HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/20/1997� MINU'rIMTTACHED =
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING
Thursday, February 20, 1997
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman (District 2) James E. Chandler, County Administrator
John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman (District 4)
Fran B. Adams (District 1) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Caroline D. Ginn (District 5
Kenneth R. Macht (District 3) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 a.m. Third Board Workshop on Communications Towers / Antennas
(memorandum dated February 14, 1997)
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 advanrP
or
Meeting broadcast live on:
TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast 5: 00 p.m. Thursday through 5: 00 p.m. Friday
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
r
� � r
THIRD WORKSHOP ON COMMUNICATIONS TOWERS
Thursday, February 20, 1997
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, February 20, 1997 at 9:00 a.m.
Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman; John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman;
Fran B. Adams; Caroline D. Ginn; and Kenneth R. Macht. Also present
were James Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
INTRODUCTION OF COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/14/97:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
Community Developme t D' actor
FROM: Stan Bolin AICP
Planning Director
DATE: February 14, 1997
SUBJECT: Third Board Workshop on Communications Towers/Antennas
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its special
workshop meeting of February 20, 1997.
BACKGROUND:
This is the third telecommunications workshop held by the Board of
County Commissioners. The first two, held on November 13, 1996 and
December 19, 1996, were attended by various interested parties from
the private and public sectors. Subsequently to the December
workshop, the Board approved hiring an RF engineering consultant to
review and comment upon various tower/antenna draft regulations and
alternatives. Staff has now coordinated with the consultant,
FEBRUARY 20, 1997 Bo®K ,, .
PAGE'
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
M
1:7
Staff feels that co -location strategies 1 and 2 (including proposed
draft regulations and alternatives), when developed into final LDR
form, will incorporate Dr. Caimi's comments and suggestions. Dr.
Caimi also provided some sample tower lease agreement forms with
his comments. That information is being sent to the county
attorney's office for its use.
*Revised Alternatives
Attached Charts A, B, and C have been revised and expanded
since
the December 19th workshop to reflect additional research performed
since that meeting. Each is discussed below.
CHART A: PROLIFERATION OF NEW TOWERS
This chart identifies draft regulations and additional alternatives
relating to tower non-proliferation strategies. The Board should
review these draft regulations and alternatives and determine which
should be incorporated into formal tower/antenna LDR changes.
CHART B: VISIBILITY FROM ROADWAYS & SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
This chart addresses draft regulations and alternatives relating. to
tower visibility from roadways and surrounding properties.
The Board needs to choose between prohibiting tall towers (such as
by setting an absolute tower/antenna height limit) and discouraging
tall towers. In staff's opinion, it would be difficult to set a
meaningful absolute height limit that would accommodate all types
of wireless services. Furthermore, setting such a limit would
result in a greater proliferation of shorter towers, dispersing
towers and increasing the number of properties directly impacted.
For those reasons, staff feels that the strategy to prohibit tall
towers should be rejected, and the strategy to discourage tall
towers should be accepted.
Strategies 3-7 of Chart B reflect strategies that are not in
conflict with any other strategy. The Board should review these
strategies and choose which (none, some, or all) draft regulations
and additional alternatives should be incorporated into the formal
tower/antenna LDR changes.
Strategy 8 promotes the use of monopoles because those type of
towers have little bulk and are, therefore, less visually
obtrusive. Although such a strategy provides an incentive for
monopole over multiple user towers, adopting strategy 8. and co -
location strategies would merely provide options. Strategy 9,'
however, could work directly against co -location objectives since
it would restrict the amount of bulk (and thus attachments) allowed
on towers.
CHART C: OTHER COMPATIBILITY ASPECTS
This chart addresses draft regulations and alternatives relating to
other compatibility aspects.
The Board should review this chart and decide which of the draft
regulations and alternatives should be incorporated into formal
tower/antenna LDR changes.
CONCLUSION
In staff's opinion, the Board should accept the strategies, draft
regulations, and alternatives described in Charts A, B, and C with
the exception of: strategy 1 on Chart B (and related
alternatives), strategy 9 on Chart B (and related alternatives),
and Alt. 8 on Chart C (which conflicts with the intent of Reg. 6 on
Chart A) .
