2. Ordinance 1382 - Text Amendment - Cellular Communications Towers - 1st ReadingFlathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
REPORT TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEETING DATE;
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
Kalispell Mayor and City Council
Narda A. Wilson, Senior Planner
Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager
Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Tent Amendment for Cellular
Communication Towers - TriStar Communications
May 21, 2001
BACKGROUND: The applicants are proposing a text amendment to the Kalispell
Zoning Regulations that would allow for the installation of cellular towers to be
allowed as a permitted use in the B-5, Commercial / Industrial, I-1, Light Industrial,
and I-2, Heavy Industrial subject to performance standards. In addition to the
current standards in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance dealing with transmission
towers, the applicant is proposing additional standards for the towers. An
amendment is proposed which would require a one mile separation between cellular
communication towers unless co -location opportunities do not exist and to require
that the cellular communication tower has co -location and tower strength to provide
for four separate communication providers.
Due to the deregulation of the telephone and wireless communication industry and
the advancement of PCS (Personal Communication Systems) technology, numerous
telephone providers and cellular tower installations requests are now commonplace.
To provide continuous PCS coverage, especially in areas with variable topography,
cellular phone companies would like to place towers typically in a grid -like
formation.
Federal regulatory actions prevent local governments from prohibiting the provision
of wireless telecommunications services outright, although they have the reserved
right to regulate the number and placement of telecommunications facilities
through local zoning.
The 1996 Telecommunications Act list five conditions that local regulations must
satisfy to maintain zoning authority over wireless service facilities.
1. Local zoning requirements may not unreasonably discriminate among
wireless telecommunications providers that compete against one another.
2. Local zoning requirements may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting
the provision of wireless telecommunications service.
3. A local government must act within a reasonable period of time on requests
for permission to place or construct wireless communications facilities.
4. Any city or county or zoning board of decision denying a request for
permission to install or construct wireless telecommunications facilities must
be in writing and must be based on evidence in a written record before the
council or board.
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish
Memo to Council on Text Amendment
May 15, 2001
Page 2
5. If a wireless telecommunications facility meets technical emissions standards
set by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), it is presumed safe.
A local government may not deny a request to construct a facility on grounds
that its radio frequency emissions would be harmful to the environment or
the health of residents if those emissions meet FCC standards.
Communication towers are allowed as conditionally permitted uses in the B-1,
Neighborhood Buffer District, B-2, General Business, B-3, Community Business,
and B-4, Central Business. Height restrictions of the zoning code are not
specifically addressed except in the B-1, which limits the height to 70 feet. The
zoning does not allow communication towers as either a permitted or conditionally
permitted use in any of the residential, office or industrial zoning districts. This text
amendment will place additional performance standards on the communication
facilities. The amendment is based upon the proposal of a company who actually
constructs the towers and provides for co -location opportunities. TriStar
Communications, the applicant, does not actually provide wireless communication
service. Additionally, information for this report was compiled following research of
other ordinances throughout the United States.
The proposed text amendments include cellular communication towers as permitted
uses in the various zones subject to performance standards. In the commercial or
the "B" zones the towers would be a conditionally permitted use. In the industrial
zones of the B-5 and the "I" zones, the towers would be a permitted use. In
reviewing the proposed amendments, the planning board recommended making all
wireless service facilities subject to a conditional use permit. Such a change would
make every site subject to a case -by -case review.
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board held a public hearing at their regular
meeting of May 8, 2001 and have recommended on a unanimous vote that the city
council approve the changes to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance as outlined in Exhibit
A.
RECOMMENDATION: A motion to adopt the ordinance on first reading would be
appropriate.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Potentially minor positive effects.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the city council.
Yu,"-
Narda A. Wilson Chris A. Kukulski
Senior Planner City Manager
Report compiled: May 15, 2001
ORDINANCE NO. 1382
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE KALISPELL ZONING ORDINANCE, (ORDINANCE
NO. 1175), BY ALLOWING THE INSTALLATION OF CELLULAR TOWERS IN THE
B-5, COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL, I-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND I-2, HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL ZONES AS PERMITTED USES, SUBJECT TO PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, J.R. Reger of TriStar Communications, LLC has submitted
a written request to amend the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance, by allowing the installation of cellular
towers in the B-5, Commercial/Industrial, I-1, Light
Industrial and I-2, Heavy Industrial zones as permitted
uses, and
WHEREAS, the request was forwarded to the Kalispell City -County
Planning Board and Zoning Commission by the Flathead
Regional Development Office after having been evaluated
under 27.14.030, Kalispell Zoning Ordinance, and
WHEREAS, the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and Zoning
Commission recommended that the text of the Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance be amended to reflect the change, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the FRDO Report and the
transmittal from the Kalispell City -County Planning Board
and Zoning Commission and hereby adopts the findings made
in Report #KZTA-01-3 as the Findings of Fact applicable
to this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
KALISPELL AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. The City of Kalispell Zoning Ordinance,
Ordinance No. 1175, is hereby amended as
follows:
See Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a
part hereof.
SECTION II. All parts and portions of Ordinance No. 1175
not amended hereby remain unchanged.
SECTION III. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30)
days after its final passage.
cell towers.wpd 1
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SIGNED BY THE MAYOR OF
THE CITY OF KALISPELL THIS DAY OF JUNE, 2001.
Wm E. Boharski
Mayor
ATTEST:
Theresa White
City Clerk
cell towers.wpd 2
EXHIBIT A
OPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR
CELLULAR COMMUNICATION TOWERS
TRISTAR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
MAY 8, 2001
The following amendments to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance are recommended by
the Kalispell City County Planning Board:
A. Add "Transmission Towers and Cellular Communication Towers" as a
conditionally permitted use to the B-5, Industrial / Commercial, I-1, Light
Industrial, and I-2, Heavy Industrial zones.
