Laserfiche WebLink
M <br />1:7 <br />Staff feels that co -location strategies 1 and 2 (including proposed <br />draft regulations and alternatives), when developed into final LDR <br />form, will incorporate Dr. Caimi's comments and suggestions. Dr. <br />Caimi also provided some sample tower lease agreement forms with <br />his comments. That information is being sent to the county <br />attorney's office for its use. <br />*Revised Alternatives <br />Attached Charts A, B, and C have been revised and expanded <br />since <br />the December 19th workshop to reflect additional research performed <br />since that meeting. Each is discussed below. <br />CHART A: PROLIFERATION OF NEW TOWERS <br />This chart identifies draft regulations and additional alternatives <br />relating to tower non-proliferation strategies. The Board should <br />review these draft regulations and alternatives and determine which <br />should be incorporated into formal tower/antenna LDR changes. <br />CHART B: VISIBILITY FROM ROADWAYS & SURROUNDING PROPERTIES <br />This chart addresses draft regulations and alternatives relating. to <br />tower visibility from roadways and surrounding properties. <br />The Board needs to choose between prohibiting tall towers (such as <br />by setting an absolute tower/antenna height limit) and discouraging <br />tall towers. In staff's opinion, it would be difficult to set a <br />meaningful absolute height limit that would accommodate all types <br />of wireless services. Furthermore, setting such a limit would <br />result in a greater proliferation of shorter towers, dispersing <br />towers and increasing the number of properties directly impacted. <br />For those reasons, staff feels that the strategy to prohibit tall <br />towers should be rejected, and the strategy to discourage tall <br />towers should be accepted. <br />Strategies 3-7 of Chart B reflect strategies that are not in <br />conflict with any other strategy. The Board should review these <br />strategies and choose which (none, some, or all) draft regulations <br />and additional alternatives should be incorporated into the formal <br />tower/antenna LDR changes. <br />Strategy 8 promotes the use of monopoles because those type of <br />towers have little bulk and are, therefore, less visually <br />obtrusive. Although such a strategy provides an incentive for <br />monopole over multiple user towers, adopting strategy 8. and co - <br />location strategies would merely provide options. Strategy 9,' <br />however, could work directly against co -location objectives since <br />it would restrict the amount of bulk (and thus attachments) allowed <br />on towers. <br />CHART C: OTHER COMPATIBILITY ASPECTS <br />This chart addresses draft regulations and alternatives relating to <br />other compatibility aspects. <br />The Board should review this chart and decide which of the draft <br />regulations and alternatives should be incorporated into formal <br />tower/antenna LDR changes. <br />CONCLUSION <br />In staff's opinion, the Board should accept the strategies, draft <br />regulations, and alternatives described in Charts A, B, and C with <br />the exception of: strategy 1 on Chart B (and related <br />alternatives), strategy 9 on Chart B (and related alternatives), <br />and Alt. 8 on Chart C (which conflicts with the intent of Reg. 6 on <br />Chart A) . <br />FEBRUARY 20, 1997 <br />3 <br />BOOK —flu"J FAGS 66� <br />