Appendix A: Survey Results and Comments

MPC held a workshop on April 3 and asked workshop participants to fill out a survey. There were thirteen participants who returned the surveys at the end of the meeting. Most were employed by the wireless communications industry.

A = Agree N = Neutral D = Disagree

INCENTIVES

The following uses would not require a use on review application:

• Locate new towers on pre-approved sites on government-owned property.
  (A - 73%, N - 9%, D - 18%)
  
• Locate new towers within 50 feet of an expressway.
  (A - 45%, N - 18%, D - 36%)
  
• Locate new towers at least 150' below ridgelines.
  (A - 18%, N - 9%, D - 77%)
  
• Hide antennas inside a "stealth" structure.
  (A - 9%, N - 9%, D - 82%)
  
• Limit new towers to no more than 90 feet in height in some zones.
  (A - 36%, N - 0%, D - 64%)

  Other suggested incentives:

  • Limit new towers to no more than 150 feet in height in some zones.
  • Locate a monopole that is less than 150 feet in specific areas.
  • Locate new towers in an industrial, commercial, or office zones (all areas within the city and county).
  • Locate new towers on existing utility substation.
  • Any tower that is 150 feet or less.
  • Reduce setback requirements for locating towers in an industrial or commercial zone.

   

HEIGHT

1. MPC should impose a maximum height for new towers in different land use or zoning categories:

• Agricultural
  (A - 29%, N - 14%, D - 57%)
• Single family residential
  (A - 65%, N - 35%, D - 0%)
• Multi-family
  (A - 65%, N - 35%, D - 0%)
• Office
  (A - 29%, N - 43%, D - 29%)
• Commercial
  (A - 17%, N - 17%, D - 67%)
• Industrial
  (A - 14%, N - 29%, D - 57%)
• Parks and open spaces
  (A - 29%, N- 43%, D - 29%)

  Other comments:

  • Agricultural, commercial, industrial and office - No maximum height
  • Single family residential - (90 - 120 feet)
  • Multi-family residential - 150 feet
  • Parks and Open Space - 180 feet
  • Maximum height is not realistic. Maximum height will be required only in an approval process with tower in excess of that height requirement.
  • Height is dictated by radio frequency.
  • Tall towers allow for more co-location.

2. A large number of short towers may achieve the same coverage as some tall towers:

• MPC should limit tall towers and encourage a large number of short towers instead.
  (A- 25%, N - 13%, D - 62%)
• MPC should encourage tall towers to avoid a large number of short towers.
  (A - 62%, N - 0%, D - 38%)

REVIEW PROCESS

• MPC should hold a "pre-application hearing" for new tower applications. This would allow time for more extensive testimony and would give the applicant an idea of issues that need to be addressed.
  (A - 44%, N - 12%, D - 44%)
• This could be prior to preparation of detailed engineering studies required for the MPC public hearing.
  (A - 56%, N - 11%, D - 33%)
• MPC should allow a tower design to be incorporated as a standard feature of new developments (office parks, subdivisions, churches, shopping centers, etc.? For example, pre-approve a stealth tower in a shopping center or business park as part of the development plan.
  (A - 44%, N - 44%, D - 12%)
• MPC should fast track or pre-approve sites on government properties and right-of-way?
  (A - 67%, N - 22%, D - 11%)

  Other suggestions:

  • The 110% setback requirements shall also apply to location on a commercial property.
  • Strictly adhere to zoning ordinance.
  • As technology changes, allow carriers to modify equipment as needed.
  • Listen to staff recommendations.

   

OTHER CONCERNS AND COMMENTS

• Enhanced 911 requirements will affect the design and types of new antennas.
• Limitation of height.
• Using visibility to determine tower type.
• Restrict additional towers to be placed on the same property.
• Color requirements for the towers.
• Requirements for improving existing sites.
• We are still in coverage phase - tall towers for CO-location is still needed.
• Industries need to work closely with homeowners.
• Advance notice to homeowners or participants is needed (12 days notice is too short).
• Will a number of "spec sites" be able to identify? Will it be possible to incorporate them into our land use plan?
• Need to incorporate tower planning with the land use plan.
• If a long range plan cannot be provided, can it be a schematic plan?