HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 01 02 Other Item C
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799
Telephone (407) 327-1800
Community Development
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM:
II. C. NEW BUSINESS
REVIEW OF DRAFT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER ORDINANCE
STAFF REPORT
BACKGROUND:
the Planning and Zoning : Board reviewed the draft
Telecommunications Tower Ordinance at its December 4th meeting. a
number of changes were requested by the Board. These changes are
indicated as shadings for additions and strikethroughs for
deletions.
The City Commission has asked the P1anl!ing and Zoning Board to
review and make recommendation on the draft Telecommunications
Tower Ordinance by the January 13, 1997 City commission regular
meeting.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Board make recommendation
to the City Commission for adoption.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES BY CREATING SECTION 20-434
"TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS"; PROVIDING
FOR DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS
AND INTENT; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR LOCATION; PROVIDING FOR
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/DESIGN CRITERIA;
PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS;
PROVIDING FOR CO-LOCATION; PROVIDING FOR
ABANDONMENT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of
Winter Springs, Florida has determined it to be in the best
interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of
winter Springs, Florida to regulate the location, design and
other matters relating to Telecommunications Towers in the
City of Winter Springs, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the Code of Ordinances of the City of
winter Springs does not provide regulations which reflect
changes in technology and federal regulations for such
Telecommunications Towers;
WHEREAS, the City of winter Springs seeks to guide and
control future development within the City to preserve and
maintain the character of its established land use and zoning
districts and has an objective (Objective B of the Future Land
Use Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, Vol. 2 of 2)
which requires that "land development regulations shall
LATTICE TOWER shall mean a Telecommunications Tower that
is constructed without guy wires and ground anchors.
MICROWAVE shall mean a dish antenna, or a dish-like
antenna used to link communication sites together by wireless
transmission of voice or data.
MONOPOLE TOWER shall mean a Telecommunications Tower
consisting of a single pole or spire self supported by a
permanent foundation, constructed without guy wires and ground
anchors.
NIER shall mean non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation.
PANEL ANTENNA shall mean an array of Antennas designed to
concentrate a radio signal in a particular area.
STEALTH FACILITY shall mean any Telecommunications
facility which is designed to blend into the surrounding
environment. Examples of stealth facilities include
architecturally screened roof-mounted Antennas, Antennas
integrated into architectural elements, and Telecommunications
Towers designed to look like light poles, mana power-poles or
trees.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER shall mean a monopole tower
constructed as a free-standing structure no more than 180 feet
in height, containing one (1) or more antenna intended for
transmitting or receiving television, AM/FM radio, digital,
microwave, cellular telephones, or similar forms of electronic
communication, excluding radar towers, amateur radio support
structures licensed by the FCC, private home use of satellite
dishes and television antennas and satellite earth stations.
WHIP ANTENNA shall mean a cylindrical Antenna that
transmits signals in 360 degrees.
(b) Findings and Intent.
The City has with increasing frequency received requests
to approve sites for Telecommunications Towers. Land
development regulations have not adequately identified
specific-procectures to actdress recurring issues relating
to the approval of locations for Telecommunications
Towers. Therefore, it is the intent of this ordinance
(to be codified as Sec. 20-434 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Winter Springs) to address the recurrent
issues pertaining to the approval of Telecommunications
Towers upon parcels located in the City of
Winter Springs. Accordingly, the City Commission finds
that the promulgation of this ordinance is warranted and
necessary:
3
provide criteria to ensure such (public and quasi-public)
facilities are located and designed to be compatible with
adjacent land uses";
WHEREAS, the City Commission realizes that our society is
becoming
dependent
on
cellular
and
other
types
of
communication requiring transmission towers and that provision
of Telecommunication Towers and utility service facilities
within the City of winter Springs serves the public health,
safety and welfare; ,and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE
CITY
OF
WINTER
SPRINGS,
FLORIDA,
THAT:
SECTION -I - City of Winter Springs Code, Chapter 20,
"Zoning", is hereby amended by adding a new section, Section
20-434 to read as follows:
Sec. 20-434. Telecommunications Towers.
(a) Definitions~
ANTENNA shall mean a transmitting an/or receiving device
used in telecommunications that radiates or captures
electromagnetic waves, including directional Antennas, such as
panel and microwave dish Antennas, and omni-directional
Antennas, such as whips, excluding radar Antennas, amateur
radio Antennas and satellite earth stations.
CO-LOCATION shall mean Telecommunications Towers that
have the potential to have two or more carrier Antennas
located on it.
COMMUNICATION TOWER shall mean a monopole, or an existing
tower (guyed, lattice, etc.) greater than fifty (50) feet in
height and which does not exceed one hundred eighty (180) feet
in height (including antenna) which supports communication
(transmission or receiving) equipment. The term Communication
Tower shall not include amateur radio operator's equipment, as
licensed by the Federal Communications commission. (FCC).
GUYED TOWER shall mean a Telecommunications Tower that is
supported, in whole or in part, by guy wires and ground
anchors.
2
(1) To protect residential areas and land uses from the
potential adverse impacts of Telecommunications
Towers when placed at inappropriate locations or
permitted without adequate controls and regulation
consistent with the provisions of law;
(2) To minimize the adverse visual impacts resulting
from Telecommunications Towers through sound and
practical design, siting, landscape screening, and
innovative camouflaging techniques all in
accordance with generally acceptable engineering
and planning principles and the public health,
safety and welfare;
(3) To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties
through sound engineering and planning and the
prudent and careful approval of Telecommunications
Tower sites and structures;
(4) To require shared use/co-location of existing and
new Telecommunications Towers (capability of having
space for three or more carriers) to avoid
proliferation of towers throughout the City of
winter Springs. One co-located position shall be
reserved exclusively for the use of the City of
winter Springs.
(5) To ensure that location of Telecommunications
Towers is consistent with the provisions of the
city of Winter Springs Comprehensive Plan, the East
Central Florida Regional Policy Plan, the state
Comprehensive Plan as well as the provisions of
state and Federal Law.
(cl Applicability. ~
(1) All new Telecommunications Tow~rs/in the_city_of
Winter Springs shall be subject to these
regulations and all other applicable regulations.
For purposes of measurement, Telecommunications
Tower setbacks as listed in subsection (g) (1) and
separation distances as listed in subsection (g) (2)
shall be calculated and applied to facilities
located in the City of winter Springs, irrespective
of other municipal and county jurisdictional
boundaries.
4
(2)
(3)
(4)
All new communications Antennas (i.e. stealth
rooftop or building mounted antennas) which are not
attached to Telecommunications Towers shall comply
with subsection (g) (12).
All Telecommunications Towers existing on ,
~ ~~~~ (the effective,date of, this ordinance)
shall be allowed to cont~nue the~r usage as they
presently exist. Routine maintenance (including
replacement with a new tower of like construction
not to exceed one hundred eighty [180] feet) shall
be permitted on such existing towers. New
construction other than routine maintenance on an
existing Telecommunications Tower shall comply
with the requirements of this section.
For purposes of implementing this section, a
Telecommunications Tower that has received City
approval as a special exception or building permit,
but has not yet been constructed, shall be
considered an existing tower so long as such
approval is current and n~t expired.
(d) Location, Permitted Uses and Special Exceptions.
(1) Telecommunications Towers shall be an allowed use
within the following designations on the Future
Land Use Map of the city of Winter Springs:
Industr ial i Public Buildings i Utili ty
~~~fallati)n~tB'~<~<7~"'~E~o!~ili~(e"!~~~,;:wj)<i!<Fe1;,~,~bW~~~~
!R!~~icres ~\t~;::#~;;&~~@g$>:;~;::;~&1a}SS;i<q~1~;;$lU~~tL~~:.:.:.-JirA~A
(2) A monopole or stealth' facility shall be the
permitted type of Telecommunications Tower within
the City of Winter Springs.
(3) Other types of Telecommunications Towers (i.e.
lattice, guyed, etc.) shall require a special
exception as indicated in Chapter 20 Divison 3
Board of Adjustment Sec. 20-82 through 20-83 of the
Code of Ordinances, City of winter Springs.
(e) site Plan.
Any Telecommunications company or entity that intends to
install a Telecommunications Tower in the city shall file
a site plan (as defined in Chapter 20 "Zoning", if
applicable and/or Chapter 9 "Land Development" Code of
Ordinances, city of Winter Springs) with the Land
Development Coordinator. Said site plan shall be
/ ~:viewed by the Development Review Committee and approved
~. d"'nied approvaI)by the Building Department and the
City Engineer at the time building permits are requested.
5
(f) Application for special exception and buiiding permit
requests.
Applications for special exception shall be submitted to
the Land Development Coordinator and building permit
request shall be submitted to the Building Official.
(g) Performance standards/Design Criteria.
(1) Setbacks.
a. Telecommunications Tower setbacks shall be
measured from the base of the tower to the
property line of the parcel on which it is
located, unless the requirements of Subsection
fet &q$(2) require a greater setback.
.w........"...~.
b. The setback requirement shall be ten (10)
feet.
(2) Separation of towers from off-site uses~
a. Residential use (single-family/multi-
family/mobile homes) which is platted or has a
valid subdivision plan which is not expired _
t:J8 hunelrca ZlF1d fifty (Se) feet [rem an
iiliF'i~8iijI~"i3.~'ll~i~~iliiiiii~jrilillllll
.;.:.~;.:.:.N:-;.:"';.;.;.:.~:.;
b. Vacant, unplatted residentially zone property
:lillfi~iiii;t9d~j;ji~!~iiB~~i~~*g\iilll'lllll
c.
Non-residentially
residential use -
~1?!1ii01l~Wg~$H
zoned lands or non-
naRE:. i~.2_iJ[~li~JtiwJa~
d. Ccpar.:J.tien Eiizt::U10CS may :Be reaaeca BY the
Dc?/(:lopmcRt Rc..~ic~: Cemmi ttcc ....hCR 'astari2lca.
~..rit_t.cR c.enlZlcnt is estaiBce1 frem these
affested prepcrty e'fficru ;;i thill tlu: a19191iea131c
ocparatiea aiotancc.
(3) Separation distances between Telecommunications
Towers.
a. Separation distances between
Telecommunications Towers shall be applicable
for and measured between the proposed tower
and those towers that are existing and/or have
received the City of Winter Springs land use
or building permit approval after , ~
6
wggm (the effective date of this ordinance).
'i'l1e^"separation distances shall be measured by
drawing or following a straight line between
the base of the existing tower and the
proposed base, pursuant to a site plan, of the
proposed tower.
b.
