Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/19/1996ATTACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING Thursday, December 19,1996 9:30 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Fran B. Adams, Chairman (District 1) Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman (District 2) Caroline D. Ginn (District 5) Kenneth R. Macht (District 3) John W. Tippin (District 4) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board ************************************ ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 1. Approval of Surety Bond for Karl Zimmermann 2. Approval of Surety Bond for David Nolte 3. Authorization for Chairman to sign application for Managed Care 4. Resolution re: Local Government H 9:30 a.m. ., Second Board Workshop on Communications Towers (memorandum dated December 13, 1996) 1 - 3 Attachment 1 4 Attachment 2 5 Attachment 3 6-8 Attachment 4 9-17 Attachment 5 18-27 Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the County's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting broadcast live on: TC1 Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast 5: 00 p. m. Thursday through 5: 00 p. m. Friday Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening a= INDEX TO MINUTES December 19, 1996 Special Meeting of BCC ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 CONSENTAGENDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. Surety Bond - Tax Collector Karl Zimmermann . . . . . . 2 B. Surety Bond - Property Appraiser David C. Nolte . . . . 2 C. Application for Worker's Compensation Managed Care Arrangement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 D. Resolution - Participation in Commission on Local Government II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 SECOND WORKSHOP ON COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 1 DECEMBER 19, 1996 SPECIAL MEETING Thursday, December 19, 1996 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Thursday, December 19, 1996 at 9:30 a.m. Present were Fran B. Adams, Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman; Caroline D. Ginn; Kenneth R. Macht; and John W. Tippin. Also present were James Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Vice Chairman Eggert requested the addition of the following items on the Consent Agenda: A. Acceptance of Surety Bond for Tax Collector Karl Zimmermann. B. Acceptance of Surety Bond for Property Appraiser David C. Nolte. C. Application for Worker's Compensation Managed Care Arrangement. D. Adoption of Resolution urging the municipalities and special districts in the county to support, actively monitor and participate in the work of the Commission on Local Government II. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously added the above items to today's Consent Agenda. 1 DECEMBER 19, 1996 CONSENT AGENDA A. Surety Bond - Tax Collector Karl Zimmermann The.Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/18/96: To: Board of County Commissioners From: Alice E. White, Exec. Aide Date: December 18, 1996 Subject: Surety Bond for Karl Zimmermann, Tax Collector Attached is a copy of the surety bond for Karl Zimmermann. His original bond had to be returned because of an incorrect date. Mr. Zimmermann takes office January 7, 1997 and he would like his bond submitted before that date. We expect to receive the bond by the end of this week, however, since we will not have another Board meeting before January 7, 1 am requesting approval for the Chairman to sign the original bond when it is received so that it can be submitted to the State. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously accepted the surety bond for Tax Collector Karl Zimmermann. COPY OF SURETY BOND IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD B. Surety Bond - Property Appraiser David C. Nolte ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously accepted the surety bond for Property Appraiser David C. Nolte. COPY OF SURETY BOND IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD r DECEMBER 19, 1996 C. Application for Worker's Compensation Managed Care Arrangement The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/18/96: To: Board of County Commissioners From: Alice E. White, Exec. Aide Date: December 18, 1996 Subject: Application for Worker's Compensation Managed Care Arrangement The application for Workers Compensation Managed Care Arrangement was not included in the agenda backup material for the December 17, 1996 County Commission meeting. Authorization for Chairman's signature on the application is requested so that it can be processed in a timely manner. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman's signature on the application, as recommended by staff. D. Resolution - Participation in Commission on Local Government H ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 96-164, urging the municipalities and special districts in the county to support, actively monitor and participate in the work of the Commission on Local Government II. 3 r; DECEMBER 19, 1996 `� w � M RESOLUTION NO. 96- _U4 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, URGING THE MUNICIPALITIES AND SPECIAL DISTRICTS IN THE COUNTY TO SUPPORT, ACTIVELY MONITOR AND PARTICIPATE IN THE WORK OF THE COMMISSION, ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT II. WHEREAS, the unprecedented growth of Florida has caused a great demand for services to be performed by county governments; and WHEREAS, there exists overlapping jurisdiction