B. Amend the B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 and P-1 zoning district to list "Transmission Towers
and Cellular Communication Towers" as conditionally permitted uses (and delete
other references to transmission towers).
C. Add a definition: 27.37.010 Transmission Towers / Cellular Communication
Towers and Facilities — Commercial radio and television service antenna,
unlicensed wireless service antenna/tower, common carrier wireless exchange
structure/antenna/towers commonly referred to as cellular communications.
D. Amend Section 27.35.080: Additional Requirements for Specific Conditional Uses,
Transmission Towers and Te'evisien Radio, Mierewave TeFver and
Teleee nmu nieat &n- �Cellular Communication Towers Equipment and
Facilities
A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for transmission towers and cellular
communication towers in the n ' B ^ n and B ^ all zoning districts which list
transmission towers and cellular communication towers. of the '^'� ew4ng
eatea_ri@s:
VHP UHP
television;a.
and
b CTrM radio;
e. Twe way radio;
,d• Common
�e
e_Cellular telep
f. > ixed point
e«e.
,d
2. These regulations G a't' ' Use Permits shall not be required for antenna
associated with ham radio, citizens band radio, a telecommunications device
that only receives an RF signal, and a sole -source emitter with more than one
kilowatt average output or the mounting of an antenna or other transmission
device on an existing tower provided no structural alterations are made.
3. The location of transmission towers and cellular communication towers
equipment and facilities 1.,.uefflse of a r`e«,d;tiane U Permi shall take into
consideration the following:
a. Visual effects;
b. Height;
c. Structural integrity;
d. Radiation emissions;
e. Effects on adjoining land use;
f. Possibility of shared use;
g. Effects on City airport operations;
h. Effects on other communication devices; and
i. Site location alternatives.
4. Application for a Conditional Use Permit shall include a site plan for review by
the Site Development Review Committee.
5. General requirements of a Conditional Use Permit for locating a transmission
tower or cellular communication tower shall include:
a. Required sharingf colocation on an existing tower or other structure
antann whenever possible and practical:
etc-.-,*
e: Screening when located adjacent to a residential district ; ea-,d
d. Engineer's certification regarding structural safety;
e. Location of the tower so that visual impact to adjacent property owners is
limited to the greatest extent possible;
f. That the structure be placed to avoid location on the crest of a mountain
or hill or extension into the skyline thus creating aesthetic concerns
g. Address potential FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) lighting
requirements for aviation safety.
h. That the structure/tower be camouflaged to blend in with the
surrounding environment when beneficial and practical'
L The new structure shall allow for co -location with a minimum of four
other users.
Th t al tF nsmission and eellu t' h i ♦ d
J.
nirnl=tnt e€ ene mile apart unless
exist:
k. If a security fence is proposed a five-foot tall dense landscaping screen
shall be planted around the security fence of any structure/tower
1. Where a new tower is proposed the applicant shall demonstrate that
there are no feasible existing structure upon which to locate
6. Should any cellular communication tower, facility or antenna be abandoned or
cease to operate for a period of 180 days the structure/tower shall be removed
at the expense of the owner. It shall be the responsibility of the
structure/tower owner to promptly notify the City if a facility is abandoned or
ceases operation.
F. Amend Section 27.22.070, Exceptions to Height Restrictions, The height
limitations contained in any district regulations do not apply to spires, belfries,
cupolas, chimneys, water tanks, ventilators, elevator housing, grain elevators, or
other agriculture buildings, transmission towers and cellular communication
towers and facilities unless otherwise prohibited by Federal Aviation Regulations,
part 77. Masts for flag poles shall not exceed the height limits of the zoning district.
Furthermore, said flag mast must be set back from the property line to prevent the
intrusion of the extended flag into or over any public right-of-way or adjoining
property.
have to request it.
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion failed Pk4j�tr2,
(AMENDMENT) Stevens and Heinecke, in favor.
ROLL CALL (MAIN On a roll call vote the motion passed with 7 in favor and 1, Van
MOTION) Natta, opposed.
TRISTAR An amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance proposed by
COMMUNICATIONS TriStar Communications that would amend the B-5, I-1, and I -
TEXT AMENDMENT 2 zoning districts to allow cellular communication towers as a
permitted use and establish performance standards.
STAFF REPORT Narda Wilson, of the Flathead Regional Development Office,
gave a presentation on staff report KZTA-01-03, a proposed text
amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance that would allow
for the installation of cellular towers to be allowed in the B-5,
Commercial/Industrial, I-1, Light Industrial, and I-2, Heavy
Industrial, as permitted uses, and subject to performance
standards. In addition to the current standards in the Kalispell
Zoning Ordinance dealing with transmission towers, the
applicant is proposing additional standards for the towers. An
amendment is proposed which would require a one mile
separation between cellular communication towers unless co -
location opportunities do not exist and to require that the
cellular communication tower has co -location and tower
strength to provide for four separate communication providers.
Staff reviewed the findings of fact, based on statutory criteria,
and recommended the board adopt the changes as outlined in
exhibit A, with two minor changes; that the regulations would
not apply to antennas for hamm radios or for already existing
structures, such as water towers. Also, that they add language
regarding height restrictions to read, "not to exceed the
minimum required for transmission".
Stevens asked how they would screen a 150 foot tower and
Wilson said they would screen the base. She added that they
had ways to stealth towers and/or camouflage them.