FEBRUARY 20, 1997
3
BOOK —flu"J FAGS 66�
BOOK NPAGE U
`�
ComDletinQ the LDR Changes
Since the moratorium on new tower applications will expire on May
5, 1997, formal telecommunication tower LDR changes need to be
completed by that time. For that reason, it is necessary for the
Board at the February 20th workshop, to provide direction to staff.
Then staff will develop a "final draft" LDR proposal and will take
those LDR amendments through the standard process. This process
involves review by the PSAC (in combination with the communications
industry) and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Then, the
amendments will be brought back to the Board for final adoption.
Since the LDR proposal is likely to involve changes to the zoning
use table, two Board LDR meetings will be required. Also, given
the complexity of the proposal, staff intends to handle the tower
LDRs separately from other LDR proposals.
RECONIIMMATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Conceptually approve the draft regulations and additional
alternatives described on the attached Charts A, B, and C with
the following exceptions:
a. Strategy 1 on Chart B (and related alternatives),
b. Strategy 9 on Chart B (and related alternatives), and
C. Alt. 8 on Chart C (which conflicts with the intent of
Reg. 6 on Chart A).
2. Confirm the remaining process as described in this report for
reviewing and approving formal LDR changes.
FEBRUARY 20, 1997
4
T
m
....... ......
LOCATION OF TOWERS
IN
INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY
Updated: Dec. 1996
1
1
1
"' "�Ams
�
TOWER HEIGHTS
• �- �'•"
Ro
®
® 1
o UNDER 140'
69th
``
• 140 - 250'
o
• I
o
s
C
'
"
'.
® OVER 250'
\
<
30w
f
` p0 PROPOSED
-4 lot
T
TOWERUNDER
REVIEW
J_i I
•
S.R. °O
o •
r
-Approved in 1996
_
I0
R -Replacement
IOth
s
Tower
w
•
1
s
s
------------72
Florida Turnpike
-------------------- -----`-
I '
-----
-�'
• w
SOURCE: I.R.C. Planning Dept.
F.D.O.T.
SCALE0 1 ? 3 ! MII°°
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Date: July 1996
Updated: Dec. 1996
1
1
1
BOOK .10'0 PAGE
s - TOWER SITES OVER 70' + - AIRPORTS OPEN TO PUBLIC
• - WATER TOWERS o - URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY
■ - PARK/SCHOOL LIGHTING P - PROPOSED TOWER SITES
— — - FPL POWERLINE ROUTE f AY (POLES 1/4 MI APART)
--- - CITY OF V.B. POWERLINES ±7(Y
FEBRUARY 20, 1997 6
� O
J
m
0
0
$_�'
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY PROJECTED DEMAND
FOR ANTENNA SITES IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (5-10 YEARS)
(Revised 2/13/971
Note: The following data are rough estimates provided
County. Data are for
by known
wireless communications providers operating in Indian River
structures.
antenna sites, not new tower
sites.
Antenna sites may
be co -located on existing or approved
Provider
Total Number of New Antennas 150' - 300' Antennas 80' - 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
Mobility
2
0
One 200, ttoeli/5/96r was pplied
for prior
3. Nextel
3-10 0
moratorium.
1-5
1-5
One antenna will be located
on recently approved ATS
4. PrimeCo.
10-20
tower (Fellsmere).
5. Sprint
2-7
10-16
3-8
5
No tower would exceed 1751.
Spectrum
0
0
10-16
All are shorter towers,
averaging 70' in height.
ALS FOR 5
LEPROVIDERS
38-61 (100 of total) 6-11 (16�C of total)
15-24
(39iC of total) 16-26 (45t of total)
IMATED TOTALS
60-97 (1001 of total)
8 PROVIDERS*
Notes: 1.
Most of the taller towers (150' - 3.00')
would be located along the
I-95 corridor.
2.