responsibility and duplication of cost for services and function among state government and county, municipal, and special district governments; and WHEREAS, the United States Congress has significantly restructured the role of the Federal Government as an intergovernmental partner eliminating, consolidating, and devolving many federal programs to state, county and municipal governments; and WHEREAS, greater clarity concerning the financing, authority, and responsibilities of counties, municipalities, and special districts will reduce overlapping and duplication of services and functions and assure the efficient delivery of services to citizens of the County; and WHEREAS, the Legislature and the Constitution Revision Commission should have the benefit of a comprehensive study of local government creation, organization, structure, powers, duties, financing, and service delivery capacity before acting upon far-reaching statutory and constitutional measures affecting local governments; and WHEREAS, the membership of the commission includes 5 representatives of Florida counties along with five city officials, and one school board representative, two special district representatives, four members of the House and Senate, and four gubernatorial appointees. 4 DECEMBER 19, 1996 � 0 � �A7 s � � NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN -RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Section 1. The representatives, members and staff of Indian River County, municipalities and special districts within the County should actively participate in this important initiative. Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County urges elected and appointed officials to support, monitor and participate in the important work of the legislatively created Commission on Local Government II. Section 3.Indian River County shall closely monitor and review the Commission's proposals and policy options and prepare recommendations for consideration by the Commission on Local Government II. Section 4. The Board of County Commissioners hereby encourages the governing body of municipalities and special districts within the County to adopt similar resolutions in support of the Commission on Local Government II. The resolution was moved to adoption by Commissioner M a c h t and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Fran B. Adams Ay e Vice Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert A y e Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn A y e Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 19 day of December , 1996. Attest: DECEMBER 19, 1996 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By CiL26y,�- Fran B . Adams ' Chairman 5 S o 100 f a? SECOND WORKSHOP ON COMMMCATIONS TOWERS The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/13/96: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D I ON HEAD CONCURRENCE: bert M. Keat n " =4147 Community Develop ent irector /�•4- FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director DATE: December 13, 1996 SUBJECT: Second Board Workshop on Communications Towers It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its special workshop meeting of December 19, 1996. BACKGROUND: On November 13, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners held a communications tower public workshop attended by the wireless communications industry, the electrical utility industry, amateur radio representatives, officials and staff of other local governments, a wireless communications planner consultant, an FCC attorney, and the general public. During workshop discussion, the Board directed staff to meet with industry representatives and compile estimates of projected communications industry antenna site demands for the next 5-10 years, and schedule another Board workshop. Board members also indicated that their primary concern regarding towers is aesthetics. Since the November 13th workshop, staff has held two meetings with communication and electrical utility industry representatives (11/23/96 and 12/9/96) to discuss and determine industry projections and possible regulations that would address tower proliferation and aesthetic impacts. Planning staff and the county attorney have also attended a telecommunications land use seminar since the November 13th workshop. Staff has now received and compiled communication industry demand projections for Indian River County (see attachment #2), and has developed three charts (see attachment #3) that summarize strategies and regulations that address tower proliferation, tower visibility, and compatibility. As with the previous workshop, staff has invited industry representatives, interested parties, and staff and officials of other local governments to attend the December 19th workshop. The Board is now to review the information and analysis presented in this report, consider information and ideas presented at the December 19th workshop, and provide staff with direction regarding changes to the county's existing communications land development regulations (LDRs). Once such changes are reviewed and formally adopted by the Board, the current moratorium on processing applications for new towers- will be lifted. 