APPLICANTS / J.R. Reger, Billings, Montana, said he works for TriStar
AGENCIES Communications, which is a Montana Limited Liability, and
builds wireless infrastructure networks around the state. He
said he builds communication towers capable of co -locating 4
to 6 licensed carriers antennas who lease space from him on
the tower. Reger stated the regulations were acceptable, except
for two things; Item E of Subsection 5, general requirements for
locating a transmission tower and Section J, stating all
transmission and cellular communication towers be located a
minimum of one mile apart. Reger stated there was a problem
with that language because a 50 foot tower had no value for co -
location. He said height was the main factor because the
technology is line of sight. The problem with Subsection F,
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 8, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 3 of 7
where it amends Section 27.22.070, is that the companies do
not know what height they need to be at in order to meet their
objective. Reger said he provided towers that were capable of
meeting any company's coverage requirement. He pointed out
that if the tower was too low they could not co -locate and they
would build their own or multiple towers to fit their coverage
area. Reger stated his towers would range from 160 to 250
feet, the average for Kalispell being 140 to 180 feet. Reger
passed around a drawing of a 160 foot monopole with 6
separate users. He said each of the 6 spots would meet the
coverage requirement for any company. Reger addressed the
positive aspects of wireless digital PCS. He said it was cheaper
and it had the potential to access email and pay credit card
bills, all via the cell phone. The text amendment would place
towers in the areas of town where towers should be placed;
heavily industrial and commercially zoned areas. He added
that the one mile separation would decrease the amount of
towers in town and make co -location better. Reger added that
it had been said that he was creating a monopoly and would
lock competitors out, however, under this proposal there was
no way to do that If a server thought his prices were
exorbitant they could go to federal court and seek relief with the
1996 Telecommunications Act He said he gets around that by
charging 150/6 less than his competitors. He suggested
subsection `J' would be better worded by stating, all
transmission and cellular communication towers be located a
minimum of one mile apart, `unless co -location facilities do not
exist'.
Van Natta asked and Reger answered that for a complete,
seamless network they would require a minimum of 4 and a
maximum of 5 towers. He said Blackfoot has at least 5 towers
in the area.
Pierce asked if Blackfoot would be a user on one of his towers
and Reger said, if they were having a problem meeting their
coverage objectives they could be a potential customer.
Mann asked about screening or camouflaging and Reger said
because it was heavy industrial they wouldn't camouflage a
tower but in the Scenic Corridor or on Political Hill in Lakeside,
those towers could be turned into trees. He said they would try
to camouflage them as best as possible by placing them back
where you wouldn't notice them, hopefully trees are already
there, they could put them on grain elevators, silos, or am radio
towers. He said if there weren't any trees around they couldn't
make them look like a tree, it would make them stand out even
more.
Mann asked and Reger answered that he would like to make it
a requirement as a permitted use that they handle at least 4
separate users, one at 160 feet, the next one at 145 feet, then
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 8, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 4 of 7
130 feet and 115 feet. The coverage objective being a lot
smaller for the guy at the bottom.
Mann was concerned that, in light of the growth of the
industry, it would not be enough if the tower only handled 4
customers. Reger said he was going to build towers to handle 6
servers. He added that the towers would not create adverse
zoning impacts and co -location would be promoted.
Garberg asked and Reger answered that the locations they were
considering were in the general B-5 area and another south on
Highway 93 in industrial areas. He said the airport had
spec rules. The FAA has the final say, if they said yes, they
could build it, but if they say no, it's an emphatic NO. He said
they were planning to build in a heavily treed area off Highway
2 North, near Evergreen and another one off Reserve. He said
their efforts would be concentrated in five locations to provide
seamless coverage. He said the flip side would be 50 to 120
foot towers built by each company.
Stevens asked and Reger answered that if a customer feels he is
charging too much they could take it to a federal judge and
seek relief. Stevens didn't want to put people in a position
where they had to hire an attorney and he thought that's what
they would be doing when they say "require" co -location.
Stevens said that essentially they were giving him the first step
of a monopoly. It was noted that most of the locations were not
in the City of Kalispell.
Reger said the one mile separation was current in Billings and
Whitefish and it caused a cut throat business. He said that if
they have the opportunity to build right next to another pole
they would, with no remedy because tower companies were not
protected, whereas wireless service carriers are protected.
Stevens said if they required co -location they were passing a
law, which required someone to use his tower. Reger said if
there were co -location possibilities on his tower they would
want to go on and it would be better for the City not to have a
lot of towers. He added that if a tower were built across the
street from his tower, his tower would be worth half as much.
Van Natta stated that all they were doing was passing an
ordinance and that TriStar was just the resource for adopting
that ordinance. Reger stated that if there was no separation it
was a very real possibility there would be multiple towers very
close to each other and he thought it would make the City look
gaudy. Stevens said the word "require" was his concern.
Garberg said he could understand the thinking that went into
the proposal.
Sipe suggested they add language that stated "unless co -
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 8, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 5 of 7
location opportunities don't exist".
PUBLIC HEARING The public hearing was opened to those who wished to speak
on the proposal.
PROPONENTS No one wished to speak.
OPPONENTS No one wished to speak and the public hearing was closed.
MOTION Sipe moved and Pierce seconded to adopt staff report KZTA-01-
03 as findings of fact and, based on those findings, recommend
to the Kalispell City Council that the standards in attached
Exhibit A, adding language to part J, 'unless co -location
opportunities do not exist", be made part of the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance.
MOTION Van Natta moved and Rice seconded to amend the proposal to
(AMENDMENT# 1) require it be a conditionally permitted use in all zones.