Most of the towers 150' and shorter would first
be located along the
US 1 corridor, and later
urban areas east of I-95.
would fill-in
*3.
u\c\s\towerpro.cht
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
1
103
1
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY PROJECTED DEMAND
FOR ANTENNA SITES IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY (5-10 YEARS)
[Revised 2/13/971
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 Now
Antennas 150' - 300'
Antennae 800 - 150_T
Antennas Under 80'
Comment
m
Antennas
urban areas east of I-95.
1. AT&T Wireless
9
0
9
0
Towers will average 100' in
in addition to the 5 known carriers,
the county should expect 3 additional carriers to enter the Indian River
height.
2. Bell South
Mobility
6
4
2
0
One 200' tower was applied
eT n
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 175'.
S. Sprint
10-16
0
0
10-16
All are shorter towers,
Spectrum
averaging 70' in height.
TOTALS FOR 5
38-61 (100% of total)
6-11 (16% of total)
15-24 (39% of total)
16-26 (45% of total)
PROVIDERS
ESTIMATED TOTALS
60-97 (1001 of total)
FOR 8 PROVIDERS*
Notes: 1.
Most of the taller towers (150' -`300') would be located along the I-95 corridor.
2.
Most of the towers 150' and shorter
would first be located along the US 1 corridor, and later would fill-in
m
urban areas east of I-95.
*3.
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.
u\c\s\towerpro.cht
eT n
101
U"
cz,
�i
CHART A (Revised 2/13/97)
CONCERN: PROLIFERATION OF NEW TOWER SITES
Strategies to Limit Proliferation
2xisting Regulations
Drafted Regulation Changes
Additional Alternatives
1. Require demonstration of need for
new tower sites
a. Requires applicant justification: why
can't existing facilities meet
Reg. 1 Requires applicant justification: wh
Alt. 1 Require applicant's justification to
applicant's needs?
can't existing facilities meet
applicant's needs? [existing LDRs)
include: determination of service area
for wireless service(s) proposed [San
Dr. Changes comments: the formal
LDRchanges should specify
Francisco], specifyrequired search area
information
nformation and search area
(based on determind service area)
standards. Such information and
inventoryof applicant's g
standards are described under Alt.
infrastructure (Cobb], applicant submits
•5 year plan* projections (San
Francisco). RF (radio frequency) pattern
data based on field tests.
Alt. 2 Require applicant's justification to
apply to shorter towers (under 1501) and
to specifically address why not co -
locating on structures other than
existing towers (such as utility poles).
Alt. 3 At applicant's expense, county hires
third party RF consultant to
independently evaluate an applicant's
justification and report findings/opinion
to the count [Palm Beach).
2. Require/promote co -location:
Maximize use of existing and
h. Requires applicant justification: why
not co -locating on existing
Reg. 2 Requires applicant justification: why
Alt. 4 Increase 110% height cap for antennas
proposed structures
structures?
not co -locating on existing
structures? [existing LDRs]
attached to existingstructures, allowin
to reach a height o 100' - 1201. g
Dr. Caimi's comments heavily
endorse co -location provisions and
b. (Incentive) Allows replacement of
existing conforming towers with new
Reg. 3 Requires applicant to notify potential
Alt. 5 To make certain antenna attachment
incentives.
conforming towers without specific
users and plan in advance for future
co -location. (Palm Beach]
incentives more useful, provide setback
waivers for equipment buildings used to
approval.
support antenna attachments (e.g.
Reg. 4 (Incentive) Allows replacement of
antennas attached to utility poles).
existing conforming towers with new
conforming towers without specific
Alt. 6
At applicant's expense, county hires
approval. [existing LDRa)
third party RP consultant to evaluate
Reg. 5 Requires various types of new towers
applicant's justification report (same as
Alt. 3 above).
to be specifically designed to
accommodate multiple users.
(Altamonte]
Reg. 6 (Incentive) Allows replacement of
non -conforming towers with new,
multiple user towers that are not
required to meet new setbacks.
