Memorandum 14-161 Joint Worksession Between City Council and Planning Commission - Towers, Stormwater, Bridge Creek Watershed, Public Safety Building

Memorandum ID: 
14-161
Memorandum Status: 
No Status

Details

M E M O R A N D U M   14-161

 

TO:                  MAYOR WYTHE AND HOMER CITY COUNCIL
THROUGH         WALT WREDE, CITY MANAGER
FROM:             RICK ABBOUD, CITY PLANNER

DATE:                  October 16, 2014

 

SUBJECT:     JOINT WORK SESSION BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL AND HOMER ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION. 

 

 

 

Several complex issues have presented themselves to the Planning Department. Due to the nature of the items and the amount of resources that may be used in preparing amendments to Title 21 of the Homer City Zoning Code, the City Manager and myself thought that it would be prudent to get an impression from the City Council of just how receptive they may be to discuss the proposed issues and possible solutions. The five topics of discussion are:

Towers
Comprehensive Planning
Storm Water Planning
Bridge Creek Watershed Regulations
Public Safety Building

 

 

 

 

Tower Regulations

 

Over the past year a proposed tower CUP and appeal of the decision to allow a 140 ft. tower brought thought of revising tower regulations to the Planning Commission. City Council forwarded an ordinance but staff and the Planning Commission has learned that tower regulations are quite complicated. Currently the only reference we have to towers in code is;

“Public utility facility or structure,” for the purpose of requiring a conditional use permit, means (1) any facility or structure owned and operated by a public or private utility, or (2) a telecommunications tower or antenna, but it excludes water distribution mains, pressure stations and hydrants, sewage collection lines, manholes and lift stations, underground and overhead electrical, cable and telephone lines and poles, street lights and small wind energy systems.

We have no further definition of ‘telecommunication tower or antenna’. At the heart of it ‘telecommunications’ is communication at a distance by technological means, which is becoming more and more prevalent in everyone’s lives.

 

 

How much do we wish to regulate?

The concerns and regulation of towers is quite extensive, some are:

-  View shed

- Structural safety

- Setbacks

- Federal laws

- Colocation

- Radio frequency (RF) issues

- Justification of siting

- Height

       This leads to several concerns for the Planning Department

Review time
Expertise needed to review applications
Added costs of time and experts
Additional future review of structures?

-      Time to monitor new tower developments

Options

Model regulation – 30 pages or so

May want to contract an expert to review applications
Many things regulated that require levels of expertise not currently provided in the city. One example is applicant and staff has to review adequacy requirements of current and proposed sites to the necessity of provision of services. This involves of RF transmission analysis.
Cost will be significantly higher for city and applicant (several thousands of dollars per application).

Basic regulation

Create district provisions for minimum and maximum height regulations and setback requirements.
Basic structural safety regulation maybe engineer stamp on structure and installation and verification schedule

Do nothing or very little

Define height for tower minimum for review as “utility site” and let CUP process continue pretty much as is

 

 

 

 

Comprehensive Plan review

The largest opportunity for updates lies in the Master Roads and Streets Plan. This is a very technical document from 1986 and has lots of room for updates. This would be a good opportunity to introduce some additional mitigation measures for storm water along with merging with the 2005 Homer Area Transportation Plan and Non-Motorized Transportation and Trail Plan of 2004. Since the Planning Commission has been tapped to take on duties of the disbanded Transportation Advisory Committee, perhaps the Council would like to task this to them. The end result would be an update to the Transportation Plan. If yes, staff will submit budget request. Planning does have some reserves to contribute.

 

Storm Water

We now have storm water planning on the CIP list. The CIP project is meant to address city-wide issues; the Planning Commission is still planning on working on some additional measures in code for site development.

 

Staff has interest in investigating some measures that might be introduced into road construction standards to minimize the impacts of associated impacts. What can we do to get the ball rolling?

 

Bridge Creek Water Protection District – possible future ordinance

We are currently considering some small incremental changes to relax some of the current regulations for development of small lots less than 3 acres that have been rendered nonconforming when the district was created. A first public hearing was held 10.15.14, Staff Report 14-90 represents some thoughts on the subject for your information. So far we have received about equal pro-con-neutral comments.

 

Public Safety Building

The Planning Commission is interested in this project and wishes to know if input from them is desired. This will eventually come before the Commission as a CUP application. I am working to schedule a presentation to the Commission from the Public Work Director.

 

 

 

Attachments:

Bridge Creek Draft Ordinance
Staff report 14-90
Appendix A from Juneau Wireless Telecommunications Master Plan