beyond the existing boundaries of the property associated with the facility.

The City of Grand Junction is proposing changes to regulations relating to Telecommunications Facilities

Ø Compliance with new Federal regulations. Ø Proactive approach to accommodate growing need

and demand of wireless services including public safety infrastructure improvements.

Ø Consistent with Draft Wireless Master Plan Study. Ø Consideration of public commentary to date . Ø Following zoning slides are specific ONLY to the

City’s draft ordinance.

Ø Evidence of need Ø Location preferences Ø Infrastructure type Ø Permitted by zoning districts Ø Landscaping Ø Photo simulations Ø Height Ø Setbacks Ø Fencing Ø Signage Ø Noise from generators Ø Lighting types in accordance with FAA Ø Lighting of equipment compound Ø Abandonment/discontinued use

Draft Siting Preferences are, in order:

Infrastructure Type (i) Co-located or combined PWSF (ii) Dual Purpose Facility (iii) Replacement of existing Telecommunications Facility (iv) Concealed antenna(s) on a base station (v) Concealed small cell site (vi) Non-concealed small cell site Co-location Dual Purpose Concealed base station Concealed small cell/DAS Non-concealed small cell/DAS

Draft Siting Preferences are, in order continued:

Infrastructure Type (vii) Distributed Antenna System (A) Attached

• a. Concealed on City-owned property, right-of-way or public easement
• b. Concealed on other public property
• c. Concealed on non-public property
• d. Non-concealed on City-owned property, right-of-way or public

easement

• e. Non-concealed on other public property
• f. Non-concealed on non-public property

A Distributed Antenna System (DAS) is very similar to small cell sites. One difference is DAS networks can be shared between service providers and small cells are for a single service provider.

Draft Siting Preferences are, in order continued:

Infrastructure Type (vii) Distributed Antenna System (B) New Freestanding DAS facility

• a. Concealed on City-owned property, right-of-way or public easement
• b. Concealed on other public property
• c. Concealed on non-public property
• d. Non-concealed on City-owned property, right-of-way or public

easement

• e. Non-concealed on other public property
• f. Non-concealed on non-public property

An outdoor DAS transmits a wireless signal in a similar way as an in-building system. The network includes nodes that are strategically placed on existing utility poles, street lights, traffic signals and other structures every half to three-quarters of a mile within the coverage area. The nodes connect to a hub via fiber optic cable. (American Tower brochure)

Draft Siting Preferences are, in order continued:

Infrastructure Type (viii) Non-concealed antenna(s) on a base station (A) On a wireless Master Plan Priority Site (B) On City-owned property in any non-residential zoning district (C) On other public property in any non-residential zoning district (D) On non-public property in the following zoning districts, ranked highest to lowest:

• a. I-2, I-1, or I-O
• b. C-2
• c. B-P or C-1
• d. CSR
• e. Other zone districts in accordance with the Use Table

21.04.010 Non-concealed base station Non-concealed base station

Ø Telecom 96 & House Bill 1641 promotes use of Federal

Lands and sets precedent for local governments

Ø Existing towers on public lands currently Ø WMP priority site criteria for public & non-public land for City

• f Grand Junction include:

Ø Location within or can be located within Grand Junction

Persigo 201 Boundary

Ø Minimum lot size 1 acre (City of Grand Junction) Ø Vehicular access to an improved public right-of-way Ø Access to utilities Ø Outside 100 year food plain

Draft Use Of Public Lands

Ø Concealment required – deviation from prior approved

concealment requires CUP.

Ø In residential and mixed use zoning districts that include

residential uses, new concealed towers shall not be permitted on lots where the primary use or principal structure is single-family or two-family, group living, day care, or a multi-family structure of fewer than three stories.

Draft Use Of Public Lands Continued

Locations: Other Publicly-Owned Property

Study Areas WMP Public Priority Property Other Public Property WMP Non- Public Priority Property City of Grand Junction/201 Boundary 12 7 5 Area A: Lower Valley 9 Area A: Palisade 6 Area A: DeBeque 3 Area B: Glade Park 1 Area B: Gateway 1 Area B: Whitewater 8 Area B: Collbran 1 Area C: Corridors Some Also in Study Areas 10* Approximate Total Sites In Study Areas 12 46 5

* These same sites are also fill-in sites for other study areas so the total is not included in total site count.

