HomeMy WebLinkAboutV (A) Second Reading of Ordinance No. 97-12, related to Telecommunications Service Facilities Agenda 5-20-97
Item V A
"CENTER OF GOOD LIVING- PRIDE OF WEST ORANGE"" MAYOR• COMMISSIONER
OCOe\ S. SCOTT VANDERGRIFT
O� `� %\\` COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF OCOEE RUSTYJOIINSON
�� Q SCOTT ANDERSON
O 150 N-I,AKF.SII012F.DRIVF. SCOTT A.GLASS
fit. ISOCOEE,FLORIDA 34761-2258JIM GLEASON
yr�� ��VJ 0�656-23 o1YMANAGER
�f G00 ELLIS 511AP1RO
STAFF REPORT
DATE: May14, 1997
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners1
FROM: Abra E. Home, Senior Planner _0��rrr' 1,,'
THROUGH: Russell B. Wagner, Director of Planning Y/
SUBJECT: Proposed Telecommunications Service Facilities Amendments to
the Land Development Code
ISSUE:
Should the Mayor and City Commission approve Ordinance#97-12 to enact amendments to the
Land Development Code pertaining to Telecommunications Service Facilities?
BACKGROUND:
In an effort to address emerging planning issues, Staff periodically recommends Land Development
Code amendments which address specific uses or concerns. Earlier this year, the City adopted a
moratorium on the acceptance of applications and construction of telecommunications service
facilities to allow staff to thoroughly research new federal regulations governing telecommunications
service facilities,work with a telecommunications service facilities consultant, evaluate approaches
being proposed by other municipalities, and identify potential impacts of these facilities on
surrounding properties. As a result, Staff has prepared a new Section 5-19 and new definitions to
be added to the Land Development Code. Staff has also prepared some changes to existing
portions of the Land Development Code to resolve conflicts or provide clarifications.
DISCUSSION:
In accordance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the principal land use impacts of
telecommunications service facilities that local governments can regulate relate to the height,
location, siting, design, construction, and aesthetics of facilities. Although some communities have
discussed issues relating to Radio Frequency Radiation (RFR), the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) promulgates rules and reserves regulatory authority related to RFR for the
federal government.
F } .'
1.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING HELD WEDNESDAY, APRIL 30, 1997
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Switzer at 7:30 p.m. followed by a moment of
silent meditation and the pledge of allegiance. A quorum was declared present.
PRESENT: Chairman Harold Switzer, Vice Chairman Bond, Members Hopkins, Jones,
Landefeld and Rhodus, and Alternate Members McKey and Williams. Also
present were Planning Director Wagner, Senior Planner Horne, Site Plans
Examiner Lewis, Special Counsel Barice, and Deputy City Clerk Green.
ABSENT: Member Miller.
CONSENT AGENDA
The consent agenda consisted of approval of items A and B:
A. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting held Tuesday
March 11, 1997.
B. Minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting held Tuesday,
April 8, 1997.
Planning Director Wagner pointed out that there had been a slight typographical error in the
minutes of March 11 which had been approved on April 8.
Member Landefeld seconded b Member Hopkins moved to approve the consent agenda as
presented. Motion carried 6-0. Member Miller was absent.
NEW BUSINESS
Clerk's Note: This item was continued from the April 23, 1997 scheduled meeting due to lack
of a quorum.
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT, ORDINANCE No. 97-12 - PUBLIC HEARING
NEW SECTION 5-19, TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE FACILITIES
Chairman Switzer announced that the Planning and Zoning Commission would be acting as the
Local Planning Agency for the public hearing on the proposed Land Development Code
Amendment.