BOARD DISCUSSION Van Natta thought the council would be interested in looking at
the proposals for structures and that there was a lot of interest
with 160 to 180 foot structures proposed around town. He
thought they ought to allow for public input before they move
forward.
Rice said he agreed with Van Natta, that it was a good idea to
have the public look at where the towers would be placed and
to define the height and screening.
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed with 6 in favor and 2,
(AMENDMENT #1) Stevens and Sipe, opposed.
BOARD DISCUSSION Mann expressed concern that a conditional use permit would
allow for limitation and said that by including J it would put
them in a box. Wilson pointed out that the idea was to not
have a proliferation of towers. She thought J would make them
consider what was available in the area and ask, are there co -
location opportunities. Wilson said she did not see it as
superfluous, that it would set some evaluation criteria before
them to ask if it was the right spot for that use.
Stevens asked how the one mile figure was determined. Reger
answered, one tower would exceed the coverage objective within
one linear mile, however, topography did play a part.
Stevens wondered why they needed the one mile requirement if
there was a conditional use process.
MOTION Mann moved and Garberg seconded to strike condition J all
(AMENDMENT#2) together.
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 8, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 6 of 7
BOARD DISCUSSION Mann thought the wording was putting them in a box when,
maybe in the future, they could get by with 50 feet.
Stevens suggested those concerns would be met at the time of
the conditional use process.
Van Natta said that without the one mile requirement a
company could come in and build a lot of 80 foot towers.
Rice pointed out that if there was a spot on the tower, why
would they allow someone another tower.
Garberg said he had a problem with the one mile requirement.
He thought it disallowed flexibility.
ROLL CALL The motion passed on a roll call vote with Stevens, Sipe,
(AMENDMENT #2) Garberg, Pierce and Mann voting aye, and Van Natta, Heinecke,
and Rice voting no.
MOTION Heinecke moved and Rice seconded, to amend condition 6 to
(AMENDMENT#3) add verbiage, "at the expense of the owner", after the words,
structure/tower shall be removed.
ROLL CALL On a roll call vote the motion passed with 7 in favor and 1,
(AMENDMENT #3) Stevens, opposed.
ROLL CALL (AMENDED On a roll call vote the motion passed unanimously.
MAIN MOTION)
OLD BUSINESS Stevens read a letter from the City Attorney regarding
Ordinance 725 and the legal authority of the Kalispell City -
County Planning Board. He also mentioned a letter to the City
of Kalispell from the Commissioners' Attorney regarding a news
report of a hired planner and the statute to provide a budget.
It was concluded by the board that they were not going to solve
anything tonight and they would let the Commissioners and
City Council work it out.
NEW BUSINESS Heinecke encouraged staff to do a study and propose parking
for the zoning regulations.
ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned on a motion by Sipe and seconded
by all at approximately 9:20 p.m. The next regular meeting will
be Tuesday, June 12, 2001 at 7:00 p.m.
Greg Stevens, President Debbie Willis, Recording Secretary
Approved as submitted/corrected: _/_/01
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
May 8, 2001 Meeting Minutes
Page 7 of 7
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Avenue East - Room 414
Kalispell, Montana 59901
May 15, 2001
Phone: (406) 758-5980
Fax: (406) 758-5781
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
City of Kalispell
P.O. Box 1997
Kalispell, MT 59903
Re: Kalispell Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment for Cellular Communication
Towers - TriStar Communications
Dear Chris:
The Kalispell City -County Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, May 8,
2001 and held a public hearing on a request by TriStar Communications, LLC, for a
text amendment to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance that would allow the installation of
cellular towers as a permitted use in the B-5, Commercial/Industrial, I-1, Light
Industrial, and I-2, Heavy Industrial, subject to performance standards.
Narda Wilson representing the Flathead Regional Development Office presented a staff
report on KZTA-01-03 evaluating the proposal. She stated that staff supported the
proposal with some additional performance standards and recommended approval for
a text amendment relating to cell towers.
J.R. Reger, TriStar Communications representative, spoke in favor of the proposal and
explained the goals of his company. No one spoke in opposition to the proposal.
The board discussed the proposal and cell towers in general. They adopted staff
report KZTA-01-03 as findings of fact and, based on those findings unanimously voted
to forward a recommendation to the Kalispell City Council to approve the text
amendment, as amended by the board and as outlined in Exhibit A.
Please schedule this matter for the May 21, 2001 Kalispell City Council meeting. You
may contact this board or Narda Wilson at the Flathead Regional Development Office
if you have any questions regarding our recommendation.
Sincerely,
Kalispell City -County Planning Board
Gr g vens
Presi ent
Providing Community Planning Assistance To:
• Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish
Zoning Text Amendment - TriStar Communications
May 15, 2001
Page 2 of 2
GS/NW/dw
Attachments: FRDO Report #KZTA-01-03/Application Materials
Draft planning board minutes of 5/08/01
c w/Att: Theresa White, Kalispell City Clerk
c: J.R. Reger, TriStar Communications, LLC, PO Box 1782, Billings,
MT 59103
H: ... \TRANSMIT\KALISPEL\2001 \KZTA-01-03
Zoning Text Amendment — TriStar Communications
May 15, 2001
Page 3 of 3
EXHIBIT A
PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT FOR
CELLULAR COMMUNICATION TOWERS
TRISTAR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
MAY 8, 2001
The following amendments to the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance are recommended by
the Kalispell City County Planning Board:
A. Add "Transmission Towers and Cellular Communication Towers" as a
conditionally permitted use to the B-5, Industrial / Commercial, I-1, Light
Industrial, and I-2, Heavy Industrial zones.