Map ID Location Site-Specific Recommendation I1, I2, I4 Canyon View Park Entry or Art Feature; Slick Stick J1 Saccomanno Park Slick Stick; Concealed 3- Legged Pole J2 Paradise Hills Park Dual Purpose Banner Pole J3 Horizon Park Dual Purpose Banner Pole K1 Fire Station 5 Slick Stick; Flag Pole; Concealed 3-Legged Pole L Colorado River Front Slick Stick; Dual Purpose Banner Pole N1 Open Space Dual Purpose Banner Pole N2 Open Space Dual Purpose Banner Pole N3 Open Space Dual Purpose Banner Pole N4 Open Space Dual Purpose Banner Pole

Request Owner Location Other Information Site-Specific Recommendation 1 Orchard Mesa Irrigation District (OMID) 158 29 ½ Road 1.672 acres RSF-R in County Slick Stick; Flag Pole; Concealed 3- legged Pole 2 USA c/o OMID 2962 A ½ Road 4.725 acres RSF-4 Slick Stick; Flag Pole; Concealed 3- legged Pole 3 USA c/o OMID 121 31 Road 19.89 acres AFT in County* Slick Stick; Flag Pole; Concealed 3- legged Pole

*The property owner will need to request inclusion into the 201 prior to the City considering annexation and zoning of this property and any future permitting by the City for a future wireless facility.

Request Owner Location Other Information Site-Specific Recommendation 4 Museum of Western Colorado 462 Ute Avenue 1.152 acres B-2 Concealed Base Station

• n observation tower

5 Museum of Western Colorado 3065 Patterson Road 22.348 acres RSF-4 in Mesa County Cross Orchard’s Farm Entry or Art Feature; Slick Stick; Flag Pole; Concealed 3-legged Pole

Draft Siting Preferences are, in order continued:

Infrastructure Type (ix) Concealed freestanding towers (A) On a Wireless Master Plan Priority Site (B) On City-owned property in any non-residential zoning district (C) On other public property in any non-residential zoning district (D) On non-public property in the following zoning districts, ranked highest to lowest:

• a. I-2, I-1, or I-O
• b. C-2
• c. B-P or C-1
• d. Other zone districts in accordance with the Use Table

21.04.010

Draft Siting Preferences are, in order continued:

Infrastructure Type (E) Preferred concealment type (wherever located). Concealment types listed below are general preferences, but the actual concealment type preferred with also depend upon the structures and developed features already existing in the area.

• a. Tree of a type naturally occurring or normally found in the geographic area
• b. Church steeple
• c. Bell or clock tower
• d. Belfries, domes or

chimneys

• e. Elevator towers
• f. Flag poles
• g. Water towers Examples of Concealed Facilities
• h. Cupolas
• i. Other architectural or art feature

Draft Siting Preferences are, in order continued:

Infrastructure Type (x) Non-concealed towers (A) On a Wireless Master Plan Priority Site (B) On City-owned property in any non-residential zoning district (C) On other public property in any non-residential zoning district (D) On non-public property in the following zoning districts, ranked highest to lowest:

• a. I-2
• b. I-1
• c. C-2

(E) Preferred tower type (wherever located)

• a. Monopole
• b. Lattice
• c. Guyed

Monopole Lattice Guyed

Next Steps

Ø Local governments within Mesa County: Ø Adopt or consider adopting Draft Wireless Master Plan Ø Adopt or consider update Ordinances & Codes to be

consistent with changing Federal regulations and have uniformity of development standards

Ø Update and maintain inventory of transmission sites; public & non-

public property priority sites; and other public property sites

Ø Seek public/private partnerships for public safety equipment

expansions that brings improved network coverage to rural and undeveloped areas of the County

Ø Consider providing backhaul and fiber to towers so service

providers can improve and expand their existing coverage areas

Next Steps & Long Range Planning

Questions and Open Discussion

Thank you!