2/20/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK 100 PAGE ADO 7 completed a general location survey of potential co- location/camouflage sites for new antennas, attended another telecommunications conference, and reviewed more tower/antenna ordinances of other local governments. Based upon information provided with this report and information to be provided at the February 20th workshop (including input from the consultant), the Board is to decide which alternatives that it wants staff to pursue in amending the county's current communications tower/antenna land development regulations (LDRs). ANALYSIS: eGeneral Location Survey: Potential Co -Location Sites In previous reports to the Board, staff included a county map of existing towers used for services provided to the "general public" (e.g. radio towers, cellular phone towers: see attachment #1). In addition to these types of towers, there are many other towers and sites in the county that could be used for co -location, or for camouflaged towers. These additional towers or sites include: special mobile radio towers for individual businesses, water towers, park and school sites with existing or potential for ball field lighting, and powerline corridors (see attachment #2). Information sources used in compiling this information include: "Fryar's Site Guide", FP&L, City of Vero Beach electric utility, public works, planning, telecommunications manager, and code enforcement officer field verifications. All of the depicted potential co-location/camouflage sites could accommodate antenna heights over 70' above ground level. In addition to what is depicted on attachment #2, it should be noted that some of the many places of worship in the county are potential camouflaged tower sites (e.g. steeple replacements, construction). Staff will present information on these sites at the February 20th workshop. This general location survey indicates that there appear to be many potential co -location sites in most of the county's Urban Service Area and along the US 1 and SR 60 corridors. There also appear to be potential co -location sites for significant segments of I-95 and. some segments of SR A -1-A. By providing various incentives for co - location along with stricter justification and multiple user requirements for proposed new towers, the county can ensure that many new antennas will be co -located or camouflaged. However, not all of. the estimated 60-97 new antennas (see attachment #3) can be accommodated without construction of some new towers. ORF Engineering Consultant's Review and Cements Recently, the county's RF engineering consultant, Dr. Frank Caimi, P.E., reviewed the draft proposed ordinance and alternatives and provided comments to staff in the form of a "marked -up" draft ordinance. The main thrust of Dr. Caimi's comments was that co - location should be promoted and proposed incentives should be increased. In regard to radio frequency (RF) aspects, Dr. Caimi suggested that the formal LDR changes should take into account: 1. Measuring tower height from average site grade (staff notes that the county's "building height" measurement methodology should be used: average natural grade). 2. Recognizing that different providers use different frequencies which require antennas of various vertical lengths. Providers that must use longer vertical lengths need to be reasonably accommodated. 3. Specifying required search areas (see attachment #4, Chart A, Alt. 1) . FEBRUARY 20, 1997 2