0 DECEMBER 19, 1996 _I ANALYSIS: In addressing its tower regulations, the county is trying to balance the federal mandate to reasonably accommodate wireless communications needs with the need to protect the community and affected property owners from negative aesthetic impacts of new towers. It is staff's understanding that the Board is primarily concerned with the aesthetic impacts of new towers and is secondarily concerned with the aesthetic impacts of attaching antennas to existing structures. By presenting in this report information on projected demand and alternative regulations, it is staff's intent to provide the Board sufficient information to find the right balance between reasonable accommodation and aesthetics. Based on information provided by the 5 known wireless communications industries operating in Indian River County, the county can, in the next 5-10 years, expect 38-61 new antennas to be located within the county. Of that total, 6-11 new antennas will need to be mounted at heights of over 1501. Some of these higher antennas could be located on existing or approved towers, but some will probably require new tower sites. Most of the new, taller tower sites would be located along the I-95 corridor. In addition to these projections, the county can expect 3 more wireless communications providers to enter the Indian River County market, according to information _provided by the FCC. As stated in the attached summary charts, the county could consider setting a height limitation on new towers, if the Board determines that it would be better to have a greater number of shorter towers to provide an equivalent coverage area. Information from wireless communications providers also indicates that most of the new antennas will be mounted at heights under 1501, with one provider needing antennas at heights of only 70' - 80'. Staff's research indicates that antennas at shorter heights (under 1501) are easier to co -locate or camouflage, and in most cases would not require safety lighting. However, not all such antennas will be co -located, and new towers for shorter antennas will be needed. It is staff's position that antennas that are camouflaged or appropriately co -located could adequately address the Board's concerns regarding aesthetics. Therefore, incentives for shorter antenna heights, co -location, and camouflaging should be fully addressed in the county's communication tower regulations. Such incentives are contained in the draft regulations and alternative regulations described in the attached summary Chart "A". The attached summary charts compare the county's existing regulations, the draft regulations reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and additional alternatives derived from ordinances of other local governments and from discussion at seminars and meetings with industry representatives. The summary's format is structured to help the Board compare alternatives on an issue by issue basis. After addressing each issue, the Board will need to determine the regulation alternatives that it wants staff to pursue. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider each wireless communications land use issue and corresponding regulation alternatives, and direct staff to initiate changes to the county's current LDRs. 7 DECEMBER 19, 1996 5MK 101) LJ 1 FM 1 . T LOCATION OF TOWERS ---------------------------------- --- IN '~ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ( N IIorida Turn Ike TOWER HEIGHTS O UNDER 140' • 140' - 250' ® OVER 250' PO PROPOSED TOWER :UNDER REVIEW 0`0 -Approved in 1996 R -Replacement Tower SOURCE: I.R.C. Planning Dept. F.D.O.T. SCALE 0 1 ? 3 <, M1103 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Date: July 1996 Updated: Dec. 1996 -I d M-� Mme-+ GT r WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY PROJECTED DEMAND FOR ANTENNA SITES IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (5-10 YEARS) Note: The following data are rough estimates provided by known wireless communications providers operating in Indian River County. Data are -for antenna sites, not new tower sites. Antenna sites may be co -located on existing or approved structures. Provider Total Number of New Antennas 150' - 300' Antennas 801 - 150' Antennas Under 80' Comment Antennas 1. AT&T Wireless 9 0 9 0 Towers will average 100' in height. 2. Bell South 6 4 2 0 One 200' tower was applied Mobility for prior to 11/5/96 moratorium. 3. Nextel 3-10 0 1-5 1-5 One antenna will be located on recently approved ATS tower (Fellsmere). 4. PrimeCo. 10-20 2-7 3-8 5 No tower would exceed 1751. S. Sprint 10-16 0 0 10-16 All are shorter towers, Spectrum averaging 70' in height. 11 TOTALS 38-61 6-11 15-24 16-26 67 Notes: 1. Most of the taller towers (150' - 3001) would be located along the I-95 corridor. 2. 3. u\c\s\towerpro.cht Most of the towers 150' and shorter would first be located along the US 1 corridor, and later would fill-in urban areas east of I-95. According to FCC information, local governments can expect 8 wireless communications providers. Therefore, in addition to the 5 known carriers, the county should expect 3 additional carriers to enter the Indian River County market. 1 1 Ll 1 1 CHART A CONCERN: PROLIFERATION OF NEW TOWER SITES stratigiss to Limit Proliferation fiat atioas 1. Drafted Regulation Changes Other/Additional Alternative provisions Require demonstration of need for new tower sites a. Requires a plicant jjustification: why cat b. Requires applicant justification: why (c1 R existing facilities meat applicant's needs? can't existing facilities meet equire applicant's justification to include RF (radio frequency) data applicant's needs? pattern based on field testa. (d) Require applicant's justification to apply to shorter towers (under 150') and to specifically address why not cc - locating on structures other than existing towers (such as utility poles). (e) At applicant's expense, hire third party RF consultant to independently evaluate Requires applicant PP justification: why an appleicant's justification and report Pindin / inion to the count . 