The minimum
linear feet)
feet.
separation distance (listed in
shall be two thousand (2,000)
c. The separation distance may be reduced by
special exception as defined in Chapter 20,
Division 3. Board of Adjustment, Sections 20-
76 through 20-84 of the Code of Ordinances,
City of Winter Springs, Florida.
d. The proximity to other existing
Telecommunications Towers shall be a factor
considered and addressed during the special
exception hearing for any proposed
Telecommunicatiqns Tower.
(4) Measurement of Height.
a. Measurement of Telecommunications Tower height
shall include Antenna, base pad, and any and
all other appurtenances and shall be measured
from the finished grade of the parcel on which
the Tel~communicatiGns Tower is located.
b. Telecommunications Towers shall not exceed one
hundred eighty (180) feet in height which
shall include the antenna.
(5) Illumination.
Telecommunications Towers shall not be artificially
lighted except to assure human safety &P as
required by the Federal Aviation Administration.
(~~~nished color.
Telecommunications Towers not requiring
painting/marking shall be of such color that
blend with the surrounding environment.
FAA
will
(7) Structural Design.
a. site planes) are required and shall be
submitted for approval as defined in Chapter
20 Zoning (if applicable) and/or Chapter 9
Land Development, Code of Ordinances, City of
Winter Springs, Florida.
7
b. Telecommunications Towers shall be constructed
in accordance with the EIA/TIA 222-E Standards
as published by the Electronic Industries
Association, which may be amended from time to
time, . ASCE 7-95, "Minimum Design Load for
Buildings and Structures", (Wind Loads
Chapter), as published by the American Society
of civil Engineers, and further defined by
ASCE 7-88, "Guide to the Use of the Wind Load
Provisions", both which may be amended from
time to time, and all city of Winter Springs
construction/building codes as indicated in a
statement signed, sealed and dated by a
professional engineer licensed to practice in
the state of Florida.
c. Such statement shall also describe the tower's
*~g~mn~ capacity, number and type of antennas
TE~~can accommodate. No tower shall be
permitted to exceed its loading capacity. For
all towers attached to existing structures,
the statement shall include certification that
-~~the structure can support the load
~~upcrimposed ~ the tower.
d; All new Telecommunications Towers, and those
existing towers to be modified, shall have the
capability of having space for three or more
carriers. One of these spaces shall be
reserved exclusively for the use of the City
of Winter Springs.
e. Further, any improvements and/or additions
(i.e., Antenna, satellite dishes, etc.) shall
require submission of a site plan signed,
sealed and dated by a professional engineer
licensed in the State of Florida which
provides substantial competent evidence of
compliance with the EIT/TIA 222-E Standards
ASCE 7-95, "Minimum Design Load for Buildings
and Structures", (Wind Loads Chapter), as
published by the American Society of Civil
Engineers, and further defined by ASCE 7-88,
"Guide to the Use of .the-Wirra LoaC1
Provisions", both which may be amended from
time to time, in effect at the time of said
improvement or addition.
(8) Public Notice.
For purposes of this ordinance, any. special
~~~!~~i'~liii~\\ilt9~fl;.iiitllillliillli
8
~gIIpiql?~(!;@&\iQW#~$~ within t"n"O B.1d.Rel.reel.
'r'c'c't',w'~'Ol"""""'t]icwm""'r'e'^"'^o 0 eEl to\..cr 1 GC.:l ti eft .
ml:!!i~ffi1laB!!;8:~i;E8i1tR9J@'R';;~I~IfJ
f.!f~;(.L~,,~2
8f.Uf~~]I;wit;JJ!f:e
(9) Signage.
No commercial signage or advertising shall be
permitted on a Telecommunication Tower unless
otherwise required by law or the signage pertains
only to the posting of the property relative to
trespassing. The use of any portion of a tower or
perimeter fence/wall for signs or advertising
purposes, including company name, banners,
streamers, etc., shall be prohibited.
(10) Fencing.
a. A chain-link fence or wall not less than eight
(8) feet in height from finished grade shall
be installed by the applicant around each
Telecommunications Tower. Barbed wire or
other fencing method to prevent pedestrian
access to the tower, ..not to exceed two (2)
feet in height, may ~fi~$+ be installed along
the top of the fence or~wall, but shall not be
included when calculating the height of the
fence or wall.
b. Access to the tower through the fence or wall
I~~~~
elecommunications Tower or site.
L
(11) Landscaping.
The visual impacts of a Telecommunications Tower
shall be mitigated for nearby viewers through
landscaping or other screening materials at the
base of the tower and ancillary structures in order
to maintain visual aesthetics for those who must
view the site on a regular basis including, but not
limited to, proximate residents and the travelling
public. The following landscaping and buffering
requirements shall be required around the perimeter
of the tower and accessory structures;
a.
A row of s;..!1H.~9~"m~.E"em.,~,~,.,5)!w,~!.!:!.~~~,m.?,,!:,5~,~'1,h!:,w,w(tl~)
f t t 11 ......."',........ ""', ..............."''"',..,'",,,... 'rih"""'''' ..."'"...".',.;,........:0'"....
t:~ an~ oW~~~,~p*,(:~t~~fflfi#'~~~!l~~illit~:f\r~!F:
and a maximum of ten (10) feet apart shall be
planted around the outside perimeter of the
fence/wall;
9
b.
A continuous hedg~t least thirty (30) inches
high at planting pable of growing to at
least thirty-six (36 inches in height within
eighteen (18) months hall be planted in front
of the tree line referenced above;
c.
All landscaping shall be of the evergreen
variety being a minimum quality of Florida #1.
d.
All landscaping shall be xeriscape tolerant
and shall be properly maintained by the
Telecommunications Tower owner/operator to
ensure good health and viability.
The use of existing vegetation shall be preserved
to the maximum ex entjPracticable and may be used
as a substitu or ~supplement towards meeting
landscaping ~ements~
(12) Antennas on Buildings.
Any stealth rooftop or building mounted antennas
which are not attached to a Telecommunications
Tower, shall be a permitted ancillary use to any
commercial, industrial, Public Buildings, utility
Installation, and Recreation (sites greater than
ten [10] acres in size) land uses indicated on the
Future Land Use Map of the City'S Comprehensive
Plan provided that:
a. antennas shall only be permitted on buildings
which are at least fifty (50) feet in height
(the height requirement may be waived if
public safety needs warrant the antenna);
b. antennas may not extend more than twenty (20)
feet above the highest point of a roof (this
requirement may be waived if public safety
needs warrant additional height);
c. antennas and related equipment buildings shall--_
be located or screened-to minfinfzethe visual
impact of the antenna upon adjacent properties
and shall be of a material or color which
matches the exterior of the building or
structure upon which it is situated.
d. no commerci~.l:"e~Y~E!-!si!1g,^s~,!!~be allowed on
an antenna gB:;j[HgR9ElttifV'gli~Em8&HW"1;
e. no signals, lights, illumination shall be
permitted on an antenna or equipment building
unless required by the.Federal Communications
10
f.
Commission (FCC) or the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).
=an~~!!j"f~f"'I!P!~"l"'.''''p:!t ~~;~=~~
more than seven hundred fifty (750) square
feet of gross floor area or be more than
ill~!ilii*jilt~i~ilBl~Ii'llfllllll
if the equipment building is located on the
roof of the building, the area of the
equipment building shall not occupy more than
twenty-five (25%) percent of the roof area.
g.
(13) Equipment Storage
Mobile or immobile equipment not used in direct
support of a Telecommunications Tower facility
shall not be stored or parked on the site of the
tower unless repairs to the tower are being made,
~E;;~~;:ffiD]!:IE9gE~~~.
(14) Schedule of Structural Integrity
Telecommunication Tower owners/operators shall
submit to the Building Department a certified
statement from a qualified, registered,
professional engineer, licensed in the state of
Florida, attesting to the structural and electrical
integrity of the tower on the following schedule:
i~:~;~:::;;,~I~III"IIII~\\"'j'lj[fuli~il]~~Vll1~!Im;
.;';.: .:.;. :.:.:. :.:;:;;::~.;. :<<,:;;,;:;';.;.;. :.:.:.:v:.;:;;;.:.:~~v;:~~ ;::~.~;.".;.;.;:;;;::.;.;.;.; .:,,:.;.;~~.:. .;.:.:. :.;';.;
(b) monopole towers - every five (5) years;
t9;l! any other type tower - every two (2)
years.
(15) Transmission/Reception Interference.
Each application to allow construction or
modification of a Telecommunications Tower shall
include a certified statement from a qualified,
registered, professional engineer, licensed in the
state of Florida, attesting that the construction
of the tower, including receiving and transmitting
functions, shall not interfere with pUblic safety
communications and the usual and customary
transmission or reception of radio, television,
etc., service enjoyed by adjacent residential and
non-residential properties.
11
(16) Telecommunications Towers are prohibited when a
proposed or existing principal use includes the
storage, distribution, or sale of volatile,
explosive, or hazardous wastes such as LP gas,
propane, gasoline, natural gas, and corrosive or
dangerous chemicals.
(h) Co-location of Communications Antennas.
To minimize adverse visual impacts associated with the
proliferation and clustering of Telecommunications
Towers, co-location of communications Antennas by more
than one (1) carrier on existing or new Telecommunication
Towers shall take precedent over the construction of new
single-use Telecommunications Towers as follows:
(1)
Proposed "communications Antennas may,
encouraged to, co-locate onto
Telecommunications Towers.
and are
existing
(2) Type of Construction. A Telecommunications Tower
which is reconstructed to accommodate the Co-
location of an additional communications Antenna
shall be of a monopole tower type.
(3) Height. An existing Telecommunications Tower may
be modified or rebuilt to the allowed height of one
~i~iii;Ei~i'ii~m~i~~gii~in~i~lUding antennas I~
(4) Onsite-Iocation.
a. A Telecommunications Tower which is being
rebuilt to accommodate the Co-location of an
additional communications Antenna may be moved
onsi te within b,e flUBelr~el,K~~t;y._J:aS,(;lt,:!,e~:te.:!'
' t 't ' 1 t ' "'l$l:Ir<<"$"'-fh'~]i\iBf
'~ji1diii9~ij!!ffii~i:jiiijfi*~II~jl'jllfj<<,~iiliL;X~'.....;;
b.
