Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
01232002
City Council Present: Mayor Walter Barnes Mr. Joe Barczyk Mr. Edward J. Majcher, Jr. Mr. Ray Coniglio Absent: Mr. James Hill (excused) S LITIAN a HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2002 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA ALL AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE INSPECTED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA Individuals will address the City Council with respect to agenda items immediately before deliberation of the item by the City Council limit of ten minutes per speaker (R- 99 -21) 1. Mayor Barnes called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. A moment of silence was held. 4. ROLL CALL Staff Present: City Manager, Terrence Moore City Attorney, Rich Stringer City Clerk, Sally Maio Deputy City Clerk, Jeanette Williams Airport Director, Jason Milewski Finance Director, Mark Mason Growth Management Director, Tracy Hass Public Works Director, Terry Hill Engineering Technician, Ginny Sieferd Regular City Council Meeting January 23, 2002 Page Two 5. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS (ADDITIONS AND /OR DELETIONS) Items not on the written agenda may be added only upon a majority vote of City Council members (R- 99 -21) None. 6. PROCLAMATIONS, ANNOUNCEMENTS AND /OR PRESENTATIONS 02.009 A. Indian River County Supervisor of Elections Kav Clem 1. Demonstration of New Voting Equipment 2. Update on Cost of Public Education Sample Ballots Supervisor of Elections, Kay Clem, briefly described the new Sequoia voting equipment recently purchased by Indian River County in compliance with state legislation banning the use of punch card systems. She described locations of demonstrations and methods to educate the public on use of the machines, noting that the cost of sample ballots will be approximately $4,500; and reported that new voter cards which includes redistricting information will be mailed out in July. Chief Deputy Supervisor of Elections, Cathy Hart, then demonstrated the equipment. Mayor Barnes called a five minute recess to allow the Supervisor of Elections to dismantle the voting equipment. All members present at roll call were present when the Mayor reconvened the meeting. 7. CITY ATTORNEY MATTERS The City Attorney described the need for approval of a release of unity of title, a process which has been handled administratively up until now and, he advised, should be approved by Council. The release of declaration unity of title is for lots 8 7 of Block 392 of Highlands Unit 11. MOTION by Majcher /Barczyk "I make a motion to release lot 8 7 of block 392 of 11, unit 11." ROLL CALL: MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 Mayor Barnes aye Mr. Barczyk aye Mr. Majcher aye Mr. Hill absent Mr. Coniglio aye 2 Regular City Council Meeting January 23, 2002 Page Three Mayor Barnes requested City Council consensus to authorize payment of $2,250 for the sample ballot as noted by the Supervisor of Elections. MOTION by Barnes /Barczyk the City of Sebastian could be, in order to get out the educational material there's the fee of $4500 that she said she would pay half of and the City of Sebastian would be left with a $2,250.00 bill I think personally that's a good cause, because even though Kay has bent over backwards to get around the county to let everyone see these machines I'm sure there will be a lot of people turned up at the polls without the foggiest idea of what they are doing, so this is another step to let people know about these new machines, I'll ask for a roll call vote but I'm asking that the City be allowed to pay the $2,250 for that process, I'll make the motion." ROLL CALL: MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 Mr. Barczyk aye Mr. Majcher aye Mr. Hill absent Mr. Coniglio aye Mayor Barnes aye 2. The Scattergood case was settled through the City's insurance coverage. 3. The Florida League of Cities Legislative Bulletin indicates that the Florida Association of Counties intends to file legislation to restrict the use of community redevelopment agencies by municipalities in that the county would have to approve tax increment financing districts. Advised that if there is any consideration in expanding the City's CRA or looking at a different community redevelopment district to do so before the law is changed. The City Manager stated he will be hosting a meeting to determine which process will work and report to Council. 4. Reminded Council he would be at a Florida boating, water management and environment seminar on Friday and will travel tomorrow if Council should need him. 8. CITY MANAGER MATTERS The City Manager presented the dedication plaque to be placed on the millennium clock. 