B. Amend the B- 1, B-2, B-3, B-4 and P-1 zoning district to list "Transmission Towers
and Cellular Communication Towers" as conditionally permitted uses (and delete
other references to transmission towers).
C. Add a definition: 27.37.010 Transmission Towers / Cellular Communication
Towers and Facilities - Commercial radio and television service antenna,
unlicensed wireless service antenna/tower, common carrier wireless exchange
structure/antenna/towers commonly referred to as cellular communications.
D. Amend Section 27.35.080: Additional Requirements for Specific Conditional Uses,
Transmission Towers and Television, Radio, Mierew&ve Tewerancd
Teleeammunieatiens Equipment Cellular Communication Towers, Equipment and
Facilities
1. A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for transmission towers and cellular
communication towers in two n ' B 2, n a n 1 all zoning districts which
list transmission towers and cellular communication towers. of the fello%4ng
eategeFiesi
VHF UHP
tell
a. and
b FM radio;
e. g4voway -raQiv
a n
e. Gel4ull ar telephone;and
2. These regulations Conditional ndit:, nal Use Pemai s shall not be required for antenna
associated with ham radio, citizens band radio, a telecommunications device
that only receives an RF signal, and a sole -source emitter with more than one
kilowatt average output or the mounting of an antenna or other transmission
device on an existing tower provided no structural alterations are made.
Zoning Text Amendment — TriStar Communications
May 15, 2001
Page 4 of 4
3. The location of transmission towers and cellular communication towers
equipment and facilities issuanee of a Conditional Use PeFmit shall take into
consideration the following:
a. Visual effects;
b. Height;
c. Structural integrity;
d. Radiation emissions;
e. Effects on adjoining land use;
f. Possibility of shared use;
g. Effects on City airport operations;
h. Effects on other communication devices; and
i. Site location alternatives.
4. Application for a Conditional Use Permit shall include a site plan for review by
the Site Development Review Committee.
5. General requirements of a Conditional Use Permit for locating a transmission
tower or cellular communication tower shall include:
a. Required Via€ colocation on an existing tower or other structure
antenna whenever possible and practical;
b Sub t-ntialSat} k a i a c, t9wer eellapse and falling
t
E Screening when located adjacent to a residential district ; and
d. Engineer's certification regarding structural safety;
e. Location of the tower so that visual impact to adjacent property owners
is limited to the greatest extent possible'
f. That the structure be placed to avoid location on the crest of a mountain
or hill or extension into the skyline thus creating aesthetic concerns
g. Address potential FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) lighting
requirements for aviation safety.
h. That the structure/tower be camouflaged to blend in with the
surrounding environment when beneficial and practical'
i. The new structure shall allow for co -location with a minimum of four
other users.
j That e11 t a n iAr- P.Rmmu- -
towers be leeated—a
ini-MIR n e€ enemile aaart xnle
exist:
k. If a security fence is proposed a five-foot tall dense landscaping screen
shall be planted around the security fence of any structure/tower
1. Where a new tower is proposed the applicant shall demonstrate that
there are no feasible existing structure upon which to locate
6. Should any cellular communication tower, facility or antenna be abandoned or
cease to operate for a period of 180 days the structure/tower shall be removed
at the expense of the owner. It shall be the responsibility of the
Zoning Text Amendment — TriStar Communications
May 15, 2001
Page 5 of 5
structure/tower owner to promptly notify the City if a facility is abandoned or
ceases operation.
E. Amend Section 27.22.070, Exceptions to Height Restrictions, The height
limitations contained in any district regulations do not apply to spires, belfries,
cupolas, chimneys, water tanks, ventilators, elevator housing, grain elevators, or
other agriculture buildings, transmission towers and cellular communication
towers and facilities unless otherwise prohibited by Federal Aviation Regulations,
part 77. Masts for flag poles shall not exceed the height limits of the zoning
district. Furthermore, said flag mast must be set back from the property line to
prevent the intrusion of the extended flag into or over any public right-of-way or
adjoining property.
TRI-STAR COMMUNICATIONS
REQUEST FOR ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
FLATHEAD REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
STAFF REPORT #KZTA-01-03
MAY 1, 2001
This is a report to the Kalispell City -County Planning Board and the Kalispell City Council
regarding a request for text amendments to address cellular communication towers. This
matter has been scheduled before the Kalispell City County Planning Board for public
hearing on May 8, 2001. The planning board will forward a recommendation to the
Kalispell City Council for final action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The applicants are proposing to amend the several zoning districts of the Kalispell Zoning
Regulations to address and allow cellular communication towers. The text amendment
will also include provisions in the zoning regulations for performance standards for
cellular communication towers.
A. Petitioner: J.R. Reger
TriStar Communications, LLC
P.O. Box 1782
Billings, MT 59103
(406) 252-9999
B. Area Effected by the Proposed Changes: Any area within the Kalispell Zoning
Jurisdiction that would allow cellular communication towers may be effected by the
proposed changes.
C. Proposed Amendments: The applicants are proposing a text amendment to the
Kalispell Zoning Regulations that will allow for the installation of cellular towers to
be allowed in the B-5, Commercial / Industrial, I-1, Light Industrial, and I-2, Heavy
Industrial as permitted uses, and subject to performance standards. In addition to
the current standards in the Kalispell Zoning Ordinance dealing with transmission
towers, the applicant is proposing additional standards for the towers. An
amendment is proposed which would require a one mile separation between cellular
communication towers unless co -location opportunities do not exist and to require
that the cellular communication tower has co -location and tower strength to provide
for four separate communication providers.