Planning Director Wagner commended Senior Planner Home, Special Counsel Barice, and the
City's technical consultant for their work on the proposed amendment.
p n T4p td
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
April 30, 1997
Mr. Wagner stated for the record that Planning and Zoning Commission was acting on this
matter in response to a moratorium that the City had placed on all telecommunications towers
some months ago. Having received inquiries about cellular towers/ communication towers and
observed what was happening in the surrounding area, staff had requested Commission to
institute a moratorium to allow time to prepare an ordinance that would be tailored to the needs
of Ocoee. He said there would be two additional public hearings on May 6 and May 20 before
City Commission.
Mr. Wagner said the ordinance was really all about aesthetics. He said the facilities were here
to stay and that the desire was to accommodate them in a way that minimized the visual
obtrusiveness of the facilities within the community.
He said the ordinance was unique in that it delineated a "three area approach" rather than basing
locations of the facilities on zoning districts as was typical. He explained that the highest and
most visually obtrusive facilities would be restricted to areas that were mostly industrial and
commercial.
Mr. Wagner said the ordinance provided a dual approval process. He explained that some types
of facilities could be approved administratively by staff within the parameters set by the
ordinance via the Site Plan review process, and that larger or more innovative facilities, those
which would have a strong visual impact on the community, would be permitted through the
Special Exception review process. He said he believed the ordinance provided flexibility and
encouraged innovation.
Senior Planner Horne presented the staff report. She pointed out the heights of various towers
in the community to help members envision the structures described in her report. She
explained that, upon the advice of the City's technical consultant, the term "Telecommunication
Service Facilities" had been selected rather than the more commonly used "communication
towers" in order to indicate the City's expectation to include a whole range of possible types of
structures rather than conventional tower facilities.
Mrs. Horne guided members through an overview of the body of the ordinance and its exhibits,
pointing out new definitions of terms (pages 3 to 7), the new Section 5-19 entitled
"Telecommunications Service Facilities" (pages 7 to 23), various "housekeeping" changes (pages
23 - 24) as set forth in Exhibits "B" through "J." She said it was important to note on page 6
of the revised Table 5-1 (Exhibit "J") the addition of the new line referencing
Telecommunications Service Facilities because the City would not be governing those facilities
based on conventional zoning districts, as Mr. Wagner had pointed out earlier in the meeting.
Mrs. Horne directed attention to the ordinance's purpose and intent (page 7), applicability (ham
radio operators are exempt) (page 8), general applications (including prohibited
2
r
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
April 30, 1997
Telecommunications Service Facilities) (pages 8 & 9), and the bulk of the ordinance (beginning
with page 10).
Mrs. Horne displayed Map 5-19, "Telecommunications Service Facilities Location Map" (Exhibit
"A" to the Ordinance and Attachment •A" to Minutes). She pointed out the three areas depicted (Areas
One, Two and Three) and explained the types of facilities which may be permitted in each area.
She displayed pictures and/or described in detail the different types of facilities.
She explained the facilities permitted in Area One are:
Camouflaged (such as faux trees, clock tower, light standard)
Building-Mounted (facade mounted or behind parapet wall)
Accessory (might be guyed tower or monopole, to allow a business to operate its own
equipment and have radio contact with its employees)
Innovative (a group of faux trees along a roadway, clustering of traffic control devices
at congested intersection)
She said the facilities permitted in Area Two are:
Guyed Towers
Monopoles
Facilities permitted in Area One (at different heights)
She explained facilities permitted in Area Three include:
Lattice Towers (up to 200 feet)
Facilities permitted in Areas One and Two (at differing heights)
She explained that co-location would allow multiple antennas on one structure, up to a maximum
of 20 antennas. She said co-location would primarily occur on monopoles, guyed towers and
lattice towers, but could also occur on camouflage facilities. She said the more unsightly
antennas would be clustered in Area Three. She said typical, conventional co-location would
be restricted by Special Exception and would be located in Area Two or Three.
Mr. Wagner pointed out that the proposed facilities are in the first wave of telecommunication
service facilities. As technology expands there will be two more waves of types of facilities out
in the community eventually. Ile said the industry needs to space the structures around the
community. He said they are now able to operate from remote locations due to the height of
the structures, but in the future they will require increasing numbers of locations at shorter
heights.
