Laserfiche WebLink
F-' <br />F-' <br />W <br />0 <br />0 <br />1---, <br />F=CHART (Revised 2/13/97) <br />CONCERN: TOWER/ANTENNA FACILITIES: VISIBILITY FROM ROADWAYS & SURROUNDING PROPERTIES <br />strategies to screen or Hide <br />Towers/AttacLsents <br />Itainting Regulation <br />Drafted Regulation Changes <br />Additional Alternatives <br />S. 'Promote use of monopole rather <br />a. Not addressed. <br />Reg. 7 (Incentive) Exempts monopoles from <br />than bulkier looking lattice <br />co -location requirements (alternate). <br />towers. <br />9. 'Restrict size, number, type of <br />a. Not addressed. <br />Reg. 6 Not addressed. <br />Alt. it Limit number and size of dish antennas <br />tower attachments. <br />mounted on a tower or other structure <br />(Hialeah). <br />Alt. 12 Provide incentive (staff level approval) <br />for additions/modifications to towers <br />that do not increase a tower's silhouette <br />area by more than 2S% (Napa]. Provide <br />disincentive (commission or board level <br />approval) for changes that increase <br />silhouette more than 2S% (Napa]. <br />Rey: Alternatives Used By Other Local Governments <br />Altamonte: City of Altamonte Springs, Florida Cobb: Cobb County, Georgia Hialeah: City of Hialeah, Florida <br />Napa: Napa County, California Orange: Orange County, Florida Palm Beach: Palm Beach County, Florida <br />San Francisco: City & County of San Francisco, California <br />sNECESSARY BOARD ACTION: Strategies 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive; therefore the Board should choose either <br />strategy 1 or strategy 2. Strategies 3-7 are not in conflict with any other strategies; therefore, the Board should <br />choose which (if any, perhaps all) of the Reg. 3 - Reg. 6 draft changes and the Alt. 3 - Alt. 10 alternatives listed <br />with strategies 3-7 should be addressed in the formal LDR changes. Strategies 8 and 9 could conflict with co - <br />location strategies, although strategy 8 is merely an option for applicants to choose (monopole/single user vs. <br />lattice/multiple users). Thus, the Board could choose the co -location strategies and strategy 8. The Board should <br />decide if the Reg. 7 draft change, and which (if any, perhaps both) of the Alt. it and Alt. 12 alternatives for <br />strategies 8 and 9, it wishes to have addressed in the formal LDR changes. <br />'Note: Potentially conflicts with co -location strategy: generally, monopole towers can have only' -one user. <br />'Note: Potentially conflicts with co -location strategy: could limit number and type of multiple users <br />be the case if strategy 9 (Alt. 11 and Alt. 12) were incorporated into the LDR changes. <br />Dr. Caimi's comments indicate that co -location incentives should not be weakened, as wot<" <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />