Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout044-O-21 Amending Title 6 of the City Code Concerning Wireless Facilities4/9/2021 44-0-21 AN ORDINANCE Amending Title 6 of the City Code Concerning Wireless Facilities NOW BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EVANSTON, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION 1: City Code Section 6-18-3, "Definitions" of the Evanston City Code of 2012, as amended, is hereby further amended as follows: 6-18-3. — DEFINITIONS. ANTENNA: An apparatwG external to er atta Ghe d to the 6UPPGFtiR9 GtFUGtWe, fersendiRgF FeGeiving e1eGtrnmagRetin waves. Communications equipment that transmits or receives electromagnetic radio frequency signals used in the provision of wireless services. SECTION 2: City Code Section 6-18-3, "Definitions" of the Evanston City Code of 2012, as amended, is hereby further amended to add the following: 6-18-3. — DEFINITIONS. COLLOCATE or COLLOCATION MICRO WIRELESS FACILITY To install, mount, maintain, modify, operate, or replace wireless facilities on or adjacent to a wireless support structure or utility pole. A small wireless facility that is not larger in dimension than twenty-four (24) inches in length, fifteen (15) inches in width, and twelve (12) inches in height and that has an exterior antenna, if any, no longer than SMALL WIRELESS FACILITY: WIRELESS FACILITY: WIRELESS SUPPORT STRUCTURE 44-0-21 eleven (11) inches. A wireless facility that meets both of the following qualifications: (i) each antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more than six (6) cubic feet in volume or, in the case of an antenna that has exposed elements, the antenna and all of its exposed elements could fit within an imaginary enclosure of no more than six (6) cubic feet; and (ii) all other wireless equipment attached directly to a utility pole associated with the facility is cumulatively no more than twenty-five (25) cubic feet in volume. The following types of associated ancillary equipment are not included in the calculation of equipment volume: electric meter, concealment elements, telecommunications demarcation box, ground -based enclosures, grounding equipment, power transfer switch, cut-off switch, and vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services. Equipment at a fixed location that enables wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network, including: (i) equipment associated with wireless communications; and (ii) radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber- optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration. Wireless facility includes small wireless facilities. Wireless facility does not include: (i) the structure or improvements on, under, or within which the equipment is collocated; or (ii) wireline backhaul facilities, coaxial or fiber optic cable that is between wireless support structures or utility poles or coaxial, or fiber optic cable that is otherwise not immediately adjacent to or directly associated with an antenna. Afreestanding structure, such as a monopole; tower, either guyed or self- supporting; billboard; or other existing or proposed structure designed to support or —2— 44-0-21 capable of supporting wireless facilities. Wireless support structure does not include a utility pole. SECTION 3: City Code Title 6, Chapter 4, "General Provisions" of the Evanston City Code of 2012, as amended, is hereby further amended to add the following subsection: 6-4-6-11. — SPECIAL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO WIRELESS FACILITIES. (A) Permitted Locations: Wireless facilities not on public right-of-way shall be classified as permitted uses in all zoning districts and subject to administrative review, except as provided in Section 6-4-6-11(F) regarding Exceptions or Variances from Standards. Wireless facilities proposed within the public right- of-way shall follow the regulations as stated with Title 7, Chapter 16 of this Code. (B) Permit Required: An applicant shall obtain one or more permits from the City to collocate a wireless facility or construct a new wireless facility. An application shall be received and processed, and permits issued shall be subject to the following conditions and requirements: 1. Application Requirements: A wireless provider shall provide the following information to the City, together with the City's Small Cell Facilities Permit Application, as a condition of any permit application to collocate small wireless facilities on a utility pole or wireless support structure: a. Site specific structural integrity and, for a municipal utility pole, make- ready analysis prepared by a structural engineer; b. The location where each proposed small wireless facility or structure would be installed and photographs of the location and its immediate surroundings depicting the structures on which each proposed small wireless facility would be mounted or location where structures would be installed. This should include a depiction of the completed facility; c. Specifications and drawings prepared by a structural engineer for each proposed small wireless facility covered by the application as it is proposed to be installed; d. The equipment type and model numbers for the antennas and all other wireless equipment associated