After a Telecommunication Tower is
accommodate CO-location, only one
sha~l rElmain on the .site;_._
c. The onsite relocation of a Telecommunications
Tower \/J.1.icfl eomea sna$)EWn5:eWfe8lllB within the
separation distances~"t~X-r~sfa~Rrial units or
residentially zoned lands as established in
subsection (g) (2) ohall sBly ae peFmittea ~~eR
not.J.rizcd ~;rittcR eenscnt is estaiRE1S fram
thane ~ffcctcd rcoidcntial property e~fflcrs.
rebuilt to
(1) tower
12
(i) Certification of Compliance with Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) NIER Standards
Prior to receiving final inspection by the Winter Springs
Building Department, documented certification shall be
submitted to the FCC, with copy to the Land Development
Coordinator, certifying that the telecommunications
facility complies with all current FCC regulations for
non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER).
(j) Abandonment.
(1) In the event the use of any Telecommunications
Tower has been discontinued for a period of one-
hundred eighty (180) consecutive days, the tower
shall be deemed to be abandoned. Determination of
the date 'of abandonment shall be made by the
Building Official who shall have the right to
request documentation and/or affidavits from the
Telecommunications Tower owner/operator regarding
the issue of tower usage. The ~elecommunications
Tower owner/operator shall provide all requested
information within five (5) working days of a
request being made. Upon such abandonment, the
owner/operator of the tower' shall have an
additional one hundred eig'hty (lSe) niiihl1tx regpjti
days within which to: (i) reactivate~~lie"use~ol
the tower or transfer the tower to another
owner/operator who makes actual use of the tower,
or (ii) dismantle and remove the .tower. With
regard to towers that received special exception
approval, one hu.fldrea ei9'hty (lSe) n"$M~ f(f$(f.jj ;7-1D
days after dismantling or the expiratlon~of =€h'e .j..;tO
three-hundred and sixty (~ day period as se~
forth in this section, the special exception and/or
variance for the tower shall automatically expire.
(2) The City of Winter Springs, at this ~aiRt, and at
its discretion, may assume ownership of the tower
at no cost, or require the owner to dismantle the
tower at the owner's expense. If the decision is
to dismantle the tower, the property shall be
. -- cleared of all appurtenances and returned to'-Tt-s-
natural state.
SECTION II - If any section or portion of this Ordinance
proves to be invalid, unlawful or unconstitutional, it shall
not be held to invalidate or impair the validity, force or
13
effect of any other section or portion of a section or
subsection or part of this Ordinance.
SECTION III - That all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances
in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
SECTION IV - This Ordinance shall take effect immediately
upon its adoption, in accordance with 166.041(4) Florida
Statutes.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this_day of , 199f.1
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
Paul Partyka, MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
FIRST READING
. . POSTED
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING
14
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Information from the Florida Department of Community Affairs
VOLUME 5 . NUMBER 2
NOVEMBER 1996
School Siting
New Requirements for Local Governments
Award-winning Galaxy Middle School. the first prototype middle sohool facility in Volusia County, is designed to
provide self-contained 'houses' for each grade level. The campus design is organized around a central commons
area that provides for control of student circulation and creates a focal point for activity.
Blais, Sayers & Hawkins Architects, Inc., Daytona Beach
By the year 2000, Flon'da will re.
quire 400 new public schools. Schoolover-
crowding has become a problem statewide.
It is essential that each local government
coordinate the siting of these additional
schools with fUture development plans.
AU too often, school children have
become the innocent pawns in the conflict
between competing land use requirements.
Too many youngsters are being subjected
to overcrowded classrooms or to long bus
rides to remote schools. Despite established
needs, some local governments have de-
n'ied the siting of schools in compact, de-
veloped areas. Such locations are exactly
where Florida's growth management pro-
grams would encourage development.
Equally unfavorably sited are those schools'
situated in faraway localities because of do-
nated or cheap land, or simply distanced to
avoid neighborhood resistance. Such out-
lying locations encourage inefficient,
sprawling patterns of development with1he
creation of new residenrial areas adjacent
to the school. To resolve this divisive
issue, the Florida Legislature adopted
procedures to facilitate the coordination
of the siting of new educational facili-
ties with the local government's com-
prehensive plan.
In 1995, the Legislature amended
Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes
(F.S.), to require that future land use el-
ements identifY clearly the land use cat-
egories in which public schools are an
allowable use. In cooperation with their
school boards, local governments must
designate sufficient developable land use
Schools, continued on Page 10
Inside
Redevelopment 2
Wildlife Movement 4
Wetland Protection 8
Ask DCA 10
Secretary s Column, continued
people into temporary housing and
nearly 16,000 Florida homeowners bor-
rowed more than 5250 million for re-
covery.
Development in Florida has reached
the point where the cost of rebuilding
after a disaster can exceed our ability to
pay for it. Two Andrew-type events
spaced closely together -- or even one
in the right place -- could completely
bankrupt Florida's insurance providers
and the state catastrophic insurance
fund.
Before disaster strikes, communi-
ties must develop wisely. They can build
and modify new structures to survive di-
sasters or they can take them out of
harm's way. Following a disaster, a
community does not have to build back
as they did before. They can use emer-
gency funds to build back better. The
recently announced Governor's Build-
ing Codes Study Commission will be an
important part of this effort along with
numerous state mitigation programs that
offer grants to help the public recover
from property loss and economic adver-
sity following a disaster. The Depart-
ment is developing a Residential
Construction Nlitigation Program for
proposal to the Florida Legislature in
1997. This program will help
homeowners retrofit their homes to
withstand disaster. Encouraging mod-
erate expenditure in the beginning will
help the state avoid catastrophic loss
down the road.
There is both urgency and impor-
tance to this work. A great deal of study
has gone into this effort. Now it's time
for action. This initiative will reach out
to individuals at the local, state and fed-
eral level for coordination and coop era.
tioo. As a recipient of Community
Planning, you demonstrate a vested in-
terest in how our communities handle
growth and deal with critical issues af-
fecting sustainability. In Florida, natu-
ral disasters are among the greatest
threats to our sustainability. This is an
important initiative for DCA, one that
brings all of our programs to the table
for input and action. I hope you'll part-
ner with us in this worthy endeavor.
To receive a copy of Breaking the
Cycle. or to receive monthly mitigation up-
dates, ,.ontact DCA 1.11 (904) 922-5./J./, SIC
278-5./J.I.
PAGE 2
COMMUNITY PLANNING . NOVEMBER 1996
Local Mitigation
.~.... .\,........:
COMMUNITY PLANNING
.
NOVEMBER 1996
PAGE 3
<ow;
=- t-d
,~~~~t;01Wildlife movemen corr. or
~- .
"
The Department of Community Affairs
frequently sees plans for wild/ifir%.~-
men! com"dors as components ojgeyel-
opments of regional imp:;:!~_:~~Tpre-
hensive f!J,.ans, and prop,rt~EiJ;Jr land
acquiSition. AlthOUg1f.~-_ 'ng accep-
:J ....~
tance,w;(iz.planners an-' land managers.
-~
w~eii(j movement corr~dors are, for the
moSt:fart, an untested Idea. Plans for
I r;~~ecting large blocks of habitat with
:~ltd;:;ow corridors to benefit wildlife .are
too ofienfounded onfaulty conclusions
about population genetics, misunder-
~andingS about ani~al movement, and
(J. ..,.;1 gnorance of the habitat needs of the spe-
_ cies for which they are Intended. Whole-
,i!0sale acceptance of wildlife corridors
4~~Wi withoUl adequate testing and a jounda-
}.J ,'~ lion in vood biology is dangerous. With
. ~.) 0
;; .J. scarce reSOurces available for land ac-
quisition and mitigation, it is important
to ensure that plans for preserving wild-
life in Florida are based on real data
and a /inn statement of conservation
goals.
-'JfP
"J~')
is just such an idea. Providing long, nar-
row connectors between large patches of
habitat to allow wildlife to move between
populations, thereby alleviating potential
harmful effects of inbreeding, seems
straightforward enough. The intensive
public relations efforts by advocates of cor-
ridors have resulted in widespread adop-
tion of the concept by planners, managers
of public lands, and politicians to the point
that one rarely can avoid discussion of
"wildlife corridors" in planning and land
acquisition. But is it a valid concept?
,
{;t(
~-'~~
': +f ,Wildlife Corridors as
' ))~ Con"ervation Tool
'-..-- :"i
Ceriliilnoi:!':s..understanding of biol-
ogy is the scientlfte."method, by which an
hypothesis is ac~~.;S true only afler
critical experime~Slgned to disprove Habitat Needs
it fail. Key to this pr~c~ss is an assiduous, Habitat loss and fragmentation are
objective effort through controlled experi- defmitely harmful. Every plant and ani-
mentation and unbiased obse~,:ti~!l to di~----==malo~ecies=has:-a-minimum' habitat area
cover the limits and weaknesses of a new necessary to maintain a population suffi-
idea. UnfO~. IY., a new idea is often. ciently large to ensure its continued exist-
endorsed b~' ~s .pnor to ngorou~" ence, although discovering that rmmmum
testing. . Whi1e\ v~~ a new theo~ ~s n easy. Also, some spe~~es may per-
prior to Its cntical tes~<mna1ly con ",'" sis - ,etapopulatIons, groups of
tained without harm wilfti\;J'e SCIentIfic ephem ~ulations that occasi~nally
community, an untested idea occasIOnally disappe"'l ~ are re-established by Inl1TI1-
escapes the realm of scientific debate to gration. Whether many metapopulations
influence public opinion, behavior, or exist is currently hotly debated. We sh~~~'>,.
policy. always be aware of area needs, particufarlW "
The uncritical acceptance of wildlife of I~~nimals,d'(hsn designing pre- '0
movement corridors as a con<ervation tool serv~'evr~~opment plans,
.....
PAGE 4
COMMUNITY PLANNING
.
NOVEMBER'1996
,
(':"
A larger preserve can almost always
maintain not only mor~ individuals of each
species, but also more species of plants and
animals than can a smaller one.
Population Size
Small population size can reduce ge-
netic variability in many species, both
through stochastic processes (genetic drift)
and from inbreeding. Loss of genetic vari-
ability caD. result in lowered viability and
fecundity, reduced resistance to pathogens,
.md other documented deleterious effects.
But not all species require high levels of
genetic variability, and there has been no
documented extinction of a population in
nature because of inbreeding. A small
population-is rnore-likely-ro-be-wiped-out
by external forces such as natural disasters
(storms and wildfires) or randomly-skewed
sex ratios than by inhreeding. Furthennore,
there is mounting evidence that inbreeding
is not a factor in the decline of large
mammals, including the panther and the
blackbeacin Florida. Large predators typi-
~"+~ have low population siz~
sU;p~i&ecause Oftheirpositige.. nJlljp ~ ~~.
chain and the amount of p~rollri't'
"I
tion in an ecosystem that is:t"n:~ssary to
. . .