2. Require/promote cc -location: Maximize use of existing and a. Requires applicant justification: whyC. not (i) proposed structures co -locating on existing structures? atructures? not c ting oa existing 1101 height cap for antennae attached attached to existing structures, allowing to reach a height of 100' - 1201. b. (Incentive) Allows replacement of existing conformin towers with new without d. Requires applicant to nota Potential fo users and plan in advance for Future (j) make certain antenna attachment conforming towers a cific Pe co -location. incentives more useful, provide setback approval waivers for equipment buildings used to e. (Incentive) Allows replacement of support antenna attachments (e.g. antennas attached to utility poles existing conforming towers with new conforming towers without specific Address equipment building aesthetica. approval. f. Requires various types of new towers to be specifically designed to accommodate multiple users. 9- (Incentive) Allows replacement of non -conforming towers with new, multiple user towers that are not required to meet new setbacks. h. (Incentive) Allows attachment of antennas to existing structures, including towers, with antennas that exceed the structure's height. Height cap: Moir of height of existing structure. -------- -- F-` Fi CTy CHART B CONCERN: TOWER VISIBILITY FROM ROADWAYS & SURROUNDING PROPERTIES Strategies to Screen or Kids Towers/>•t�arhnents Rxisting Regulations Drafted Regulation Changes Other/Additional Alternative Provisions 1. Discourage tall towers. a. More restrictions/criteria (e.g.. cc- b. More restrictions/criteria, (e.g.: cc- (c) Establish increased setbacks from location criteria), and public hearing location criteria) and public hearing property boundaries and/or existing process for tall towers. process for tall towers. residences and rights-of-way (e.g. Orange County Ordinance). (d) Limit tower heights (set maximum height(s); Hialeah Ordinance). 2. Regulate/condition tower lighting and marking. a. Shielding of tower lighting may be b. Shielding tower lighting may be (c) Color towers to "blend -in" with required (Not in Ordinances current required and /n ht lighting surroundings (Hialeah Ordinance). 31 ). Day/night lighting required. cificall r fired. 3. Require removal of abandoned a. (Not is Ordinance# current policy) b. Specific requirement that abandoned towers. Require abandoned towers to be non -camouflaged towers be dismantled dismantled and removed from site. and removed from site. 4. Require landscaping/buffering a. Requarea landscaping around tower base b. Requires landscaping around tower base ic) Increase landscaping material quantity around towers. and/or on property perimeter. area and/or ro rt perimeter. and/or height at time of planting. S. Promote camouflaging a. Not addressed. b. (Incentive) Defines camouflaged ("stealthing") of towers. towers and exempts them from certain requirements and processes (e.g. tower disguised as light or utility pole, steeple). "6. Promote use of monopole rather a. Not addressed. b. (Incentive) Exempts monopoles from than bulkier looking lattice co -location requirements. towers. "•7. Restrict size, number, type of tower attachments. a. Not addressed. b. Not addressed. MLimit number and size of dish antennas mounted on a tower or other structure (Hialeah Ordinance). *Note: Potentially conflicts with cc -location strategy: generally monopole towers can have only one user. '*Note: Potentially conflicts with co -location strategy: could limit number and type of multiple users. u\c\s\towercon.cb 1 1 CHART C CONCERN: OTHER COMPATIBILITY ASPECTS Strategies for Compatibility Xxioting Regulatima Drafted Regulation Changes Other/Additional Alternative Provisions 1. Restrict general locations of new a. Various heights of towers allowed in b. Various heights of towers allowed in (d) Restrict towers over 150' tall to AO -2 tower sites. various zoning districts. Towers over various zoning districts. Towers over and AO -3 areas. 140' tall allowed in agricultural and 150' tall allowed in agricultural and industrial districts only, by special industrial districts only, by special (e) Further restrict districts in which exception. In residential districts, exception. In residential districts various heights of towers are allowed. must be accessory to residential use must be accessory to residential use (i.e.: amateur radio). (i.e.: amateur radio) or a camouflaged tower. C. Requires special exception use approval and more restrictions/criteria for towers 70' to 150' on sites within 1 mile of Urban Service Area. 2. Separate new tower sites from a. 110% fall radius or design fall radius C. Specifies setbacks from property (d) Require increased setbacks from property residences and rights-of-way. (de -facto setback). boundaries and applies building code boundaries and/or residences and rights - wind loading requirements. of -way (e.g. Orange County Ordinance). b. Criterion to consider impact on nearby subdivisions. (e) (Incentive) Allow taller towers on county owned sites (regardless of zoning) where significant setbacks from existing and potential future residences can be required/ensured. 