with the small wireless facility; —3— 44-0-21 e. A proposed schedule for the installation and completion of each small wireless facility covered by the application, if approved; and Certification that the collocation complies with the Collocation Requirements and Conditions contained within the City Code, to the best of the applicant's knowledge. g. In the event that the proposed small wireless facility is to be attached to an existing pole owned by an entity other than the City, the wireless provider shall provide legally competent evidence of the consent of the owner of such pole to the proposed collocation. h. In the event that a new wireless support structure is proposed, justification for why co -location is not feasible on existing support structures shall be supplied in order to demonstrate the need for a new stru ctu re. 2. Review Process: The City shall process completed applications as follows: a. Completeness of Application: Within thirty (30) days after receiving an application, the City shall determine whether the application is complete and notify the applicant. If an application is incomplete, the City must specifically identify the missing information. An application shall be deemed complete if the City fails to provide notification to the applicant within thirty (30) days after all documents, information and fees specifically enumerated in the City's permit application form are submitted by the applicant to the City. Processing deadlines are tolled from the time the City sends the notice of incompleteness to the time the applicant provides the missing information. b. Timeframe for review: Upon determination of a complete application, an application to collocate a wireless facility on an existing utility pole or wireless support structure, or replacement of an existing utility pole or wireless support structure shall be processed on a nondiscriminatory basis and shall be deemed approved if the City fails to approve or deny the application within sixty (60) days after the submission of a completed application unless time is tolled as described in (c) below. An application to collocate a wireless facility that includes the installation of a new utility pole shall be processed on a nondiscriminatory basis and deemed approved if the City fails to approve or deny the application within one hundred twenty (120) days after the submission of a completed application unless time is —4— 44-0-21 tolled as described in (c) below. c. Tolling: The time period for applications may be further tolled by either an expressed written agreement by both the applicant and the City or local, State or Federal disaster declaration or similar emergency that causes the delay. d. Review Standards: complete applications will be reviewed subject to the regulations as listed below in Subsections (C) through (E) as well as regulations enumerated the Public Works Agency (Title 7) and Building Code Standards (Title 4). e. The City shall deny an application which does not meet the requirements of this Chapter. The City shall document the basis for a denial, including the specific code provisions or application conditions on which the denial is based, and send the documentation to the applicant on or before the day the City denies an application. The applicant may cure the deficiencies identified by the City and resubmit the revised application once within thirty (30) days after notice of denial is sent to the applicant without paying an additional application fee. The City shall approve or deny the revised application within thirty (30) days after the applicant resubmits the application or it is deemed approved. (C) Setbacks: New wireless support structures in non-residential districts must be set back from all property lines in accordance with the minimum setback requirements in the zoning district. New support structure in residential districts must be all wireless support structures must be setback a minimum of half of the height of the support structure and all facilities must be set back from all lot lines in accordance with the minimum setback requirements in the district (D) Height: The maximum height permitted for a new wireless telecommunications support structure is the maximum building height of the underlying zoning district. If the proposed height exceeds the district maximum, the special use application for approval of a wireless telecommunications support structure must demonstrate that the height needed for the tower is the minimum needed to function satisfactorily. Wireless support antennas may be attached to an existing building or structure. 2. Wireless support antennas may be collocated on an existing support structure at a height not to exceed the height of said structure, subject to the application and review procedures listed above. —5— 44-0-21 (E) Appearance: Wireless facilities and support structure appearance shall be reviewed by the Design and Project 'Review (DAPR) Committee. Wireless facilities must incorporate the following to the extent possible: 1. Additional Standards for Wireless Antennas a. Wireless telecommunications antennas must be enclosed, camouflaged, screened, obscured, or otherwise not readily apparent to a casual observer. This does not apply to antennas that co -locate on existing wireless support structures. b. Antennas may be located on or in structures already allowed within zoning districts, such as water towers, clock towers, light poles, penthouses, parapet walls and steeples, and must blend into the structure. 