What is the science?
~ ~~
.,~}
-.". ,-~
-~:.^.., ...
'~.~ "
sustain them. There is no good evidence,
to date, that inbreeding played a significant
role in the loss or decline of any species in
Florida. Thus, a main factor behind the
advocacy of wildlife corridors remains un-
proven, Further, population genetic analy-
sis shows that even an extremely low
amount of genetic exchange between popu-
lations suffices to offset inbreeding effects.
tal scientists is that, unless a connector is
of sufficient width and habitat qualicyfO'p
the species actually to live in it, no~~
move through it, a connector is oflittfe use
to that species. W
11"
Planning Wildli~ J
Habifat"j ""
11i,~la real danger in the uncriti-
cal accetrlll"nce of the concept of wildlife
movemestcorridors, namely that the lim-
The need for animals to migrate from ited fifudm1?available for the acquisition
one place to another is often used as a jus- of en~entally important lands will
tification for the establishment of wildlife be spent unwisely on these connectors
corridors. There are three basic types of instead of on areas that would protect
animal movement. There is normal move- f "
more significanI components 0 Flonda s
ment within a home range to find food or biodiversity.~~:J.tvuSIY some connectors
mates. There is dispersal, which is a one- have intrinsiQ..~e as habitat. River .
time movement of individuals, llsuaI1y"~'i!(")hJ
floodplains "m@arge tracts of land pro-
males, from their birth place to a new 10- tected in th~~kiva River basin or
cale. Sensati~nal press acc~~nts of .black Pinhoo~wjtmp, for example, are impor-
bears wandenng through cities typically tant reg:irolf~ of the fact that they con-
Involve dIspersmg young males. Fmally, _ _ nect othe~p' ublic lands. LonO', narrow
h . . . h' h . I 3J'j ~
t ere IS ~lIgratton, w IC IS a regu ar 3reenways can be important for their
movement back and forth between tw ~creation function or aesthetic value,
points. Birds and m.onarch butterflies but they should be evaluated on those
grate south III the Wtnter then north m t merits and not for an assumed value to
spring, There is .only one migratory maS\) . wildlife.
mal in Florida. The Florida manatee m!v.~ ~ When considering any tract of land
regularly from its wide-ranging h~b.i~ for wildlife protection, the costs and the
warm weather to warm-water refugJa m the benefits of the proposal musr be taken into
winter. Bears do not migrate, nor do pan- account. Is there any indication that the
thers, bobcats,. otters,. or any other ~- species in question actually uses this land?
mals for whIch wlldltfe mrll:v:ll: .;; Some wildlife corridor proposals have pro-
comdors are frequ..l'ntly mtended. r.t! moted protection for panthers or bear.; with-
are no kn~" tory-rou - ter- out any evidence that these animals use the
restrial' 'ih FIo,'d!vthat could corridor or even the habitat on either end
be protee by wildlife m ~ent cor- of it. The successful acquisition efforts in
'd " "11 II .
rI ~'" the Wekiva River area, on the other hand,
~l>'1lnimals of any species actually have been guided to a great extent by real
move through long, nartow, hnked stnps data on bear movement patterns and habi-
of land? Most controlled tests have re- tat needs. As a result, the nwnber of bears
vealed dispersal to be no better through in the Wekiva Basin has increased fivefold,
Ihese connectors than through unconnected since] 988.
landscapes. Animals do not move in Will failure to protect a connector be-
,.traight lines between two points simply tween large blocks of habitat result in any
7t!cause a connector is there. In fact, the real harm? Connectors have been proposed.. .
Jrevailing wisdom amongst environmen-
Animal Movement
COMMUNITY PLANNING
'."
.,.~.;",-..
~:"::::'.~'i :T
r.:~:.:~4'.-' "
1'-.".._""
'W
by Jim Farr and Dan Simberloff
for otters and bobcats when there appears
to be ample evidence that the target spe-
cies are plentiful in protected areas at both
ends of the corridor and would suffer no ill
effects from the lack of a connector.
Finally, if funds or mitigation credits
are used on a connector, will other habi-
tats of greater value then not be protected?
"Long, narrow greenways can
be important for their recreation
fimclion or aesthetic value, but
Ihey should be evaluated on those
merits and nOlfor an assumed
value to wildlife. "
Connecting two points on a map in the ab-
sence of real biological data on habitat use
and quality cannot substitute for a costlben-
efit analysis if conservation goals are to be
realized. Perhaps we should cease using
the term "corridor" and speak only of wild-
life "habitat" to ensure maximwn gain from
our conservation efforts.
For further information. contact Jim
Farr. Florida Coastal lvfanagement Program,
(904) 4/4-6572, SIC 994-6572,
Wildlife. continued on Page 12
About the Authors. . .
Jim Farr is a biologist with the Florida
Coastal Management Program, and
serves as the Department of Community
Affairs staff to the Conservation and Rec.
reation LEnds (CARL) progtam. He has a
Ph.D. from Florida State University with
a specialty in animal behavior and evolu-
tionary biology.
Dan 51mberloff is Robert 0. Lawton Dis-
tinguished Professor in the Department
of Biological Sciences, Florida State Uni-
versity. He is a world.renowned author.
ity in ecology, biogeography and conser-
vation biology.
. NOVEMBER 1996
PAGE 5
Joint meeting of Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, Board of County
Commissioners and School Board.
Schools, continued from Page 1
within the community to meet the projected
needs of educational facilities. These lands
must be (ocated proximate to residential de-
velopment. The local goverrunent must.
also ensure, to the maximum extent pos-
sible, that the lands adjacent to existing
schools are designated such that school
expansion would be allowed. Chapter 163,
F.S., also pennits the adoption of different
criteria based upon the school's type or size.
All comprehensive plans should have com-
plied with these new provisions by Octo-
ber 1, 1996. If a community has not
adopted objectives and policies consistent
with the new school siting provisions, these
provisions should be added as soon as pos-
sible. This amendment is exempt from the
limitation on the frequency of plan amend4
ments contained in Section 163.3187, F.S.
Co",,!~rehensive Plan
Requirements
At a minimum. each community
should have goals, objectives, and policies
within the plan that detennine the appro-
priate future land use categories for school
facilities. Additionally, there must be pro-
visions to ensure that sufficient land for
schools exists, proximate to residential de-
velopment, to meet the projected need
based on the school board's plan.
Locational criteria for directing the devel-
opment of schools within the community
should be included within the plan. This
PAGE 6
guidance is necessary to ensure the com-
patibility of adjacent land uses, protection
of natural resources, and the provision of
adequate facilities and services to support
the development of schools. The compre-
hensive plan should also contain the coor-
dination provisions that will be utilized by
the sc:hool board and the local government.
The Department of Community Af-
fairs' policy in implementing these new
school siting requirements is to be permis-
. sive-in urban designated areas where the
concern is whether there are enough po-
tential sites; to apply case-by-case analy-
ses in rural areas where the concern: is to
meet the need of rural populations without
inducing sprawl; and to be restrictive in
conservation designated areas.
Pursuant to Rule 91-5.005(2), Florida
Administrative Code, comprehensive plan
amendments must be supported by appro-
priate, relevant and best available data and
analysis. A school board's five year facili-
ties plan is a good data source to support a
community's school siting amendments.
This plan identifies the projected facility
needs within the district for the next five
years, providing local governments with
documentation concerning both the need,
within their jurisdiction. for additional
schools and the location of deficient areas.
In its data and analysis, the local govern-
ment should demonstrate how the plan
amendments specifying the land use cat-
egories in which schools are an allowable
use, are coordinated with the school board's
plan. .
COMMUNITY PLANNING . NOVEMBER 1996
Local governments may utilize other
techniques to fulfill the new school siting
reqUirements; however, in all cases ad-
equate lands must be available to s;tisfv
~ the projected needs for school facilities, if
~ a local government seeks to limit the land
~ use categories in which schools are an al-
~ lowable use, the local government must
"2
is provide supporting analysis which demon-
'U
~ strates that adequate lands are available,
~
is consistent with the provisions of Chapter
" 6
~ I 3, F.S.
x In order to provide greater flexibil-
ity to local governments, the Department
has detennined that smaller, built-out lo-
cal governments, with no established need
for a new school facility, may amend their
comprehensive plans to meet the new pub-
lic school siting requirements at the time
of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report
(EAR). In documenting that there is not
an established need for a new school facil-
ity within their community, the local gov-
emment should consult their school board's
five year facilities plan. If the plan sup-
ports the local government's position that
no new school facility is required, and if
the school board verifies that position by
letter, the community need only amend the
comprehensive plan to: I) designate appro-
priate future land use categories for school
facilities; and 2) add a policy to the Inter-
governmental Coordination Element pro-
viding the coordination provisions between
the local government and the school board.
In addition to the school siting re-
quirements within Chapter 163, F.S., the
placement of schools within the state should
also be consistent with Section 235.193,
F.S. This provision requires that a school
board provide written notice to the local
government at least 60 days prior to acquir-
ing or leasing property for a new school
site. This would allow the local govern-
ment to give a preliminary detennination
of whether the construction of a school on
the proposed property is consistent with the
comprehensive plan_ In order to obtain a
fmal determination as to whether the school
site is consistent with the comprehensive
plan, the school board must notify the lo-
cal government, in writing, 90 days prior
to the construction of a school.
While revising the plan to make it
consistent with the new school siting re-
quirements, it should be borne in mind that
the new school intergovernmental coordi-
Galaxy Middle School, Deltona
"Recognizing that each successful school depends on a variety of agencies and people for support, the Volusia County District
tries its best to prepare each new school to be an asset to its community and a good neighbor."
nation requirements within Section
163.3177(6)(h), F.S., are due December
31, 1999, The Department is required to
establish a schedule for phased completion
and transmittal of the plan amendments that
implement the school intergovernmental
requirements so as to accomplish final
adoption by this date.
School Siting:
A Coordinated
Approach
The Department encourages a coor-
dinated, local approach so that cities and
counties will work together with their
school board to create a model for the en-
tire county. This method has proven to be
very effective for both Volusia and Pinellas
Connties. The recent successful school site
planning process in Yolusia County has
been described by Saralee Morrissey as,
"atypical of school or other development
standards and is the direct result of open
and ongoing discussions with the site's
neighbors and local government officials,"
For more information, contact
Saralee Morrissey of the Valusia County
School Board at (904) 734-7190, ext. 4439.
or Michael Crawford of the Pinellas Plan-
ning Council at (813) 464-3855. For fur-
ther information from the Department of
Community Affairs, call your local plan-
ning contact within the Bureau of Local
Planning at (904) 487-4545, SIC 277-4545.