Reg. 7 (Incentive) Allows attachment of
antennas to existing structures,
including towers, with antennas that
exceed the structure's height. Height
cap: 130t of height of existing
structure. [similar incentives in
several jurisdictional
Key: Alternatives Used By Other Local (governments
Altamonte: City of Altamonte Springs, Florida Cobb: Cobb County, Georgia Hialeah: City of Hialeah, Florida
Napa: Napa County, California Orange: Orange County, Florida Palm Beach: Palm Beach County, Florida
San Francisco: City i County of San Francisco, California
ONECESSARY BOARD ACTION: None of the "Drafted Regulation Changes" or "Additional Alternatives listed are mutually
exclusive. The Board should decide which (if any, or perhaps all) of the 7 draft changes and the 6 alternatives it
would like addressed in the formal LDR changes. 11
1
1
1
0
a+
1
CHART B (Revised 2/13/97)
CONCERN: TOWER/ANTENNA FACILITIES: VISIBILITY FROM ROADWAYS & SURROUNDING PROPERTIES'
strategittaahseats es to screen or aide
towers/Aa
sxistiag Regulation
Drafted Regulation Changes
Additional
Alternatives
1.
'Prohibit tall towers
a.
Tall towerd not prohibited. Allows
towers over 140' in agricultural and
g
Reg. 1 Tall towers not prohibited. Allows
Alt. 1
Prohibit tall towers [e. g. over 150'
industrial zones by special exception
towers over 150' in agricultural and
industrial zones by special exceptici
tall: Hialeah], resulting in shorter
use approval.
use approval.
towers but more numerous and more broadly
dispersed towers. May not meet needs of
certain services for an area as large as
a county.
2.
'Discourage tall towers.
a.
More restrictions/criteria (e.g,: co-
location criteria), and public hearing
Reg. 2 More restrictions/criteria, (e.g.: co
location
Alt. 2
Establish increased setbacks from
process for tall towers.
criteria) and public hearing
for tall towers. [existing
property
property boundaries and/or existing
residences and rights-of-way {orange],
ILDRosc�ss
3.
Regulate/condition tower lighting
and marking.
a.
Shielding of tower lighting may be
required (Not in Ordinances current
Reg. 3 Shielding tower lighting may be
Alt. 3
Color towers to •blend -in, with
Policy). Day/night lighting required.-
required and day/night lighting
specifically required.
surroundings [Hialeah].
4.
Require removal of abandoned
towers.
a.
(Not in Ordiaanaei current policy)
Require abandoned towers to be
Reg. 4 Specific requirement that abandoned
dismantled and removed from site.
non -camouflaged towers be dismantled
and removed from site.
Alt. 4
Increase landscaping material
S. Require landscaping/buffering a. Requi landscaping around tower base Reg. 5 Requires landscaping around tower base
around towers. and/or on property
perimeter.
area and/or property
Y perimeter
quantity
and/or height at time of
existing Lpgs]�
planting.
6.
("smote camouflaging
(stealthing) of towers.
a.
Not addressed.
Reg. 6 (Incentive) Defines camouflaged
towers and exempts them from certain
requirements and processes (e.g. tower
disguised as light or utility pole,
steeple) (several jurisdictions).
7.
Set aesthetic standards for
antennas, and tower
a.
Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Alt. 5
Require equipment buildings that support
equipment/support buildings.
antennas attached to buildings to match
material and color of main buildings
[Hialeah].
Alt. 6
Require screening of all or portion of
building -mounted antennas (especially
roof mounts) [Hialeah].
Alt. 7
Require all stand alone equipment
buildings (color and materials) to blend
in with surroundings (Cobb 8 Napa].
Alt. 8
Limit height of equipment buildings [e.g.
15': Napa].
Alt. 9
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].
Alt. 10
Require roof mounted antennas to be set
back from building edge (e.g. for
antennas over 10' high, set back height
of antenna: Napa].-
a a]'Note:
'Mote:
Strategies 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive.