2. Additional Standards for Wireless Support Structures a. The ability for other telecommunications providers to co -locate on a wireless support structure is required. Wireless support structures must be designed to accommodate other telecommunications providers. The area surrounding a support structure must be of a sufficient size to accommodate accompanying wireless telecommunications facilities for other telecommunications providers. b. Unless otherwise required by the FCC, the FAA, or the City, wireless support structures must have a galvanized silver or gray finish and may not be lighted. c. Any buildings, cabinets, or shelters may house only equipment and supplies for operation of the wireless support structure. Any equipment not used in direct support of such operation is prohibited. The facility must be un-staffed. d. Signs for the wireless telecommunications facility are limited to ownership and contact information, FCC antenna registration number (if required), and any other information required by government regulation. Commercial advertising is strictly prohibited. e. A facility must be completely enclosed by a solid fence or wall a minimum of six feet and a maximum of eight feet in height. (F) Exceptions and Variances from Standards: If an applicant proposes a height for a new or replacement wireless support structure in excess of the above height limitations on which the small wireless facility is proposed for collocation, the applicant shall submit a Special Use application in conformance with procedures, terms and conditions set forth in Title 6, 44-0-21 Chapter 3, Section 5, "Special Uses," of the Evanston City Code (G) Non -conformities: 1. Ordinary maintenance, including replacement/upgrading, of antenna equipment may be performed on nonconforming antennas or wireless support structure. However, if the proposed alteration intensifies a nonconforming characteristic of the antenna or wireless support structure, a special use is required. 2. Co -location of an antenna on an existing nonconforming wireless support structure is permitted, provided that the addition of the antenna and any additional wireless facilities do not intensify the nonconformity. (H) Abandonment: Any wireless antenna, support structure, or facility that is not operated for a continuous period of twelve (12) months shall be considered abandoned. The owner of the antenna, support structure, or facility shall remove the antenna, structure, facility within ninety (90) days after receipt of written notice from the City notifying the wireless provider of the abandonment. SECTION 3: All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION 4: If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid application or provision, and each invalid provision or invalid application of this ordinance is severable 44-0-21 shall be in full force and effect after its passage and approval. SECTION 5: The findings and recitals contained herein are declared to be prima facie evidence of the law of the City and shall be received in evidence as provided by the Illinois Compiled Statutes and the courts of the State of Illinois. —7— Introduced: Adopted Awil26 2021 Approved: May 10 , 2021 May 10 Stephen H. Hagerty, Mayor Attest: Fduo-rdo Gomez Eduardo Gomez, Deputy City Clerk 44-0-21 12021 Approved as to form: X'mda,r 6. Ciunncu+yJ Nicholas E. Cummings, Corporation Counsel DRAFT MEETING MINUTES City of ZONING COMMITTEE OF THE PLAN COMMISSION Evanston Wednesday, February 24, 2021 6:30 P.M. Evanston Civic Center, 2100 Ridge Avenue, James C. Lytle Council Chambers Members Present: Jeanne Lindwall (Chair), Kristine Westerberg, Peter Isaac Members Absent: Other Plan Commission Members Present: none Staff Present: Judy Frydland, Assistant City Attorney Sarah Flax, Housing and Grants Manager Melissa Klotz, Zoning Administrator Angelique Schnur, Senior Property Maintenance Inspector Meagan Jones, Neighborhood and Land Use Planner Presiding Member: Jeanne Lindwall 1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM With a quorum present, Chairman Lindwall called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. 2. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES Commissioner Westerberg made a motion to suspend the rules in order to conduct the meeting electronically. Seconded by Commissioner Isaac. A roll call vote was taken and the motion was approved 3-0. 