3/19/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 11. Specifies expert engineering review requirements and fees for all wireless facilities special exception use requests and requests requiring technical radio frequency engineering analysis [pp. 36 & 37]. Note: to implement this provision, staff seeks the BCC's authorization to proceed with a Request for Qualifications (RDQ) for RF engineering films that do not perform work for wireless services providers. Such authorization is included in staff's recommendation at the end of this report. 12. Contains "enabling language" to develop and adopt the Wireless Master Plan and use it as an alternative to individual applications processed under the 971.44(5) regulations. The Wireless Master Plan will ` pre -approve" site areas for various types of wireless facilities and will be used as a tool to evaluate individual applications filed under the proposed 971.44(5) regulations [pp. 33 & 39]. • Rebel Road/Nextel Example The impetus for the telecommunications regulations re -write and the wireless master plan development was the application by Nextel for its "Rebel Road" wireless facility monopole tower. That application was for a 150' monopole tower located at the rear of the Immanuel Baptist Church site, located west of 58th Avenue and north of 5th Street S.W Under the existing regulations, that application was approved by the PZC but denied by the Board on appeal. On further appeal, the Board's denial was overturned by a court decision, and the application was subsequently approved Nextel has applied for and will shortly obtain peumits for construction of the tower. Under the existing regulations, extel's proposed 150' monopole tower was ultimately approved as an administrative permit use in the A-1 zoning district (Agriculture 1, up to 1 umt/5 acres). With the proposed regulations, the only type of new wireless facility allowed within the A-1 zoned area east of 66th Avenue and south of S.R. 60 (which includes the subject site) would be a "stealth" facility. Thus, under the proposed regulations, a new monopole tower could not be located on the site. While the new regulations would allow a stealth facility up to 150 feet tall on the subject site, these regulations would require the stealth facility to be designed and located on the site so as to meet the "Stealth Wireless Communications Facility" definition, which is as follows: "Stealth Wireless Communications Facility means a wireless communications facility, ancillary structure, or equipment enclosure that is not readily identifiable as such, and is designed to blend into its surroundings and be aesthetically compatible with existing and proposed uses on a site and the surrounding area. A stealth facility may have a secondary function. Examples of stealth facilities include but are not limited to the following: church steeple, bell tower, spire, clock tower, cupola, light standard, flagpole with a flag, or tree." This allowance for stealth facilities u conventional church steeples and fl exceptions to the county s buildin 911.15(1)(a)]. p to 150 feet tall is consistent with the fact that agpoles are already allowed at that height as g height requirement [reference LDR section Under the proposed regulations, the applicant would also be required to provide photo - simulations of the proposed stealth tower from vantage points at adjacent occupied March 19, 2002 • 81 D111) d � Uig I 1