Strategy 1 would prohibit tall towers
and
strategy 2 would allow but discourage tall towers.
tp
0
O
t_h
CZ
rr
F-'
F-'
W
0
0
1---,
F=CHART (Revised 2/13/97)
CONCERN: TOWER/ANTENNA FACILITIES: VISIBILITY FROM ROADWAYS & SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
strategies to screen or Hide
Towers/AttacLsents
Itainting Regulation
Drafted Regulation Changes
Additional Alternatives
S. 'Promote use of monopole rather
a. Not addressed.
Reg. 7 (Incentive) Exempts monopoles from
than bulkier looking lattice
co -location requirements (alternate).
towers.
9. 'Restrict size, number, type of
a. Not addressed.
Reg. 6 Not addressed.
Alt. it Limit number and size of dish antennas
tower attachments.
mounted on a tower or other structure
(Hialeah).
Alt. 12 Provide incentive (staff level approval)
for additions/modifications to towers
that do not increase a tower's silhouette
area by more than 2S% (Napa]. Provide
disincentive (commission or board level
approval) for changes that increase
silhouette more than 2S% (Napa].
Rey: Alternatives Used By Other Local Governments
Altamonte: City of Altamonte Springs, Florida Cobb: Cobb County, Georgia Hialeah: City of Hialeah, Florida
Napa: Napa County, California Orange: Orange County, Florida Palm Beach: Palm Beach County, Florida
San Francisco: City & County of San Francisco, California
sNECESSARY BOARD ACTION: Strategies 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive; therefore the Board should choose either
strategy 1 or strategy 2. Strategies 3-7 are not in conflict with any other strategies; therefore, the Board should
choose which (if any, perhaps all) of the Reg. 3 - Reg. 6 draft changes and the Alt. 3 - Alt. 10 alternatives listed
with strategies 3-7 should be addressed in the formal LDR changes. Strategies 8 and 9 could conflict with co -
location strategies, although strategy 8 is merely an option for applicants to choose (monopole/single user vs.
lattice/multiple users). Thus, the Board could choose the co -location strategies and strategy 8. The Board should
decide if the Reg. 7 draft change, and which (if any, perhaps both) of the Alt. it and Alt. 12 alternatives for
strategies 8 and 9, it wishes to have addressed in the formal LDR changes.
'Note: Potentially conflicts with co -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
be the case if strategy 9 (Alt. 11 and Alt. 12) were incorporated into the LDR changes.
Dr. Caimi's comments indicate that co -location incentives should not be weakened, as wot<"
1
1
1
1
CHART C (Revised 2/13/97)
CONCERN: OTHER COMPATIBILITY ASPECTS
strategies for oxmpatibility
ExistRegulations
Drafted Regulation Changes
Additional Alternativea
1. Restrict general locations of new
a. Variousheights of towers allowed in
Reg. 1
Various heights of towers allowed in
Alt. 1
Restrict new towers over 150' tall to AG -
tower sites.
various zoning districts. Towers over
various zoning districts. Towers over
2 and AG -3 areas.
140' tall allowed in agricultural and
150' tall allowed in agricultural and
industrial districts only, by special
industrial districts only, by special
Alt. 2
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.
Reg. 2
Requires special exception use
approval and more
restrictions/criteria for towers 701
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
Reg. 3
Specifies setbacks from property
Alt. 3
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 (Orange).
b. Criterion to consider impact on nearby
subdivisions.
Alt. 4
(Incentive) Allow taller towers on large
county owned sites (regardless of zoning)
where significant setbacks from existing
and potential future residences can be
required/ensured.
3. Avoid tower site clustering:
a. Not addressed.
Not addressed.
Alt. 5
Require special setbacks (750' - 5,0001)
disperse tower locations.
between towers by tower height and type
[Orange].
Alt. 6
Apply 2 mile separation requirement
between non -camouflaged, single tower
user (Napa].
4. *Limit the amount of time new
a. Remove if abandoned for more than 12
Reg. 4
Remove if abandoned for more than 12
Alt. 7
Require applicant to execute a removal
towers are allowed to stand.
continuous months (not in ordinance,
continuous months (not in ordinance,
agreement with county for towers of
current policy).
current policy).
significant size [Napa).