3. Avoid tower site clustering: disperse tower locations. a. Not addressed. b. Not addressed. (c) Require special setbacks (750' - 5,0001) between towers by tower height and type (Orange County Ordinance). 4. Set aesthetic standards for a. Not addressed. b. Not addressed. (c) Require equipment buildings, that support ant ones and tower equipment/support buildings. antennas attached to buildings, to match material and color of main buildings (Hialeah Ordinance). (d) Require screening of all or portion of building -mounted antennae (especially roof mounts) (Hialeah Ordinance). u\c\s\towercon.cc t7�s Planning Director Stan Boling noted during his overview that the chart showing the industry's projected demand is for antennae, not new towers. Director Boling explained that if towers are to be acceptable with regard to aesthetics, it is important that incentives be encouraged, such as using a tall structure that could be restructured for use as an antenna. Another incentive would be that small towers could be approved administratively if they met certain criteria. Industry representatives have said they would be very responsive to incentives. Director Boling showed examples of some types of towers for which staff feels there should be incentives. One suggestion would be to have an annual meeting to look at what is coming forward in the next year to enable us to plan ahead and perhaps avoid some new tower applications. Commissioner Eggert questioned an incentive shown as 2(g) on Chart A which would allow replacement of non -conforming towers with new, multiple user towers that are not required to meet new setbacks. Director Boling explained that there are some existing towers that would not meet some of the new setbacks being proposed. He lives about 500 feet away from a 175 -ft. tower, but he cannot see it from his home because of the trees in his neighborhood. However, that is a single user tower and one incentive would be to allow a replacement of a multiple user tower to be built on the same site that could not meet some of the setback criteria being proposed for the future. That alternative was discussed at length with the Professional Services Advisory Committee and the Planning & Zoning Commission which recommended it as an alternative. Commissioner Eggert also questioned an incentive shown as 6(b) on Chart B which exempts monopoles from co -location requirements. Director Boling admitted there are some strategies that conflict, but they are all based on aesthetics. The idea is that it is a trade off because monopole towers are not as wide or bulky as lattice towers and do not have the aesthetic impact. Commissioner Eggert expressed concern that the industry might take advantage of the incentives. Chairman Adams stated that the whole incentive issue really bothers her because she felt that if the industry had been as concerned as they seem to be now with the moratorium in effect, they would have addressed a lot of these problems and tried to work them out. She didn't favor any easy route by authorizing staff to 13 DECEMBER 19, 1996 W 4 no give a blanket permit for an area. She felt it needs to come to the Commission because we have to answer to the folks that live in this county. Chairman Adams considered it a threat when the industry representatives said that if they didn't do towers greater than 175 feet, they would have to do a lot of smaller ones. The truth of the matter is that most of these towers are going to be built in the next couple of years and the industry's emphasis is on getting in and getting its territories straight as quickly as possible and then worry about the rest of it later. Chairman Adams was sorry she felt that way but the reason she does is due to the effort they are making now to deal with the FDOT to circumvent County regulations, plus the two tower applications that came in just before the moratorium went into effect. Chairman Adams didn't favor offering administrative approval as an incentive; she wanted each application to come before the Board. She was worried about the residents, not the carriers. The people in this county have to live with these towers. She would think the carriers would be busy designing something unobtrusive that would sit on fences along I-95. Commissioner Ginn wondered if staff's approach of putting this in our zoning laws is wrong. She felt we should prepare a wireless master plan during the 6 -month moratorium. Commissioner Ginn made the following points in favor of doing a master plan: • A master plan would provide us with a plan for compensation for use of our rights-of-way, and perhaps we could contact rights-of-way expert Dr. Eugene Webb over in St. Petersburg. • A master plan would determine the number of poles or antennae that would be necessary to cover our county. Time is of the essence, however, and the county would be better served if we pre -determined the locations. • A master plan will include more than just cellular and personal communications services; other bands would be included. • There is no government requirement for us to accept the tower approach over shorter mounts. Commissioner Ginn emphasized that we would have a total communications build out plan and could recover the cost through the permitting process. A recent news letter reported that a city or county can require short antennae mounts and can tell the industry where they want the cell sites located before they deal with how they site them. In California 50% of antenna