3. NEW BUSINESS B. TEXT AMENDMENT -Wireless Facilities (Cellular Towers) 21 PLND-0010 City initiated Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Title 6 of the City Code, to establish a definition and regulations for wireless facilities. Ms. Jones provided an overview of the proposed text amendment emphasizing that, although wireless facilities do exist within the City and are regulated for public right-of- ways, there are no regulations within the Zoning Code for these facilities/structures. Page 1 of 4 Evanston Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission Minutes Page 16 of 21 DRAFT Chair Lindwall asked for clarification that this amendment is due to the need to have broadband services and not have that be limited to utility poles. Ms. Jones confirmed this and clarified that many facilities are likely located on utility poles, as it may be cost effective to collocate, but there is a need to regulate for sites that may not exist in the public way. Chair Lindwall inquired if there was any information on coverage gaps in the area. Ms. Jones responded that she does not have this information. Vice -Chair Lindwall stated this may be useful to include when considering where to permit these facilities to locate. Chair Westerberg stated that her questions do center on whether or not to allow these facilities by -right or through a special use and if the proposed maximum height matching the underlying district is needed to get the needed coverage. Chair Lindwall reiterated that facilities that request height above the maximum permitted in the district would be required to follow the Special Use process. Ms. Jones stated that she would need to consult with Public Works on what a necessary height would be but that she believes it would likely be the case that antennas or facilities located higher, where there is likely less possible interference would be optimal for service. Chair Westerberg asked if this amendment is referring to towers or just antennas. Ms. Jones responded that it is dealing with both, though there do not seem to be too many instances of new towers or monopoles in recent history. She added that it is her understanding that local regulations can go too far with restrictions due to FCC regulations. If an application is denied, the City must find a suitable location within 100 ft. of what was proposed. Chair Lindwall clarified that a permitted use would be reviewed by staff and a special use would go to Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). Ms. Jones confirmed this and stated that if the review is needed, it would likely be the case that ZBA is the determining body. Chair Lindwall stated that this may increase their caseload if permitted height is too low. Isaac confirmed if there is uncertainty on the current number of towers. Ms. Jones responded that this is the case. She checked in with the Building and Inspection Services Manager who mentioned that staff has begun to keep track but there are still a limited amount we have records for them, there are likely not a large number of actual towers. Commissioner Isaac asked if there are there existing microwireless facilities. Ms. Jones responded that she is uncertain of the facility breakdown. Isaac stated that those are smaller and could be placed in larger numbers in residential districts if they do not have a wide range. If allowed in residential districts, very likely that providers would contract with existing utilities through an easement which are usually written pretty broadly. He added that he does not think there would be many applications through a property owner but through Corned or whoever owns that pole. Ms. Jones responded that with current Page 2 of 4 Evanston Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission Minutes Page 17 of 21 DRAFT applications, Zoning is the courtesy review dealing with the public way. If on private property, proof of consent from the property owner is needed. Chair Lindwall asked if these facilities would be considered a principal use or accessory use. Ms. Jones responded that for most cases this would be an accessory use. For it to be a principal use it would need to be a full facility with a utility box. This could be looked at by the DAPR Committee to review the layout and landscaping to mitigate effects on neighboring properties. Chair Lindwall asked if these would be considered a principal use or accessory use and how many private property situations are likely to occur. Ms. Jones responded that in most cases these would be accessory to the primary use or structure and we more than likely would not see many applications for new structures, though if this were the only structure it could reviewed by the IDAPR Committee; per the Building and Inspection Services Manager we do not get many requests now. Collocation is common so would not see many new facilities. Commissioner Isaac asked for clarification on if the boundaries for zoning districts goes to the center of street and expressed that if this is the case, facilities in the public way are technically already in zoning districts. He added that regulations usually reference actual private property. There may already be towers in residential districts if zoning goes to center of street and they could be nonconforming if all of a sudden not allowed. Ms. Jones responded that he raises a valid point, especially if a matter of a few feet puts something in an alley vs. on private property. Commissioner Isaac then stated that what the City is willing to do in the Right-of-way, should match what is done on private property due to the zoning. Chair Lindwall clarified that right of way regulations do not apply to private property. Ms. Jones confirmed. She then inquired why would they need to match what is on private property. Ms. Jones responded that, to a certain extent, they do match partially because of limitations of