Further Reading . . .
Florida Department of Community
Saralee L Morrissey, AJCP
Facilities Real Properties Planner
Va/usia County School District
Affairs, "Ask DCA: Planning for Public
Schools." Community Planning, Vol. 4,
No.4, December 1995.
Hillsborough County City - County
Planning Commission, "Group Considers
Parks/SchoolslLand Use/Planning," Fu-
ture, April 1995. "A Novel Idea - Parks/
Schools/RoadfL-and-l:lse-1'ogether," F u-'
ture, August 1995,
McKinnon, John D., "Tallahassee
Report: Builders Beware_" Florida Trend,
August 1996.
Schneider, M. A_ and Matthews, M,
l., "Educational Facilities: Unfinished
Business on Florida's Growth Management
Agenda," Environmental Issues, vol, XXII,
No.4. Summer 1995. FAU/FIU loint Cen-
ter for Environmental and Urban Problems,
Fort Lauderdale.
COMMUNITY PLANNING.. NOVEMBER 1996
PAGE 7
---- "-- - ",-
Wetland Protection:
Seeking a balance between planning and perJ
\
.~~
til".
rVet/and protection through compre-
hensive planning is a challenging issue Jor
Ffon"da communities. Currently the Depart-
ment oj Community Affairs is addressing
"not in compliance" findings on several
amendments to wetland protection strategies.
l\tleanwhile. other local governments are
evaluating their comprehensive plans with
regard to changes made to Chapter 163,
F5.. and Rule 9J-5. FA.C.. since the adop-
tion ojinitial plans under the Growth Man-
agement Act. Wetland protection was most
recently addressed by the Governor and
Cabinet acting as the Administration Com-
mission.
__.u__ -~--A"philosophical and legal debate about
the balance between planning for growth and
permitting development underlies many of
the issues facing local governments today.
The challenge of wetland protection lies in
the broad nature of the character and func-
tion of wetlands. Thus, discussions on wet-
land protection are inevitably wide ranging.
What are the proper roles of planning and
pennitting? Can adequate wetland protec-
tion be attained through application of spe-
citic conservation designations on the future
land use map, or by goals, objectives and
policies which override the graphic depic-
tion? Consideration must be given to envi-
ronmentally compatible densities or intensi-
ties oflang use within wetlands. But what is
appropriate methodology? How can wet-
lands be protected from adjacent upland de-
velopment? How can the protection of
habitat provided by Florida's wetland/upland
mosaic be ensured? ivIitigation strategies,
provisions for clustering or for transfer of
development potential to adjacent uplands,
as well as land use suitability, must be deter-
mined through the application of appropri-
ate, relevant and best available data. These
considerations must be juxtaposed with the
many variations in each local plan. Fine-
tuning the operation of the state and regional
pennitting requirements has meant adjust-
ments for local governments. Additionally,
each local action must give consideration to
the promotion of economic development,
protection of property rights, and often lim-
ited staff resources.
The Department of Community Affairs
(Department) submits that a combina-
tion of planning and permining is necessary
to ensure wetland protection. Florida's lo-
cal goverrunents must ensure that land uses
are environmentally suitable and that"incom-
patible land uses are guided away from valu-
able wetlands. A recent article in the Nf?W
York Times, October 27, 1996, "Small
Projects Shrinking Wetlands, Bit by Bit,"
chronicles the concern of state and federal
agencies that the Corps' nationwide pennit
program has allowed an unacceptable, cu-
mulative loss of wetlands. The Corps, in
response to this critique, has responded that
the challenged, quick permitting program
would be revised to become more environ-
mentally acceptable.
Without planning, decision-making
is incremen"tal. Cumulative impacts are
not anticipated, land use allocations are
.not realistic, development expecta99Qs):lre
not reliable and Florida's environmental
future is not secured.
In the case of Lee County, the EAR-
based amendments had the effect of increas-
ing the development potential three to
four-fold within the unincorporated county
including the wetlanda. Lee County elected
to change its wetland definition to match that
in state law; to allow one dwelling unit per
20 acres within wetlands (which are depicted
on its future land use map); and to make sev-
eral policy changes, including the addition
of a new policy, as follows:
Policy 84.1.-1 Land uses in uplands
PAGE 8
COMMUNITY PLANNING . NOVEMBER 1996
'tting
will be regulated through the implementa-
tion of the Land Development Code to avoid
degrading the values and functions of adjoin-
ing and nearby wetlands.
In its final order on the validity of these
amendments. the Governor and Cabinet
found it "evident from the plain language of
Policy 84.1.4 that it does not address devel-
opment in wetlands," and rejected the Divi-
sion of Administrative Hearing's
recommendation that the policy effectively
defers performance standards for develop-
ment in wetlands to the state and water man-
ageme~t district permitting processes
(emphasis supplied). Notably, the Lee
County plan contains a series of in compli-
ance objectives and policies that focus on
measures to discourage development in wet-
lands and some upland habitats, such as the
establishment of coastal planning areas and
strictly controlled development in wetlands
and mre and unique upland habitats; preser-
vation of environmentally sensitive areas by
land acquisition; establishment of long term
resource management programs; and require-
ments that new or additional develop-
ment shall not degrade surface water or
ground water quality. The County also de-
lineates wetlands on its future land use map
and limits densities therein to one (I) dwell-
ing unit per twenty (20) acres, Thus, the
Cabinet's final order confirmed the value
of these types of policies to plan for wet-
land protection and affirmed the need for
local governments to address, and the
Department's authority to examine, more
than mere densities and intensities for land
uses in wetlands.
It is the. Department's intent to work
coopemtively with Lee County in upcom-
ing months so that the local concerns which
led to adoption of the amendments rejected
by the Admin.istration Commission will be
addressed such way that the outcome can
be found in compliancewitlrstate-Iaw.
In the other "not in compliance"
cases involving amendments to wetland
protection strategies, Brevard County and
the Department have agreed to enter me-
diation on the wetland issue with the assis-
tance of the Florida Dispute Resolution
Consortium. We are optimistic about work-
ing closely with Clay and Martin counties,
as well, to address growth in and around
wetlands, in order to avoid the dead end of
litigation.
Adopted in 1985, Florida's Growth'
Management Act, codified in Chapter 163,
c
.9
;;
"
a.
m
C
.
,:
<;
This developing area of southeast Lee
County shows the need to coordinate
planning and permitting, Wetlands,
once remote in 1975, are surrounded
by highways and subdivisions in 1996,
Part II, F.S., changed the predominantly
regulatory approach to wetland protection by
recognizing the importance of protecting
wetlands through comprehensive planning.
Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., requires provisions in
local plans for the conservation, use and pro-
tection of natural resources, including wet-
lands._..Rule'amendmentsoin=l992ospecified= 0
factors to be considered in evaluating wet-
lands: type, value, function, size, condition
and location. Wetland protection by plan-
ning in advance of permitting offers local
governments the opportunity to direct growth
to suitable areas and away from sensitive
wetlands, before it is too late,
For further information contact
Charles Gauthier, AIC?, at (904) 487-4545,
SIC 277-4545.
COMMUNITY PLANNING . NOVEMBER 1996
PAGE 9
:. ... ",~...t......",,:.: . ,...;,<"-~"j~'1~r':t. . :..~...... ~ .,-',., '..:, ~7' ~ -t.'..'I'.-~~ .f;':~"J;.' .... i!<
.....~~...~.;ro...~.....r..,~~~:' ..... 'J,,!l:"'h~:-.-.,; ...-" t"~~, '.' .. ~ "....."'.i".o- '".1.'
"..,,,-. - _....':",..,' '"::. ....'''0. .. '0" . '6' ':'
.
~reparation
l"fany local governments have been confused
In preparing the EAR, the local government should ensure that:
by the difference between the EAR Grant
process and the EAR Review process,
the measurable target used to evaluate plan objectives is rel-
evant and appropriate and will serve a useful planning pur,
pose;
EAR Review
The EAR Review process includes two phases: a pro-
posed phase and an adoption phase, The proposed
EAR is due 90 days before adoption. Rule 9J-33.005.
F.A.C., outlines the lo~al government due dates for.
the adoption phase.
the EAR recognizes that updating the planning time frames,
the 5-year schedule of capital improvements, and the future
conditions maps will be necessary in the EAR-based amend-
ment;
if a rule or statutory change does not apply to your local
government, provide a brief description why the change is not
applicable;
EAR Grant -
the public participation requirements for the EAR are those
that are specified in the comprehensive plan. If the plan does
not contain these requirements. the EAR should reflect the
need to amend the plan to include these procedures;
Requires the submission of a work plan. The work
plan will initiate 25% of the grant payment. The
remaining items of the EAR-requirement will ini-
tiate the final 75% of the grant funds. All EAR grant
material should be submitted to:
the objectives and poli,cies required by Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C.,
are not recommended for deletion.
Objectives and policies required by Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., may be
combined with other objectives or policies, updated or
modified, as long as the rule requirements are met.
Cherie Trainor
Department a/Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Blvd" Room 300B
Tallahassee, Florida 32399.2100
Telephone (904) 488.2356, SIC 278.2356.
Additionally, local governments may consider implementing a pro-
cess to integrate statutory rule changes into the local
government's regular amendment cycle to address the changes as
they occur,
Pointers :
Most non EAR-based amendments may not be adopted after the scheduled due date for the EAR !!!l.!il after the EAR is found
sufficient. EAR-based amendments and comprehensive plan amendments directly related to a proposed development of re-
gional impact or a compliance agreement condition described in section 163.3 I 84(1 6)(d), F.S., may be adopted even if the
EAR is found insufficient.
. Other non-EAR-based amendments may be adopted after the EAR is found sufficient;
Local governments have one year from EAR adoption to adopt EAR-based amendments. A six.month extension for
"EAR-based plan amendments" may be requested pursuant to section 163.3191 (4), F.S.
The adopted EAR must identify an EAR-based amendment schedule.
Any local government choosing to submit an early EAR pursuant to Rule 91-33.004, F,AC" must also submit an EAR ad-
dendum on the submittal date indicated in Rule 9J-33.005. F.A.C.
PAGE 10
COMMUNITY PLANNING . NOVEMBER 1996
ADYISOB
Getting ready to prepare an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)?
The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has prepared the following
guidelines for making the EAR process smoother.
I
What to Include
The EAR requirements are outlined in Section 163.3191, F.S., Rule 9 J - 5.0053, F.A. C.,
and DCA's EAR Guidebook, The Data Source Guide, prepared by DCA, contains
useful infonnation for EAR preparation, The EAR review may be delegated to the
Regional Planning Council - contact your local RPC'for additional infonnation_ An
EAR evaluates and updates the comprehensive plan. Local governments should
take advantage of the EAR process to improve their community.