mounts are 14 DECEMBER 19, 1996 M M M under 50 feet which is a lot different than 70 feet. Commissioner Ginn felt we need to sit back and take a different approach to dealing with the communications towers issue. Commissioner Macht pointed out that location of a tower in itself does not mean anything unless you have the coverage pattern and the RF (Radio Frequency) engineering data to support it. Therefore, it would have to be a cooperative plan between the industry and our staf f or whoever does it. There is much to be said about having a lot of shorter towers. Before we got into the tower issue, he never noticed the proliferation of towers built along U.S. #1 and Old Dixie Highway, most of which are commercial communication towers in the 80-120 ft. range. Commissioner Ginn pointed out that another thing the master plan would do for us is give us substantial written evidence if somebody did file suit against us. We can't just say that we don't want to have a tower here. We need reasons, and a master plan would be the reason. Commissioner Tippin wondered what kind of authority we have on this issue because FACo is concerned about doing anything until they see what the Legislature is going to do. One thing for certain is that it is going to be a boon for lawyers. Attorney Vitunac advised that the federal government has given local government the power to zone and control towers. The only restriction is that whatever we adopt doesn't prohibit or effectively prohibit the ability of these private companies to provide service. That is the sole test. So, it depends on what kind of a plan we come up with and how long it takes us to design a plana If we say that all towers have to be on I-95 and they could not provide service to the beach, then our plan would be defective. We have to allow them the full range of their market plans to provide service. NACo and FACo are taking up this issue which is an issue facing every county in the country. The White Paper issued by Congress said they would allow local governments a time period to discuss the issue and come up with local solutions. It also said that if the solutions were too much of an interference with the telecommunications industry, they would act again. Attorney' Vitunac'advised that there is an implied threat that they can take away our zoning power, and he suggested that we might want to stand with NACo and FACo and defend on a national level. Commissioner Ginn suggested that the municipalities participate, and Commissioner Macht agreed. DECEMBER 19 1996 15 anUK �` ; r Lengthy discussion ensued on whether to take a land use approach or do a wireless master plan. Directors Keating and Boling indicated their preference for the land use approach with smaller structures, but they pointed out that we still would need to know what the industry needs to provide service throughout the county. Chairman Adams liked the idea of the master plan and Commissioner Ginn reiterated that she felt we could recoup the costs. Chairman Adams opened the meeting to input from the industry representatives. Attorney Bruce Barkett f irst wanted to set the record straight about his coming in at the last hour before the moratorium was adopted with an application for a tower on the Ansin property. He explained in detail that he talked with Director Boling about the site long before a moratorium was considered. With regard to drafting a master plan or an ordinance, he believed the industry representatives are willing to help if the Board so desires. Jim Randall, AT&T Wireless, questioned Ted Kreines of California being considered as a consultant. He suggested that the Board use somebody with an engineering background. With regard to building shorter, 50 -ft. antenna sites, construction costs could run as high as $500,000 a site and it would place a very big burden on the industry to construct many shorter towers versus a few taller towers. The cost of the sites and placement of the antennae are very expensive. Basically, they would be requested to build the infrastructure all at once instead of gradually filling in. Mr. Randall felt that antennae should be allowed in all zoning districts, and noted that residential areas will be one of the last areas to infill. Commissioner Eggert inquired about the heights of the infill antennae, and Mr. Randall advised that they probably would be 120 feet or less for AT&T but those tower heights could be decreased as demand dictates. He noted that Mr. Kreines indicated that we can all build out at 50 feet, but that would be impractical because it would have to be done all at once which would put a big financial burden on the carriers. Mr. Randall admitted it could be done, but it would be at the public's expense. 