D. Staff Discussion: Due to the deregulation of the telephone and wireless
communication industry and the advancement of PCS (Personal Communication
Systems) technology, numerous telephone providers and cellular tower installations
requests are now commonplace. To provide continuous PCS coverage, especially in
areas with variable topography, cellular phone companies would like to place
towers typically in a grid -like formation.
Federal regulatory actions prevent local governments from prohibiting the provision
of wireless telecommunications services outright, although they have the reserved
right to regulate the number and placement of telecommunications facilities
through local zoning.
Page 1 of 6
The 1996 Telecommunications Act list five conditions that local regulations must
satisfy to maintain zoning authority over wireless service facilities.
1. Local zoning requirements may not unreasonably discriminate among wireless
telecommunications providers that compete against one another.
2. Local zoning requirements may not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of wireless telecommunications service.
3. A local government must act within a reasonable period of time on requests for
permission to place or construct wireless communications facilities.
4. Any city or county or zoning board of decision denying a request for permission
to install or construct wireless telecommunications facilities must be in writing
and must be based on evidence in a written record before the council or board.
S. If a wireless telecommunications facility meets technical emissions standards
set by the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), it is presumed safe. A
local government may not deny a request to construct a facility on grounds that
its radio frequency emissions would be harmful to the environment or the health
of residents if those emissions meet FCC standards.
Communication towers are allowed as conditionally permitted uses in the B-1,
Neighborhood Buffer District, B-2, General Business, B-3, Community Business,
and B-4, Central Business. Height restrictions of the zoning code are not
specifically addressed except in the B-1, which limits the height to 70 feet. The
zoning does not allow communication towers as either a permitted or conditionally
permitted use in any of the residential, office or industrial zoning districts. This
text amendment will place additional performance standards on the communication
facilities. The amendment is based upon the proposal of a company who actually
constructs the towers and provides for collocation opportunities. TriStar
Communications, the applicant, does not actually provide wireless communication
service. Additionally, information for this report was compiled following research of
other ordinances throughout the United States
The proposed text amendments include cellular communication towers as
permitted uses in the various zones subject to performance standards. In the
commercial or the "B" zones the towers would be a conditionally permitted use. In
the industrial zones of the B-5 and the "I" zones, the towers would be a permitted
use. In reviewing the proposed amendments, the planning board and/or council
may wish to make all wireless service facilities subject to a conditional use permit.
Such a change would make every site subject to a case -by -case review.
EVALUATION BASED ON STATUTORY CRITERIA
The statutory basis for reviewing a change in zoning is set forth by 76-2-205, M.C.A.
Findings of Fact for the zone change request are discussed relative to the itemized criteria
described by 76-2-203, M.C.A.
1. Does the requested amendment comely with the Master Plan?
The Kalispell City County Master Plan does not specifically address this issue. The
proposed change will not alter the underlying zone or general land use character. It
can be best described as a major change with respect to cellular communication
facilities policy and impacts several of the zones in the Kalispell Zoning Regulations
that allow towers as a permitted or conditionally permitted use.
Page 2 of 6
2. Is the requested amendment designed to lessen congestion in the streets?
The proposed amendment will not have an affect on congestion in the streets, as
this zoning amendment is to regulate communication structures placed in various
locations within the zoning jurisdiction. After initial placement of the structures,
there will be very little, if any, change in traffic patterns throughout the
jurisdiction.
3. Will the requested amendment secure safety from fire panic and other dangers?
This amendment is directed at altering the zoning regulations policies to include
cellular communication towers. Best available technology indicates that the
structures are, overall, not a threat to public safety. Performance standards have
been developed to address potential safety risks.
4. Will the requested amendment promote the health and general welfare?
The proposed text amendment will serve the general welfare by providing a
performance standards and review process to insure that all cellular towers are in
compliance with the provisions of the zoning regulations as well as providing
reasonable and concealed wireless communication technology to the public.
S. Will the requested amendment provide for adequate light and air?
This amendment will affect the size and location of communication tower sites
within zoning jurisdiction, however, due to the nature of these towers the requested
change will neither positively nor negatively affect this criterion.
6. Will the requested amendment prevent the overcrowding of land or undue
concentration of people?
This change will regulate the structures as to their placement, setbacks, and size.
The proposed amendment encourages co -location in an effort to minimize the
number of new sites within the jurisdiction. This text amendment will not have any
effect on the concentration of people in one area over another.
7. Will the requested amendment facilitate the adequate provision of transportation
water, sewerage schools parks and other public requirements?
This text amendment will not have an affect on any of the listed public service
providers or public infrastructure as the number, size and location of towers does
not utilize any of the aforementioned amenities.
8. Does the requested amendment give consideration to the particular suitability of
the property for particular uses?
The purpose of the text amendment is to specifically address the site suitability for
wireless service facilities. The amendment establishes performance standards in an
attempt to insure the structure has a minimal impact on the surroundings. The
conditional use permit process looks at a number of questions and criteria in
evaluating site suitability.
Page 3 of 6
Does the requested amendment give reasonable consideration to the character of
the district?
The text amendment is intended to consider the character of the zoning districts in
which the towers would be allowed. The commercial zones have a slight different
review standard by placing them in a conditional use permit category than
industrial zones where they would be permitted outright. All would be subject to
the performance standards established for cellular communication towers.
Location on existing towers or existing structures such as water towers or tall
buildings is part of the performance standard criteria intended to give reasonable
consideration to the character of the district.