Alt. 6
Grant 10 year approvals for towers of
significant size. Renewal request may be
denied at end of 10 years if tower no
longer substantially complies, or is not
made to comply, with up-to-date
regulations. If renewal request is
denied, tower must be removed under Alt.
7 removal agreement [Napa].
Key: Alternatives Used By Other Local Governments
Altamonte: City of Altamonte Springs, Florida Cobb: Cobb County, Georgia Hialeah: City of Hialeah, Florida
Napa: Napa County, California Orange: Orange County, Florida Palm Beach: Palm Beach County, Florida
San Francisco: City & County of San Francisco, California
*Note: Eliminating an existing tower could also eliminate a potential, future co -location opportunity.
ONECESSARY BOARD ACTION: None of the "Drafted Regulation Changes" or "Additional Alternatives" listed are mutually
exclusive. The Board should decide which if any, or (perhaps all) of the 4 changes and 8 alternatives it would like
the formal LDR changes to address.
0
o
C.d
3
rra
tl
Planning Director Stan Boling introduced Dr. Frank Caimi, P.E., the
County's RF engineering consultant.
Dr. Caimi, resident of Vero Beach and adjunct faculty member of
electrical and computer engineering at Florida Institute of Technology,
summarized the goals and provisions included in the draft ordinance with
regard to a provider's ability to give adequate service in this county.
He noted the type of things to be considered when installing a new type
of service:
1) Antenna height is a very important planning parameter in
establishing coverage limits for communication services.
2) Getting above the tree height is important because radio waves
are blocked or reduced by the presence of buildings, trees,
etc.
3) Maintain a minimum height for certain types of service.
Dr. Caimi advised that he reviewed Collier County's provisions for
locating new antennae and was pleased to see the depth that was provided
in those documents in specifying how a particular provider may come in
and procedurally apply for a site location of a new antenna. He felt
IRC's drafted ordinance is more general than that of Collier County and
suggested that perhaps the providers may want to give their input for
the inclusion of more specifics. Collier's ordinance requires that the
provider look at a potential site in a particular area and make a
proposal, submitting a set of documents which detail the technical
service that he is interested in providing. That includes the type of
antenna, the power and other different technical parameters. Then there
is negotiation between the site owner and the provider to determine
whether it is a feasible site. If the site owner does not agree to have
a provider come on his site, or does not reply in a timely manner, then
that site is deemed non -useable. In addition, there is a difference
between the way Collier County's draft defines the average tower height
in that they measure to the top of the support structure.
General Discussion of Drafted ordinance
Commissioner Macht understood that we accept the engineer's seal
rather than Code Board approval, and Director Boling indicated that was
the case.
Director Boling felt the Board may want to address the placement of
inter modular equipment on the same antenna and the space that is
allowed between providers' equipment. Collier County gives incentives
for co -location but puts the responsibility on the providers to find an
acceptable site. Basically, there is a limit to the number of providers_
that can be located on a tower due to the amount of equipment needed.
FEBRUARY 20, 1997 13 �ooau FAG-
EOOK FAGS
Director Boling believed that Collier County does not have a master
wireless plan. He advised that the compensation by the county for
right-of-way has not been addressed in the drafted ordinance, just
zoning and planning. Staff prefers to discourage tall towers rather
than prohibiting tall towers.
In response to Chairman Eggert's request, Director Boling pointed
out current towers on the map using the ELMO system, noting that there
may be additional towers in the city jurisdictions of Vero Beach and
Sebastian. He also pointed out potential co-location/camouflage tower
sites.
Director Boling suggested a review of Charts A, B & C, noting that
there is enough description included in the charts for the Board to give
direction on whether they should be included in the LDRs.
Chart A -- Commissioner Macht suggested a way to shorten the application
process would be to accept the engineer's seal on the radiation coverage
pattern and submit it to our consultant for analysis.
Chairman Eggert asked if the Board had any questions or problems
with the alternatives proposed in Chart A.