16 DECEMBER 19, 1996 M ® M M M M Commissioner Ginn asked if they had something on stealth towers, and Mr. Randall explained that not a lot of that has been done. He didn't have anything on that today, but there are a lot of creative things that can be done. Chairman Adams asked why it has taken so much time to happen, and Mr. Randall replied that technology takes time and money. Chairman Adams felt that technology comes with demand, and asked Mr. Randall if they would be willing to change the towers when the technology does come. Mr. Randall advised that they do that on a regular basis now. They are constantly doing antennae change -outs and tower lowerings. They are constantly evolving their system. Mr. Randall noted that the incentives referred to by staff would be a benefit to everybody because they would give the carriers the opportunity to get their sites where they need them and push them towards the areas that are less impacted. In turn, it gives the County more time to see how the actual system is going to build out. Basically, it gives them the opportunity to pick their priorities. Jeff sluggett, representing Nextel Communications and Sprint Spectrum, stressed that no wireless providers are in the business of constructing towers. He believed all the providers will try to share in the use of existing facilities. He suggested that instead of prohibiting a tower in any specific area, the County identify preferred areas and give incentives for those locations. Creating incentives such as a streamlined review process would guide towers into certain areas, which would benefit the County, the residents in the county, and the industry. Mr. Sluggett encouraged the Board to include incentives in their plan so that the carriers will be assured that if they follow the criteria, the incentive will be available to them. In answer to Commissioner Ginn's inquiry, Mr. sluggett advised that Nextel Communications initially is looking at 2 sites in Indian River County. They are considering leasing space on the American Tower Systems' site out west. Nextel is a new provider in the Florida market. He believed that Sprint has made a commitment to co -locate on 1-3 American Tower Systems' sites. They will need 10-16 shorter towers for infill. Commissioner Ginn asked Mr. Randall of AT&T Wireless if they plan to share their towers with other users, and Mr. Randall assured her they have plans to share with other users on 6 existing towers they have in this county. He explained that when AT&T Wireless went through the approval process, they voluntarily 17 8009.: DECEMBER 19, 1996 J _I 809K DO WEI&Ii instituted their own shared use notification process and they are still offering space on their towers to other carriers. There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman closed the public discussion. Commissioner Eggert didn't feel the County could move away from zoning in this process because no matter what we do we are going to bump into zoning again. She asked what outside help would be needed to conduct a survey of possible antenna sites. Director Boling explained that staff could do a survey on possible antenna sites, but it would be another matter to find out if the owners of the sites would want to negotiate a lease with a carrier. Another question would be whether the possible sites fit into the RF scheme of things. Once a survey is done, however, we would have a data base that could be used by the carriers when looking for possible sites. Director Keating felt we probably will need to get an engineer with RF expertise. Commissioner Eggert concurred that a master plan would be helpful, but she would like to see us get the information we need without going whole hog. She felt we are well under way with what we need to do. Commissioner Macht liked the incentive plan put forth by staff and felt it is a workable plan. Commissioner Tippin believed we have to cooperate because the more we cooperate, the less the State is going to tell us how it is going to be. This is happening all over the country and consultants are going to be very expensive. Commissioner Ginn had a real concern that this would be industry driven, and she felt we need to identify the locations even if that means bringing in outside technical help. Commissioner Eggert suggested that we ask staff to come back in early January with an RFP for an engineering consultant and whatever else is needed. She was not convinced that the wireless master plan was worth the money, but she would like to see us have someone with a technical background do the RF engineering and a survey. Administrator Chandler stated that staff will meet and get more input on how much more will be needed. 18 DECEMBER 19, 1996 M W M r i � MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, that we continue with the ordinance as proposed by staff with the addition of getting more technical information, such as the survey, and anything else staff needs; and have staff bring it back to the Board in January for discussion about what information they can get in- house and what information they think they need from the outside. Under discussion, Administrator Chandler .introduced Terry Smith, who recently filled the new position in Telecommunications. Mr. Smith advised that he has no RF background, but is reading up on wireless technology and trying to get up to speed on the subject. He looked forward to working with staff on this matter. Commissioner Ginn asked for this to come back in another workshop in January and Chairman Adams stated that she, too, had more questions. Commissioner Eggert didn't have any problem in bringing this back at a workshop, but Director Keating felt that staff could be clear enough and concise enough at the second meeting in January about what would be needed as far as outside assistance. Commissioner Ginn asked that the municipalities be contacted by staff about their willingness to participate. Virginia Gilbert, City Manager of Indian River Shores, assured the Board that they are willing to participate in any way they can. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:15 a.m. ATTEST: J. K. Barton, Clerk Minutes approved /-=-,)-/-97 DECEMBER 19, 1996 6 s",6 Fran B. Adams, Chairman 19 MW i