Recess: 8:15 - 8:22 p.m.
Chairman Switzer opened the public hearing.
3
Riat leeq;
Subject tn
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
April 30, 1997
Mr. George Cohen, representing American Portable Telecomm, 3700 Southland Blvd., Orlando
stated a concern about the limitation on the maximum number of antennas that may be co-
located on one structure in the proposed ordinance. He said that 20 antennas per structure would
be insufficient to allow two "incumbent" providers to co-locate on one structure and suggested
allowing 24 antennas per structure. He supported offering the incentives that staff had
recommended and encouraging co-location.
In response to a question from Chairman Switzer, Mr. Cohen said, as technology marched
forward, he foresaw smaller structures and, eventually, wireless service from an antenna on the
cable line or electrical line in the back of neighborhoods.
As no others wished to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Switzer said the height restriction of 125 feet stated in paragraph 5-19(E) posed a
conflict with the height restriction of 75 feet in subparagraph 5-19(E)(1)(a). He recommended
that staff revisit that portion before the next public hearing. Staff noted that there were similar
conflicts in subsections 5-19(F) and (G).
Ms. Barice said his point was well taken and it might be appropriate to eliminate that conflict.
Vice Chairman Bond said large antenna usage had been restricted to industrial zoning districts
in the past, citing the example of the WGGO tower on Marshall Farms Road which had been
constructed in 1989.
Mr. Wagner said the current zoning ordinance does not speak to towers. He said under the
current code the radio station building would be permitted in C-3 or I-1, and the tower would
be limited to 50 feet.
Mrs. Home said that some of the towers in the City are located in C-3 zoning.
Member Rhodus asked how many applications would he expected. Mrs. Horne said the City's
consultant projected 57 to 87 sites or antennas over the next ten years.
Member Rhodus also suggested readdressing the limitation to 20 antennas to consider an
increase to 24 per structure.
Mr. Wagner said staff would check into it with Mr. Ted Kreines, the City's consultant.
Member Rhodus asked if the need was determined by capacity rather than by area. Mrs.
Horne said there is capacity per antenna, that each antenna could handle about 50 calls. As the
caller travels, each call is traded off from one antenna site to the next. The more people who
4
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
April 30, 1997
use it, the more crowded and smaller the cell sites become.
Mr. Cohen said that cellular capacity was an issue only for the two incumbent cellular carriers,
AT & T and BellSouth.
Member Jones left the table at 8:50 and returned at 8:55 p.m.
Member Hopkins referred to page 2 of the staff report, " . . . these proposed changes involve
a somewhat different approach than that being adopted by most other Florida municipalities, but
our consultants feel that is valid and defensible." She asked if a lot of litigation was expected.
Ms. Barice responded that the City's approach is highly defensible and provides a lot of
opportunities for the providers to locate within the City, given certain design and performance
criteria. She said there are instances where municipalities will allow the construction of these
structures only in certain zoning categories and that ends up being a lot less defensible when the
companies cannot provide the service that they need to provide.
Mr. Wagner said the exciting part about this ordinance is the innovative aspect.
Member Landefeld seconded by Member Jones moved to recommend approval of the Land
Development Code amendments as proposed in Ordinance No. 97-12, including Map 5-19, as
recommended by Staff with revisions to address contlicts in height restriction found on page 10
and revisiting the number of antennas permitted on co-located structures. Motion carried 6-0.
Member Miller was absent.
Chairman Switzer complimented staff on a remarkable job on a very difficult issue.
Ms. Barice complimented the Board for attending the Planning Council meeting on
telecommunications facilities.
Old BUSINESS - None.
OTHER BUSINESS - None.
COMMENTS - None.
5
g w;, I
Stibje;l in t",.: ,
Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting
April 30, 1997
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Marian Green, Deputy City Clerk Harold Switzer, Chairman
6