10. Will the Proposed amendment conserve the value of buildings
The proposed text amendments are intended to mitigate or lessen visual impacts to
neighboring property with the goal of preserving scenic vistas and property values.
11. Will the requested zone encourage the most appropriate use of the land throuehout
the iurisdiction?
This change creates a equity for providers of wireless service facilities and improves
the review procedure of communication towers within the Kalispell zoning
jurisdiction. As such, this change will encourage the most appropriate and
conforming use of lands within the jurisdiction.
Staff recommends that the Kalispell City -County Planning Board adopt FRDO staff report
KZTA-01-3 as findings of fact and, based on these findings, recommend to the Kalispell
City Council that the standards in attached Exhibit A be made part of the Kalispell Zoning
Ordinance.
Page 4 of 6
EXHIBIT A
CELLULAR COMMUNICATION TOWERS
A. Add "Transmission Towers and Cellular Communication Towers" as a permitted use
to the B-5, Industrial / Commercial, I-1, Light Industrial, and I-2, Heavy Industrial
zones.
B. Amend the B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 and P-1 zoning district to list "Transmission Towers
and Cellular Communication Towers as conditionally permitted uses.
C. Add a definition: 27.37.010 Transmission Towers / Cellular Communication Towers
and Facilities - Commercial radio and television service antenna, unlicensed wireless
service antenna/tower, common carrier wireless exchange structure/antenna/towers
commonly referred to as cellular communications.
D. Amend Section 27.35.080: Additional Requirements for Specific Conditional Uses,
Transmission Towers: Television, Radio, Microwave Tower and Telecommunications
Equipment. Move to Chapter 27.22, Supplementary Regulations.
E. Add a new Section 27.22.140, Supplementary Regulations for Transmission Towers
and Te'e Radio, Mierewa a Tower Lad Tele. om ff.,,...iea-t Eqiiipment
Cellular Communication Towers. Equipment and Facilities
(1). A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for transmission towers and
cellular communication towers in the B-1. B-2, B- and B-4 zoning districts. e€
Win
(2). These regulations shall not be required for antenna
associated with ham radio, citizens band radio, a telecommunications device
that only receives an RF signal, and a sole -source emitter with more than one
kilowatt average output or the mounting of an antenna or other transmission
device on an existing tower provided no structural alterations are made.
(3). The location of transmission towers and cellular communication towers
equipment and facilities I ° r-Anditielle4 Urge n shall take into
consideration the following:
(a). Visual effects;
(b). Height;
(c). Structural integrity;
(d). Radiation emissions;
(e). Effects on adjoining land use;
(f). Possibility of shared use;
(g). Effects on City airport operations;
(h). Effects on other communication devices; and
(i). Site location alternatives.
Page 5 of 6
(4). Application for a building permit Geaditiena4 Use Peffait shall include a site
plan for review by the Site Development Review Committee.
(5). General requirements for locating a transmission tower or cellular
communication tower as either a permitted or conditionally permitted use 64-a
shall include:
a. Required shaFing-ef colocation on an existing tower or other structure
anteia whenever possible and Dractical:
. -iS�'ti j Otr
s— Screening when located adjacent to a residential district ; an4
d. Engineer's certification regarding structural safety;
e. Location of the tower so that visual impact to adiacent property owners
is limited to the greatest extent possible:
L That the structure be placed to avoid location on the crest of a
concerns.
g. Address potential FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) lighting
requirements for aviation safety.
h. That the structure/tower be camouflaged to blend in with the
surrounding environment when beneficial and practical:
i. The new structure shall allow for co -location with a minimum of four
other users.
j. That all transmission and cellular communication towers be located a
minimum of one mile apart.
k. If a security fence is proposed, a five-foot tall dense landscaping screen
shall be planted around the security fence of any structure/tower.
1. Where a new tower is proposed, the applicant shall demonstrate that
there are no feasible existing structure upon which to locate.
6. Should any cellular communication tower, facility or antenna be abandoned or
cease to operate for a period of 180 days, the structure/tower shall be removed.
It shall be the responsibility of the structure/tower owner to promptly notify the
City if a facility is abandoned or ceases operation.
E. Amend Section 27.22.070, Exceptions to Height Restrictions, The height limitations
contained in any district regulations do not apply to spires, belfries, cupolas,
chimneys, water tanks, ventilators, elevator housing, grain elevators, or other
agriculture buildings, transmission towers and cellular communication towers and
facilities unless otherwise prohibited by Federal Aviation Regulations, part 77. Masts
for flag poles shall not exceed the height limits of the zoning district. Furthermore,
said flag mast must be set back from the property line to prevent the intrusion of the
extended flag into or over any public right-of-way or adjoining property.
Page 6 of 6
TriStar Communications, LLC
P.O. Box 1782
Billings, MT 59103
City Council
Planning Board
Flathead Regional Development Office
City of Kalispell, Montana
Re: Zoning Text Amendment
Communication Transmission Towers
Dear Council and Board Members,
My name is J.R. Reger and I work for TriStar Communications. TriStar is a
communication company, based in Montana, providing wireless infrastructures
throughout the state. Each of TriStar's towers are capable of co -locating 4 to 6 separate
company's antennae, instead of one set of antennae per tower.
In Flathead County, there are 6 companies owning FCC licenses for digital wireless
services. One company, Blackfoot Communications, has roughly 20 towers in the
county. If each company builds its own towers, there could be as many as 120 separate
towers in Flathead County. TriStar is building a network to eliminate the need for this
many towers. Through co -location each and every company will be able to provide
seamless service with far fewer towers.