Submission !
How many copies?
If you are unable to meet your due date (Rule 9J-33.005, F.A.C.), contact DCA.
Proposed EAR
One copy of the proposed EAR should be transmitted to DCA at least 90
days before adoption of the EAR, DCA will provide comments on proposed
EAR's. Allow sufficient time to in-
corporate comments into the
adopted EAR. Consider using re-
placement pages or errata sheets in
the adopted EAR.
,
Adopted EAR
Three copies of the adopted EAR
must be submitted to the Depart-
ment. A submittal letter from the
local government's designee stating
the dates on which. the'local=g",'=_
ernment public hearings were held,
and a copy of the adopted ordinance
or resolution must also be included.
Send the complete EAR package to:
Division of Resource Planning
and l~fanagement
Department of Community Affairs
Attn: Plan Processint? Team
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Questio'ns or
Suggestions?
Contact DCA whenever
you have a question_ A
planner has been assigned
to assist each local
government with the EAR
I
process. Suggested
improvements tb the EAR
process? Please submit
them to DCA. Remember,
the EAR cycle will return in
five years!
ATTEN110N
Planning Officials
The Department is preparing the 1997
edition of The Directory of Planning Offi-
cials. Does your listing need to be updated?
Do we have your FAX NUMBER? Do you
now have an E-MAIL ADDRESS? Please
contact Debi Johnson, Bureau of State Plan-
ning at (904) 922-1769, SIC 278-1769, FAX
(904) 488-3309, with your revisions.
COMMUNITY PLANNING . NOVEMBER 1996
PAGE 11
Florida Chapter of The Nature Conservancy To Host
"Less- Than-Fee" Conference, December 2-3, 1996
The Nature Conservancy is sponsor- Florida. This conference offers private
ing a conference on "less-than-fee" con- landowners, state agencies and conserva-
servation techniques at the Augustus B. tion groups an opportunity to explore co-
Turnbull Florida State Conference Center operative arrangements to preserve
in Tallahassee. The two-day educa- " traditional uses of private land and
tiona! forum includes detailed The also to protect Florida's unique
workshops, case studies, and Nature natural landscape for future gen-
panel discussions on topics re- conservancy", erations.
taring to conservation ease- For registration forms, call Bar-
ments, the purchase of development rights bara Allison at (407) 682-3664. The con-
and the future of conservation planning in ferencefee is S50.00. Space is limited.
Wildlife. continued from Page 5
Further Reading. . .
Hobbs, R. 1. 1992. "The Role of Corridors in COnservation: Solution or Band-
wagon? Trends in Recent Ecology and Evolution 7( I I): 389-392,
Meffe, G. K. and C. R. Carroll. 1994. Principles of Conservation Biology,
Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Simberloff, D. and J. Cox. 1987. "Consequences and Costs of <;::onservation
Corridors," Conservation Biology I: 63-71.
Sirnberloff, D., 1. A. Farr, J. Cox and D. W. Mehlman. 1992. "Movement
Conidors: Conservation Bargains or Poor Investments?" Conservation Biology 6:
43-504.
~'.;. '-{..
_or k .."..
........:..~.:.:.. c-::':".:.
~...:~...~;~:;ra.: .
t.;;}~;",
Florida
Greenways
Florida Greenways
The Greenways Coordinating Council was established by the 1995
Florida Legislature to assist the Department of Environmental Pro-
tection in the implementation of a statewide greenways plan. A
geographic information system model and data base are being
prepared by the University of Florida to provide information for
the conservation of Florida's green ways and trails.
For further information contact Kent Wimmer;
Office of Green ways and Trails.
Department of Environmental Protection at
(904) 488-3701, extension 126.
Department of Community Affairs
Division of Resource Planning and Management
Bureau of State Plallning__
2555 Shumard Oilk.BOiilSvara----
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
\
, '
MR. THOMAS GRIMMS
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
1126 STATE ROAD 434 E
WINTER SPRINGS FL 32708-2799
1;,11 ;111 ;/1, IIU 11 II !1l1111/;fI, Hit 1111 LIIIIlI ;1,1 It" LLI
QVeQcOfne
NEW COMMUNITIES
Florida now has 466 local govern-
ments required to submit a compre-
hensive plan.
City of A ventura (Broward)
Arthur Syndier, Mayor
2080 I Biscayne Blvd., Suite 445
Aventura, FL 33180
(305) 9314671
City of DeItona (Volusia)
John Masiarczk, Mayor
Post Office Box 5550
Deltona, FL 32728-5550
(407) 860-2911
Town of Ft. Myers Beach (Lee)
Anita Cereceda, Mayor
5250 Estero Blvd.
Ft. Myers Beach, FL 33931
(941) 765-0202
Village of Pinecrest (Dade)
Evelyn Greer, Mayor .
2400 South Dixie Highway (temp)
Miami, FL 33133
(305}-854-8989
Village of Wellington (Palm Beach)
. Collin Baenzinger. Chief Administrator
1400 Greenbrier Blvd.
Village of Wellington. FL 33414
(407) 791-4000
Bulk Rate
us Postage
PAID
Permit No. 181
Tallahassee, FL
32399
focus on Florida
. ImpactFees
by Lance deHaven-Smith, Ph_D.'
..and Barbara Klaymeier Wills
. . .
.r his is' a brief analysis of the u~e of impact fees in financing public facilities in Florida_ .Impact fees are charges on new
.. developo:ent to co~er ~e cost of ~quipment, buildings, public lands, and other capital facilities requiIed by new
. . construction, The firstlIDpact fees m Flonda were.' . . .' . " . '. . '.' .' . ':
adopted in the 1970s and ?ealt withroads: Since then,. .. Fire 1 . .
the concept has been applied to other facilities,'. '.' '. N b" f Im '. ct F .
. . Growth management legislation enacted. in 1984 . '. . urn e.r 0 . pa ees.
. and 1985 was expected to cause local government to use. 50
impact feeS extensively~ Prior to. this legislation most .
local governments in Florida seldom used uniform fees, .
Instead, they. negotiated with. developers for . 40
,"conttibutions"-schools, land, fire tnicks,'. 'etc.~in
exchange for development approval. Local governments
focused especially on large scale development captured 30
'. by the state's. Developmentof Regional Impact review
program.. Unforturiate1y;this emphasis'dIscouraged .
largescale development and promoted'small scale, 20
piece meal development which is hard to plan' for, The. '.
1984-85 growth management ~ legislation Kept the ,.
Development of Regional Impact review program, but
stated. specifically.' that small and. large scale
developments were to 'betreated equally.' The
expectation was that this would lead to the use of impact
fees' because such fees. can be applied unifonnly to.
developments regardless of size. .' . '. :." . . '. :.,...., ". .' . '.
To see if local governments are indeed relying on impact fees more frequent! y, we.exanuned data from the 1996 Profile
Report of the Florida' ACIR. .The results reyeal that the number of new im]2act fees enacted ina given year remained'.
relatively Ievel.unti1 apprQximately 1971, when they began to gradually climb(see Figure 1)_Adrasticchangeoc=ed in .
1985 after the passage Of the Growth Manage1Ilent . ..' . '" . '., '.' . ".
Act: The numberofimpactfees enactedjllI!lped . '. . .
from a moderate 21impactfeesintroduced)ii 198.? .... '.' ". ' . Figure 2, .... ..... .'.
t042 impact feesmtroduced in 1986. By.1989,the . Number Of Impact Fees by. .
. number of new impact fees ,enacted in one year "was . County, CitY; Spedal-Distrlct : .'
48, thehighest level ever: It is apparentthatth~1985" '. ..' . 0<
Growth Manageinent Act hada drastic effectOri the.
.numbeiof impact fees being charged in Florida, .... .
.,.'. Over the yeiis~ the' cUmulative ilumbercifloca1
government impactfee;has grown to 308. Of these, ... . 30 ':'
306 are. still in operation;, , :.' ,'.' .....' . . ..::' . . '.. . "
_~~The munbei (If impact fees introduced varies~L:..,25 ."
.type of government. Most impact fees have been . ':: .
adopted by.ci~esarid'co1fu.ti~s~ > Spe?~ disiricts2~
have. adopted IIDpactfees.m only'sllcmstances.., ... .' ':
. -Relative to their number, countieS have been more ,," .... ....
. actiiiethan citieS.in adopti1)gimpactfees:,C:..15 .'.
. As shown in Figure 2;' the trend has been for.... ....
local' governments 10 proceed.m taridem,' ill .10
adopting impact feeS. ThiS is because local
governments tend' to watch for innovatioris alld .' 5
. then replicate them quickly.'
o ,
PN11T1 un
nn: lW111- 11'T1
,_. 1M2 ,..... ,.... -.,_ . t_
,in .1~- ,_
o
p,.,m 1m, mot m~ ~: l~ l~ .1* l~" 1ft! 1"'- ltn....". ,I'"
, .County '.Speci~l Distric~ .' . CitY
The types of development impacts for which fees have been developed have expanded over the years. As shown in
Figure 3, the greatest number of impact fees has been established for water and sewer, and fire and emergency medical
services. By far, the fewest number of impact fees is accorded for physical environmental improvements. lmpactfees are
also used for extending services such as police. and corrections; tran5portation; and parks, recreation and culture. More
detailed analysis reveals that the number of impact fees adopted for transportation improvements and for parks,recreation
and culture increased the most after the 1984-85 legislation. More recently, we have witnessed most impact fees being
adopted for fire and emergency medical services and for police services. . . .
Figure 3
Total Number of Impact.Fee~ by Category
197I-1996
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
o
. Police: iil FirelEMS
IE Water ill' Environment
. Transportation ~ Parks
.~. Other
. .
In summary, the growth management legislation of the- mid 1980's
appears to have had the following effects:
.
Impact fees have proliferated;.
County's governments have been espedally active in
introducing impact fees;
.
.
. .
The initial emphasis after 1985 ";as funding tr~portation. m
the early 1990's, the focus shifted to fees for public safety
fadlities;' . . .
. ..' , . ," , .' .
. . . . . -. .
- ..:----4fle-proliferation of impact fees has now subsided. .
Dr. Lance deHavencSmith is AssocfaieDirector ~fthe Florida
Institute of Government and Director and Professor iiz the
Askew School of Public Administration and Policy at Florida
State University,
Ms, Barbara Klaymeier Wills is a Master's of Public
Administration student at the Askew School of Public
Administration and Policy at Florida State University.
t~j~~~~~il~.~r~~~~~~~~,_~~~[~~ .
