4/15/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

* Require equipment buildings that support antennas attached to buildings to match material and color of main buildings [Hialeah ordinance]. . * Require screening of all or portion of building -mounted antennas (especially roof mounts) [Hialeah ordinance]. * Require all stand alone equipment buildings (color and materials) to blend in with surroundings [Cobb County & Napa County ordinances]. * Limit height of equipment buildings [e.g. 15': Napa County ordinance]. * Limit projections of antennas mounted to walls of buildings (e.g. 4' from wall), and limit area of wall face covered by antenna (e.g. 50 sq. ft. per wall face) [Napa County ordinance]. * Require roof mounted antennas to be set back from building edge [e.g. for antennas over 10' high, set back height of antenna: Napa County ordinance]. *Addressing Other Compatibility Aspects * Restrict new towers over 150' tall to AG -2 and AG -3 areas. * Restrict districts in which various heights of towers are allowed (see above). * Require increased setbacks from property boundaries and/or residences and rights-of-way [Orange County, F1. ordinance]. * (Incentive) Allow taller towers on large county owned sites (regardless of zoning) where significant setbacks from existing and potential future residences can be required and ensured. * Apply 2 mile separation requirement between non -camouflaged, single user tower [Napa County ordinance]. NOTE: this alternative is not recommended by staff and has not been incorporated into the proposed LDR amendments. However, based upon -discussion at the March 27th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, staff is recommending separation distances used in the Orange County, Florida ordinance (see item below), subject to certain exemptions that would allow tower "Clustering" where desired. * Require special setbacks (750' - 5,0001) between.towers.,by tower height and type [Orange County, F1. ordinance], subject' to specific exemptions. y * Require applicant to execute a removal agreement with county., for towers of significant size [Napa County ordinance].°} The alternatives have been borrowed from various ordinances,,. including those from: Collier County, Florida; Hialeah, Florida; Orange County, Florida; Palm Beach County, Florida; Cobb County, Georgia; Napa County, California; San Francisco, California. These - alternatives will limit new tower proliferation, promote collocation, and address other compatibility concerns expressed during workshops. Staff has proposed increased incentives for camouflaged towers that were not agreed to by consensus at the February 20, 1997 Board workshop. The incentives, shown at the top of page it of attachment #6, would allow camouflaged towers up to 150' tall to be approved at a staff level, subject to certain criteria. At its February 20th workshop, the Board indicated that such "incentivized" towers should be limited in height to 100'. In staff's opinion, the proposed incentives (camouflaged towers up to 150') will be used by the telecommunications industry and will result in a reduction in negative visual impacts that use of non - camouflaged towers would produce. However, if the camouflaged tower incentives are limited to 100' towers, then such incentives would be -significantly less useable within Indian River County and more non -camouflaged towers would result. In addition to items specifically workshopped at the February 20, 1997 Board meeting, staff has incorporated concepts and proposals from local amateur radio operators to address some of their concerns and suggestions that were briefly discussed at the February 20th Board workshop.. The amateur radio proposals that are APRIL 15, 1997 14 i �