The first text amendment separates cellular towers by one linear mile. This amendment
reduces the amount of towers in Kalispell and forces co -location on existing towers. The
second amendment makes cellular towers a permitted use in B-5, I-1, and I-2 zones,
industrial zones throughout Kalispell. This amendment keeps towers in areas of the city
where they will create the least amount of adverse visual impact.
By implementing this text amendment, there will be fewer towers in Kalispell and more
digital companies providing communication. Thank you for your consideration on this
matter, I am looking forward to meeting with the Planning Board and the Kalispell City
Council.
Yours truly,
J.R�e7Cr—
. Reger APPLtCAT!Cj:;
406-252-9999 x" , I t
jrregerQhotmail.com
A�'g�P-q-�R•� 0 3 2001
iv
F R o 0
iL
Flathead Regional Development Office
723 5th Ave. East Room 414
Kalispell, MT 59901
Phone: (406)758-5980 Fax: 14061758-5781
PETITION FOR ZONING AMENDMENT
CITY OF KALISPELL
NAME OF APPLICANT: / /. 6,owM ',t•'caA-, - s [. LC
2. MAIL ADDRESS: ) 7 ff Z
3. CITY/STATE/ZIP: 13 inn i g-9 16 PHONE: yo b Zs e 5917
4. INTEREST IN PROPERTY:
5. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: �
IF THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE
ZONING REGULATIONS, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
A. What is the proposed zoning text amendment?
/'114e4SG See.. 4/-T4 �4 ej 94 e
IF THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING MAP,
PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
A. Address of the property:
B. Legal Description:
(Lot and Block of Subdivision; Tract #)
C.
17
(Section, Township, Range) (Attach sheet for metes and bounds)
The present zoning of the above property is: _
The proposed zoning of the above property is:
E. State the changed or changing conditions that make the proposed
amendment necessary:
APPLVCAT'Oc: I -
HOW WILL THE PROPOSED CHANGE ACCOMPLISH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF:
A. Promoting the Master Plan bec/ekj.'X. /4C uav f 0A.
✓,'sue l 1M4041f oX kaj'.sRQ0 L' 1' ♦G 4 % o� �eJer<
IJirQ IPSS CO —I" )^Le.T.La— ar0✓�U 'it -�o ea. IOC`. ( OK �X'flrJ
B. Lessening congestion in the streets and providing safe access 7lff
C. Promoting safety from fire, panic and other
D. Promoting the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety and general
welfare _ � ke_ ,:4tie,ce. II.:L t.1.ie AsJ co.a»iu. //�� �r'11
SFr✓Q t-L OJLI.0 :n�F/'e3T' 40"4' CON✓c H.tKe.! (La/`// y
4ee I/mot t10;4/e.
E. Preventing the overcrowding of land JAW
F. Avoiding undue concentration of population AM
G. Facilitating the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools,
parks and other public facilities A
H. Giving reasonable consideration to the character of the district Allt
2
I. Giving consideration to the peculiar suitability of the property for particular uses
D Io_0er t�./�Owr �JL�c.�1�r �S�j /I% �-�: (/C 11t
Arep' COhti n G4f.1,r 7:4 +1 << rIwers /0 C4f CN 1
CW CSS W� re- 1-Lcr sL Alac4.i cA
J. Protecting and conserving the value of buildings
K. Encouraging the most appropriate use of land by assuring orderly growth
The signing of this application signifies approval for F.R.D.O. staff to be present on the
property for routine monitoring and inspection during approval process.
�y — Z-
(Applicant) (Date)
Icl
APPLICATION PROCESS
APPLICABLE TO ALL ZONING APPLICATIONS:
A. Pre -Application Meeting:
A discussion with the Planning Director or designated member of staff must
precede filing of this application. Among topics to be discussed are: Master Plan
compatibility with the application, compatibility of proposed zone change with
surrounding zoning classifications, and the application procedure.
B. Completed application form.
C. Application fee per schedule, made payable to the Flathead Regional Development
Office.
Fee Schedule
Zone Change:
Base fee $500.00
For first 80 acres of area of the request add $10/acre
For next 81 + $5/acre
Amendment to Zoning Text $400.00
PUD Zoning Review:
Residential $400.00 + $10/ acre
Commercial $600.00 + $10/acre
Mixed Use $650.00 + $10/ acre
D. The application must be accepted as complete by the FRDO staff thirty (301 days
prior to the date of the planning board meeting at which it will be heard in order
that requirements of state statutes and the zoning regulations may be fulfilled.
APPLICABLE TO APPLICATIONS FOR ZONE CHANGE:
A. Application Contents:
1. Petition for zone change signed by at least 50% of the property owners in
the area for which the change in zoning classification is sought.
2. A map showing the location and boundaries of the property.
3. A list of the names and mail addresses of all property owners within 150
feet of the subject property as shown on the Assessor's roll.
Example
Assessor's S-T-R Lot/Tract Property Owner
No. No. and Mail Address
4. A title report of the subject property.
As approved by the CAB on 4/5/00
Effective 6/ 1/00
IF THE REQUEST PERTAINS TO AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE
ZONING REGULATIONS, PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING:
A. What is the proposed zoning text amendment?
1. To limit the amount of adverse visual impact within city limits,
communication transmission towers (cellular towers) must be separated by
one linear mile, unless co -location possibilities do not exist.
2. In areas zoned — l - 5- I:- Y- I' Z -')
communication transmission towers are a permitted use, but are required
to adhere to the following standards:
a. The communication transmission tower must be separated by one
linear mile from any other communication transmission tower,
unless co -location possibilities do not exist.
b. The communication transmission tower has co -location
possibilities and tower strength form separate communication
service providers. 3p