: ;Efuri~filfe;UliiVersi '-:reaclies;oiIt:1:Oi:e' ....~ -".~
?i.qy~;;;en:~dfi:h15".-.t!iii'~f#i"o$.~~
. ""':('.'~~~"<._\.>~~fi~,.~nm~i''-7rr~~~J'::J':'~~'~
~"''\r.a;.",-..,~$I..~~fW';g~e!~~~,.~L'''f..~.~~~~t:
... . "'e" 't"'-""'~' ......=>~.-_.. -~"~"""!.=,-
. '--c. eSIgp, Yo;; IF_31n~ave:~L,U~:..:;a~L.l;;Ctive e~C:w.~;
;~~-J~".<':~'~. ~~[ii~9.s:': -~:;i_
""'<~...'~.~~i<"",,
.=~_.
..,;. ~,!!..;,< ''':'''......: .
.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA,
AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES BY CREATING SECTION 20-434
"TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS"; PROVIDING
FOR DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS
AND INTENT; PROVIDING FOR APPLICABILITY;
PROVIOING FOR LOCATION; PROVIDING FOR
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS/DESIGN CRITERIA;
PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS;
PROVIDING FOR CO-LOCATION; PROVIDING FOR
ABANDONMENT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of
winter Springs, Florida has determined it to be in the best
interests of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of
Winter Springs, Florida to regulate the location, design and
other matters relating to Telecommunications Towers in the
city of winter Springs, Florida; and
WHEREAS, the Code of Ordinances of the City of
winter Springs does not provide regulations which reflect
changes in technology and federal regulations for such
Telecommunications Towers;
WHEREAS, the City of winter Springs seeks to guide and
control future development within the City to preserve and
maintain the character of its established land use and zoning
.
districts and has an objective (Objective B of the Future Land
Use Element in the City's Comprehensive Plan, Vol. 2 of 2)
which requires that "land development regulations shall
I
.
provide criteria _to. ensure such (public and quasi-public)
facilities are located and designed to be compatible with
adjacent land uses";
WHEREAS, the city commission realizes that our society is
becoming
dependent
on
cellular
and
other
types
of
communication requiring transmission towers and that provision
of Telecommunication Towers and utility service facilities
within the city of winter Springs serves the public health,
safety and welfare; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE
CITY
OF
WINTER
SPRINGS,
FLORIDA,
THAT:
SECTION I - City of winter Springs Code, Chapter 20,
"Zoning", is hereby amended by adding a new section, Section
.
20-434 to read as follows:
Sec. 2D-434. Telecommunications Towers.
(a) Definitions.
ANTENNA shall mean a transmitting an/or receiving device
used in telecommunications that radiates or captures
electromagnetic waves, including directional Antennas, such as
panel and microwave dish Antennas, and omni-directional
Antennas, such as whips, excluding radar Antennas, amateur
radio Antennas and satellite earth stations.
CO-LOCATION shall mean Telecommunications Towers that
have the potential to have two or more carrier Antennas
located on it.
COMMUNICATION TOWER shall mean a monopole, or an existing
tower (guyed, lattice, etc.) greater than fifty (50) feet in
height and which does not exceed one hundred eighty (180) feet
in height (including antenna) which supports communication
(transmission or receiving) equipment. The term Communication
Tower shall not include amateur radio operator's equipment, as
licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. (FCC).
.
GUYED TOWER shall mean a Telecommunications Tower that is
supported, in whole or in part, by guy wires and ground
anchors.
2
!
""'.
LATTICE TOWER shall mean a Telecommunications Tower that
is constructed without guy wires and ground anchors.
MICROWAVE shall mean a dish antenna, or a dish-like
antenna used to link communication sites together by wireless
transmission of voice or data.
MONOPOLE TOWER shall mean a Telecommunications Tower
consisting of a single pole or spire self supported by a
permanent foundation, constructed without guy wires and ground
anchors.
NIER shall mean non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation.
PANEL ANTENNA shall mean an array of Antennas designed to
concentrate a radio signal in a particular area.
STEALTH FACILITY shall mean any Telecommunications
facility which is designed to blend into the surrounding
environment. Examples of stealth facilities include
architecturally screened roof-mounted Antennas, Antennas
integrated into architectural elements, and Telecommunications
Towers designed to look like light poles, power poles or
trees.
.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER shall mean a monopole tower
constructed as a free-standing structure no more than 180 feet
in height, containing one (1) or more antenna intended for
transmitting or receiving television, AM/FM radio, digital,
microwave, cellular telephones, or similar forms of electronic
communication, excluding radar towers, amateur radio support
structures licensed by the FCC, private home use of satellite
dishes and television antennas and satellite earth stations.
WHIP ANTENNA shall mean a cylindrical Antenna that
transmits signals in 360 degrees.
(b)
Findings and Intent.
.
The City has with increasing frequency received requests
to approve sites for Telecommunications Towers. Land
development regulations have not adequately identified
specific procedures to address recurring issues relating
to the approval of locations for Telecommunications
Towers. Therefore, it is the intent of this ordinance
(to be codified as Sec. 20-434 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Winter Springs) to address the recurrent
issues pertaining to the approval of Telecommunications
Towers upon parcels located in the City of
winter Springs. Accordingly, the City Commission finds
that the promulgation of this ordinance is warranted and
necessary:
3
f
.'
(1) To protect residential areas,and land uses from the
potential adverse impacts of Telecommunications
Towers when placed at inappropriate locations or
permitted without adequate controls and regulation
consistent with the provisions of law;
(2) To minimize the adverse visual impacts resulting
from Telecommunications Towers through sound and
practical design, siting, landscape screening, and
innovative camouflaging techniques all in
accordance with generally acceptable engineering
and planning principles and the public health,
safety and welfare;
(3) To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties
throush sound engineering and planning and the
prudent and careful approval of Telecommunications
Tower sites and structures;
.
(4) To require shared use/co-location of existing and
new Telecommunications Towers (capability of having
space for three or more carriers) to avoid
proliferation of towers throughout the City of
Winter Springs. One co-located position shall be
reserved exclusively for the use of the City of
winter Springs.
(5) The City Commission hereby finds and determines
that the provisions of this ordinance are
consistent with the provisions of the City of
winter Springs Comprehensive Plan, the East Central
Florida Regional Policy Plan, the State
Comprehensive Plan as well as the provisions of
State and Federal Law.
(c) Applicability.
(1) All new Telecommunications Towers in the city of
winter Springs shall be subject to these
regulations and all other applicable regulations.
For purposes of measurement, Telecommunications
Tower setbacks as listed in subsection (g) (1) and
separation distances as listed in subsection (g) (2)
shall be calculated and applied to facilities
located in the City of Winter Springs, irrespective
of other municipal and county jurisdictional
boundaries.
.
(2) All new communications Antennas (i.e. stealth'
rooftop or building mounted antennas) which are not
attached to Telecommunications Towers shall comply
with subsection (g) (12) .
4
.'
.
,(3) All Telecommunications Towers existing on ".v.. ,
1996 (the effective date of this ordinance) shall
be allowed to continue their usage as they
presently exist. Routine maintenance (including
replacement with a new tower of like construction
not to exceed one hundred eighty [180] feet) shall
be permitted on such existing towers. New
construction other than routine maintenance on an
existing Telecommunications Tower shall comply
with the requirements of this section.
(4) For purposes of implementing this section, a
Telecommunications Tower that has received city
approval as a special exception or building permit,
but has not yet been constructed, shall be
consirlered an existing tower so long as such
approval is current and not expired.
(d) Location, Permitted Uses and Special Exceptions.
.
(1) Telecommunications Towers shall be an allowed use
within the following designations on the Future
Land Use Map of the city of Winter Springs:
Industrial; Public Buildings; utility
Installations; Recreation (sites greater than ten
(10) acres).
(2) A monopole or stealth facility shall be the
permitted type of Telecommunications Tower within
the City of winter Springs.
(3) Other types of Telecommunications Towers (i.e.
lattice, guyed, etc.) shall require a special
exception as indicated in Chapter 20 Divison 3
Board of Adjustment Sec. 20-82 through 20-83 of the
Code of ordinances, City of winter Springs.
Ie) site Plan.
Any Telecommunications company or entity that intends to
install a Telecommunications Tower in the City shall file
a site plan (as defined in Chapter 20 "Zoning", if
applicable and/or Chapter 9 "Land Development" Code of
Ordinances, City of Winter Springs) with the Land
Development Coordinator. Said site plan shall be
reviewed by the Development: Review Committee and approved
by the Building Department and the City Engineer at the
time building permits are requested.
.
5
l
.
If) Application for special exception and buildinq permit
requests.
Applications for special exception shall be submitted to
the Land Development Coordinator and building permit
request shall be submitted to the Building Official.
Iq) Performance Standards/Design criteria.
(1) Setbacks.
a. Telecommunications Tower setbacks shall be
measured from the base of the tower to the
property line of the parcel on which it is
located, unless the requirements of Subsection
~e) (2) require a greater setback.
b. The setback requirement shall be ten (10)
feet.
(2) Separation of towers from off-site uses.
.
a.
Residential use (single-family/multi-
family/mobile homes) which is platted or has a
valid subdivision plan which is not expired -
two hundred and fifty (250) feet from an
existing residential structure.
b. Vacant, unplatted residentially zone property
- two hundred fifty (250) feet.
c.
Non-residentially zoned
residential use - none.
non-
lands
or
d. Separation distances may' be reduced by the
Development Review Committee when notarized
written consent is obtained from those
affected property owners within the applicable
separation distance.
(3) Separation distances between Telecommunications
Towers.
a.
.
Separation distances between
Telecommunications Towers shall be applicable
for and measured between the proposed tower
and those towers that are existing and/or have
received the city of winter Springs land use
or building permit approval after , 1996
(the effective date of this ordinance). The
separation distances shall be measured by
drawing or following a straight line between
the base of the existing tower and the
proposed base, pursuant to a site plan, of the
proposed tower.
6
!
.
b.
The minimum
linear feet)
feet.
separation distance (listed in
shall be two thousand (2,000)
c. The separation distance may be reduced by
special exception as defined in Chapter 20,
Division 3. Board of Adjustment, Sections 20-
76 through 20-84 of the Code of Ordinances,
City of winter Springs, Florida.
d. The proximi ty to other existing
Telecommunications Towers shall be a factor
considered and addressed during the special
exception hearing for any proposed
Telecommunications Tower.