Commissioner Adams wanted to keep the 110% height cap in
Alternative #4, and Chairman Eggert agreed. Director Boling suggested
that the Board may want to treat utility poles differently and allow a
100 -ft. pole to have an antennae ... or allow a 70 ft. pole to have
antenna that would take them to 110 feet.
Chairman Eggert had somewhat of a problem with -alternative #5.
Rachel Scott of Florida Power & Light advised that they are
addressing ordinances of this type throughout their system. All of
their transmission poles are designed to meet federal electrical codes,
and that includes antennae attachments. Their concern is that
attachments to their poles would be regulated under the County's LDRs,
particularly fiber optics. They are requesting an exemption from the
LDRs for their transmission poles and those of the City of Vero Beach.
Mrs. Scott presented FP&L's request for an exception from these
regulations for antenna attachments to transmission poles, noting that
providers would not be interested in using their poles because they are
too low.
Commissioner Ginn had no objection to the exemption and, by
consensus, directed staff to add the FP&L exemption as Alternative #7 in
Strategy 2.
Chairman Eggert added the condition that the County must be
notified of any placement of attachments on FP&L's transmission poles.
FEBRUARY 20, 1997 14
M M
M
Jeff 8luggett, representing Nextel Communications and Sprint
Spectrum, had a few comments regarding Alternatives #1 and #2.. He
pointed out that any plan they submitted would be somewhat tentative and
not something they would be locked into.
After a thorough review of each alternative shown on Charts A, B
and C, the Board, by consensus, directed staff to make the following
changes:
Chart A: Strategy 1 -
Alt. 1
o.k.
-
Alt.2
o.k.
-
Alt.3
o.k.
Strategy 2 -
Alt. 4
require special exception
Alt. 5
require special exception
Alt.6
o.k.
ADD
Alt. 7
Exempt FP&L and City of Vero Beach
Transmission poles
Chart B: Strategy 1 -
Alt. 1
Remove strategy and alternative
Strategy 2 -
Alt. 2
o.k.
Strategy 3 -
Alt. 3
o.k.
Strategy 4
o.k.
Strategy 5 -
Alt. 4
o.k.
Strategy 6
o.k.
Strategy 7 -
Alt. 5
o.k.
Alt.6
o.k.
Alt.7
o.k.
Alt.8
o.k.
Alt.9
o.k.
Alt. 10
o.k.
Strategy 8
o.k.
Strategy 9
Alt. 11
Remove strategy and alternative
Alt. 12
Remove strategy and alternative
Chart C: Strategy 1
Alt. 1
o.k.
Alt.2
o.k.
ADD
Notify property owners within %z mile of
Proposed tower in AG -2 and AG -3 Districts
Strategy 2
Alt. 3
Leave in for more specifics
Alt. 4
Leave in for more specifics
Strategy 3
Alt. 5
Leave in for more specifics - make
Provision for special exception
Strategy 3
Alt. 6
o.k.
Strategy 4
Alt. 7
o.k.
Alt.8
Remove
Draft Commercial Communication Tower/Antenna LDR Changes:
Page 5 (B) Admin. Permit required .......70' to 100' tall.
Any tower above 100' will require a special
exception
Page 7 ADD 4.11 (b) Notification of any neighbor living within 2500'
In AG -2 and AG -3 Districts
FEBRUARY 20, 1997 15
6009( .:.. � Fr1u � ��
Sheri Brower, resident of Vero Beach and representing Amateur
Radio, requested that the Board direct staff to okay all the conditions
on amateur radios but separate out ham radios. She advised that she
has a packet of proposals but has not had a chance to discuss them with
staff.
Commissioner Adams' suggestion that we let it go through and see
how it reads before addressing it was accepted by consensus.
There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 11:03 a.m.
ATTEST:
(::: � �e -I,' - e: -)� 4 , z,,- � " -- /, �?,
J. K. Barton, Clerk Carol R. Egge Chairman
Minutes approved 3 -/k•9
FEBRUARY 20, 1997 16
i � s