FCC and state regulations laying out what local regulations can or cannot permit. Commissioner Isaac asked for clarification that FCC regulations tie the City's hands with the need to have an acceptable alternate facility site within 100 ft. of a denied location. Ms. Jones responded that she believes that is a state regulation but will confirm. Both federal and state regulations keep local requirements from being too restrictive. There are some existing and proposed regulations that speak to siting of the facilities. Chair Lindwall expressed that ensuring access to adequate technology is a good thing so knowing what the need is (understanding it will change with technology) is useful. It seems more likely that an antenna/facility would be on a taller multi -family structure. Commissioner Isaac asked questions on what the capabilities and need of each type of facility is and if that could be provided. He added that it might be useful to have feedback from Public Works to gain some additional understanding. Ms. Jones responded that she Page 3 of 4 Evanston Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission Minutes Page 18 of 21 DRAFT could include more information on the types of facilities and possible emerging technologies and ways to camouflage the structures. Ms. Jones provided clarification on when DAPR and ZBA would review proposed facilities. Chair Lindwall stated that the Commission would probably want to limit how many of these reviews are sent to ZBA. She then asked about required fencing and if that would always be needed. This would depend on the type of facility; say a tower versus an antenna on a building. The Committee requested that some additional information be obtained for the full Commission to review including examples of what the facilities look like, information on existing coverage gaps, process clarification, and if these would be considered a principal or accessory use. 4. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Isaac made a motion for adjournment and Chair Lindwall seconded the motion. With all commissioners in favor, the meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Meagan Jones Neighborhood and Land Use Planner Community Development Department Page 4 of 4 Evanston Zoning Committee of the Plan Commission Minutes Page 19 of 21 DRAFT- NOT APPROVED MEETING MINUTES City of PLAN COMMISSION Evanston Wednesday, April 14, 2021 6:00 P.M. Virtual Meeting through Zoom Platform Members Present: Peter Isaac (Chair), Jennifer Draper, George Halik, John Hewko, Brian Johnson, Jeanne Lindwall, Matt Rodgers, Kristine Westerberg, Members Absent: Staff Present: Johanna Nyden, Community Development Director Paul Zalmezak, Economic Development Manager Melissa Klotz, Zoning Administrator Michael Griffith, Development Planner Meagan Jones, Neighborhood and Land Use Planner Judy Frydland, City Attorney Presiding Member: Chair Isaac 1. CALL TO ORDER / DECLARATION OF QUORUM Chair Isaac called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Ms. Jones called the roll and a quorum was established. 2. SUSPENSION OF THE RULES Members participating electronically or by telephone Commissioner Lindwall made a motion to suspend the rules to allow for electronic or telephone participation. Seconded by Commissioner Draper. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed, 8-0. 3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES: March 10, 2021. Commissioner Westerberg made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 10, 2021 meeting. Seconded by Commissioner Draper. A roll call vote was taken and the motion passed, 8-0. 4. NEW BUSINESS B. Text Amendment — Wireless Facilities (Cellular Towers) 21 PLND-0010 City initiated Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Title 6 of the City Code, to establish a definition and regulations for wireless facilities. Page 1 of 2 Plan Commission Minutes 4.14.21 Page 20 of 21 DRAFT- NOT APPROVED Ms. Jones provided an overview of the proposed text amendment. Explaining 1996 Federal and 2018 State legislation that lead to updates in local regulations as they relate to facilities within the public right-of-way. Ms. Jones summarized the previous discussion that occurred in the Zoning Committee meeting and referenced the examples provided in the packet. She emphasized this would apply to both antennas and new support structures, with proposed new structures requiring DAPR review and a Special Use being required if a new facility goes above the height in the underlying zoning district. Commissioner Rodgers asked what the rationale was for the proposed height restrictions. Ms. Jones responded that staff believed it would be more efficient and streamlined to have the maximum height of new facilities match that of the underlying zoning district. The Commission then began deliberation and reviewed the standards. The Commission found that each of the four standards had been met. Commissioner Lindwall motioned to recommend approval of the text amendment to City Council. Seconded by Commissioner Rodgers. A roll call vote was taken and the amendment was approved, 8-0. Respectfully Submitted, Meagan Jones Neighborhood and Land Use Planner Community Development Department Page 2 of 2 Plan Commission Minutes 4.14.21 Page 21 of 21