(4) Measurement of Height.
a. Measurement of Telecommunications Tower height
shall include Antenna, base pad, and any and
all other appurtenances and shall be measured
from the finished grade of the parcel on which
the Telecommunications Tower is located.
.
b.
Telecommunications Towers shall not exceed one
hundred eighty (180) feet in height which
shall include the antenna.
(5) Illumination.
Telecommunications Towers shall not be artificially
lighted except to assure human safety or as
required by the Federal Aviation Administration.
(6) Finished color.
Telecommunications Towers not requiring FAA
painting/marking shall be of such color that will
blend with the surrounding environment.
(7) structural Design.
a. site planes) are required and shall be
submitted for approval as defined in Chapter
20 Zoning (if applicable) and/or Chapter 9
Land Development, Code of Ordinances, City of
Winter Springs, .Florida.
b.
Telecommunications Towers shall be constructed
in accordance with the EIA/TIA 222-E Standards
as published by the Electronic Industries
Association, which may be amended from time to
time, ASCE 7-95, "Minimum Design Load for
Buildings and Structures", (Wind Loads
.
7
.
d.
.
e.
f
Chapter), as .published by the American Society
of civil Engineers, and further defined by
ASCE 7-88, "Guide to the Use of the Wind Load
Provisions", both which may be amended from
time to time, and all City of Winter Springs
construction/building codes as indicated in a
statement signed, sealed and dated by a
professional engineer licensed to practice in
the State of Florida.
c.
Such statement shall also describe the tower's
capacity, number and type of antennas it can
accommodate. No tower shall be permitted to
exceed its loading capacity. For all towers
attached to existing structures, the statement
~hall include certification that the structure
can support the load superimposed from the
tower.
All new Telecommunications Towers, and those
existing towers to be modified, shall have the
capability of having space for three or more
carriers. One of these spaces shall be
reserved exclusively for the use of the City
of Winter Springs.
Further, any improvements and/or additions
(i.e., Antenna, satellite dishes, etc.) shall
require submission of a site plan signed,
sealed and dated by a professional engineer
licensed in the state of Florida which
provides substantial competent evidence of
compliance with the EIT/TIA 222-E Standards
ASCE 7-95, "Minimum Design Load for Buildings
and Structures", (Wind Loads Chapter), as
published by the American Society of civil
Engineers, and further defined by ASCE 7-88,
"Guide to the Use of the Wind Load
Provisions", both which may be amended from
time to time, in effect at the time of said
improvement or addition.
(8) Public Notice.
For purposes of this ordinance, any special
exception request, shall require public notice to
all property owners within two hundred fifty (250')
feet of the proposed tower location.
.
(9) Signage.
No commercial
permitted on
signage or advertising shall be
a Telecommunication Tower unless
8
"
.
.n,,+ ~
otherwise required by law or the. signage pertains
only to the posting of the property relative to
trespassing. The use of any portion of a tower or
perimeter fence/wall for signs or advertising
purposes, including company name, banners,
streamers, etc., shall be prohibited.
(10) Fencing.
a. A chain-link fence or wall not less than eight
(8) feet in height from finished grade shall
be installed by the applicant around each
Telecommunications Tower. Barbed wire or
other fencing method to prevent pedestrian
access to the tower, not to exceed two (2)
~eet in height, may be installed along the top
of the fence or wall, but shall not be
included when calculating the height of the
fence or wall.
b. Access to the tower through the fence or wall
shall be through a gate which shall be locked
at all times the tower site is not being
occupied by the person or entity in charge of
the Telecommunications Tower or site.
.
(11) Landscaping.
The visual impacts of a Telecommunications Tower
shall be mitigated for nearby viewers through
landscaping or other screening materials at the
base of the tower and ancillary structures in order
to maintain visual aesthetics for those who must
view the site on a regular basis including, but not
limited to, proximate residents and the travelling
public. The following landscaping and buffering
requirements shall be required around the perimeter
of the tower and accessory structures;
a. A row of shade trees of minimum of eight (8)
feet tall, two and one-half (2 1/2) inches in
caliper, and a maximum of ten (10) feet apart
shall be planted around the outside perimeter
of the fence/wall;
b.
A continuous hedge at least thirty (30) inches
high at planting capable of growing to at
least thirty-six (36) inches in height within
eighteen (18) months shall be planted in front
of the tree line referenced above;
.,.
.1,
.
c.
All landscaping shall be of the evergreen
variety being a minimum quality of Florida #1.
t'
I
I
9
i
.
.~~,,,-,.
.
.
d.
All landscaping shall be xeriscape tolerant
and shall be properly maintained by the
Telecommunications Tower owner/operator to
ensure good health and viability.
The use of existing vegetation shall be preserved
to the maximum extent practicable and may be used
as a substitute of or in supplement towards meeting
landscaping requirements.
(12) Antennas on Buildings.
Any stealth rooftop or building mounted antennas
which are not attached to a Telecommunications
Tower., shall be a permitted ancillary use to any
commercial, industrial, Public Buildings, utility
Installation, and Recreation (sites greater than
ten [10] acres in size) land uses indicated on the
Future Land Use Map of the City's Comprehensive
Plan provided that:
a.
antennas shall only be permitted on buildings
which are at least fifty (50) feet in height
(the height requirement may be waived if
public safety needs warrant the antenna);
b.
antennas may not extend more than twenty (20)
feet above the highest point of a roof (this
requirement may be waived if public safety
needs warrant additional height);
c. antennas and related equipment buildings shall
be located or screened to minimize the visual
impact of the antenna upon adjacent properties
and shall be of a material or color which
matches the exterior of the building or
structure upon which it is situated.
d. no commercial advertising shall be allowed on
an antenna;
e. no signals, lights, illumination shall be
permitted on an antenna or equipment building
unless required by the Federal Communications
commission (FCC) or the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).
f.
any related unmanned equipment building shall
not contain more than seven hundred fifty
(750) square feet of gross floor area or be
more than twelve (12) feet in height; and
g. if the equipment building is located on the
roof of the building, the area of the
10
.
.
(h)
.
,<
.~quipment building shall not occupy more than
twenty-five (25%) percent of the roof area.
(13) Equipment storage
.Jfl
Mobile or immobile equipment not used in direct
support of a Telecommunications Tower facility
shall not be stored or parked on the site of the
tower unless repairs to the tower are being made.
(14) Schedule of Structural Integrity
Telecommunication Tower owners/operators shall
submit to the Building Department a certified
statement from a qualified, registered,
profe~sional engineer, licensed in the State of
Florida, attesting to the structural and electrical
integrity of the tower on the following schedule:
(a) monopole towers - every five (5) years;
(b) any other type tower
years.
every two (2)
(15) Transmission/Reception Interference.
Each application to allow construction or
modification of a Telecommunications Tower shall
include a certified statement from a qualified,
registered, professional engineer, licensed in the
State of Florida, attesting that the construction
of the tower, including receiving and transmitting
functions, shall not interfere with public safety
communications and the usual and customary
transmission or reception of radio, television,
etc., service enjoyed by adjacent residential and
non-residential properties.
(16)
Telecommunications Towers are prohibited when a
proposed or existing principal use includes the
storage, distribution, or sale of volatile,
explosive, or hazardous wastes such as LP gas,
propane, gasoline, natural gas, and corrosive or
dangerous chemicals.
Co-location of Communications Antennas.
To minimize adverse visual impacts associated with the
proliferation and clustering of Telecommunications
Towers, co-location of communications Antennas by more
than one (1) carrier on existing or new Telecommunication
Towers shall take precedent over the construction of new
single-use Telecommunications Towers as follows:
11
..
.
(1) Proposed.~,; ,.,.communications Antennas may,
encouraged to, co-locate onto
Telecommunications Towers.
and are
existing
.:,~'
(2) Type of Construction. A Telecommunications Tower
which is reconstructed to accommodate the Co-
location of an additional communications Antenna
shall be of a monopole tower type.
(3) Height. An existing Telecommunications Tower may
be modified or rebuilt to the allowed height of one
hundred eighty (180) feet, including antennas;
(4) Onsite-Iocation.
a. A Telecommunications Tower which is being
rebuilt to accommodate the Co-location of an
additional communications Antenna may be moved
onsite within two hundred fifty (250) feet of
its existing location.
b.
After a Telecommunication
accommodate Co-location,
shall remain on the site;
Tower is rebuilt to
only one (1) tower
.
c.
The onsite relocation of a Telecommunications
Tower which comes within the separation
distances to residential units or
residentially zoned lands as established in
subsection (g) (2) shall only be permitted when
notarized written consent is obtained from
those affected residential property owners.
Ii) Certification of compliance with Federal Communications
commission (FCC) NIER Standards
Prior to receiving final inspection by the winter Springs
Building Department, documented certification shall be
submitted to the FCC, with copy to the Land Development
Coordinator, certifying that the telecommunications
facility complies with all current FCC regulations for
non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIER).
Ij) Abandonment.
.
(1) In the event the use of any Telecommunications
Tower has been discontinued for a period of one-
hundred eighty (180) consecutive days, the tower
shall be deemed to be abandoned. Determination of
the date of abandonment shall be made by the
Building Official who shall have the right to
request documentation and/or affidavits from the
Telecommunications Tower owner/operator regarding
12
.'
.
the issue of tower~usage. The Telecommunications
Tower owner/operator shall provide all requested
information within five (5) working days of a
request being made. Upon such abandonment, the
owner/operator of the tower shall have an
additional one-hundred eighty (180) days within
which to: (i) reactivate the use of the tower or
transfer the tower to another owner/operator who
makes actual use of the tower, or (ii) dismantle
and remove the tower. with regard to towers that
received special exception approval, one-hundred
eighty (180) days after dismantling or the
expiration of the three-hundred and sixty (360) day
period as set forth in this Section, the special
exception and/or variance for the tower shall
automatically expire.
(2)
The City of winter Springs, at this point, and at
its discretion, may assume ownership of the tower
at no cost, or require the owner to dismantle the
tower at the owner's expense. If the decision is
to dismantle the tower, the property shall be
cleared of all appurtenances and returned to its
natural state.
.
SECTION III - If any section or portion of this Ordinance
proves to be invalid, unlawful or unconstitutional, it shall
not be held to invalidate or impair the validity, force or
effect of any other section or portion of a section or
subsection or part of this Ordinance.
SECTION IV - That all Ordinances or parts of Ordinances
in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
SECTION V - This Ordinance shall take effect immediately
upon its adoption, in accordance with 166.041(4) Florida
Statutes.
.
13
f
.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this____day of , 1996.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
JOHN F. BUSH, MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
FIRST READING
POSTED
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING
.
.
14