9. CITY CLERK MATTERS The City Clerk requested addition of a fifth application for the Handicapped Self Evaluation Committee tonight and a consensus of City Council that she not be required to readvertise for an applicant to replace Sal Neglia on the Citizens Advisory Task Force since there were still eight members of the board remaining. City Council concurred with both requests. 3 Regular City Council Meeting January 23, 2002 Page Four 10. CITY COUNCIL MATTERS 02.010 A. Mayor Barnes 1. Liaison Appointment to Indian River County Parks Recreation Committee Mayor Barnes requested the City Clerk to contact Julianne Barrett to see if she is interested in serving on the County Parks and Recreation Committee and place the item on the next agenda. Commented on concerns regarding the congested traffic on US 1 and Jackson Street and reported that FDOT planned to change the light timing the next day to ease the congestion. Mayor Barnes stated the young man who protected his playmate from a pit bull needed additionally surgeries and perhaps Council will honor him in the future with a certificate. B. Mr. Barczyk Expressed concerns expressed regarding speeding, vicious dogs and safety issues for people walking. C. Mr. Maicher Inquired about the overnight camping at Skydive Sebastian. The Airport Director said he had been working with Code Enforcement and Skydive Sebastian and that the situation will be corrected in the near future. D. Mr. Hill Absent. E. Mr. Conialio None. 11. CONSENT AGENDA All Items on the consent agenda are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of consent agenda items unless a member of City Council so requests; in which event, the item will be removed and acted upon separately. A. Approval of Minutes 12/12/2001 Regular Meeting B. Approval of Minutes 1/9/2002 Regular Meeting 02.011 C. Agreement Between the City of Sebastian and Indian River County Supervisor of Elections for Use of Community Center Precinct 12 (City Clerk Transmittal 1/7/02, SOE Letter 1/4/02, Proposed Agreement) 4 Regular City Council Meeting January 23, 2002 Page Five 02.012 D. Approve Special Event at Riverview Park for Downs Connection on Saturday, October 19, 2002 (Parks Transmittal 1/16/02) 02.013 E. Resolution No. R -02 -03 Final Plat for Phase IIA of Collier Club PUD Subdivision (GMD Transmittal 1/16/02, R- 02 -03, Application and Plat) 12. PUBLIC HEARING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT FOR SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS COLLIER CLUB PHASE 11A; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION by Barczyk/Majcher "I move to approve the consent agenda from A to E." ROLL CALL: Mr. Hill absent Mr. Coniglio aye Mayor Barnes aye Mr. Barczyk aye Mr. Majcher aye MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 02.005 A. Second Reading and Second Public Hearing on Ordinance NQ. 0 -02 -01 Moratorium on Cell Phone Towers (City Attorney Transmittal. 0- 02 -01) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, DECLARING A SIX -MONTH MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS AND ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS; PROVIDING FOR EXCEPTIONS; SETTING FORTH EXPIRATION; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read Ordinance No. 0 -02 -01 by title, briefly described the moratorium and the Mayor opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. and, being no input, the hearing was closed. MOTION by Barczyk/Majcher "Move to adopt Ordinance No. 0- 02 -01." ROLL CALL: Mr. Coniglio aye Mayor Barnes aye Mr. Barczyk aye Mr. Majcher aye Mr. Hill absent MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 5 Regular City Council Meeting January 23, 2002 Page Six 02.006 B. Quasi Judicial Public Hearing Ordinance No. 0 -02 -03 Revised Conceptual Plan within Lake Dolores (GMD Transmittal 1/15/02, 0- 02 -03, Conceptual Plan, Location Map and P Z Recommendation) TAPE l SIDE 11 (8:07 p.m.) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE VILLAGES OF LAKE DOLORES PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE USES FOR A 2.25 ACRE TRACT ORIGINALLY DESIGNATED FOR 'FUTURE DEVELOPMENT'; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read Ordinance No. 0 -02 -03 by title and Mayor opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Attorney Warren Dill, representing the applicant, Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, introduced Mark Ciarfella, Lee Chapman, Dave Herring and distributed exhibits into the record, and documents that had been presented to Planning and Zoning and photographs of the subject property. Mr. Dill then went on to describe the process that was followed before Planning and Zoning and the subsequent advice of the City Attorney that this matter would have to come back in the form of an amended conceptual development plan, advice that Mr. Dill stated for the record, he had objected to. He then continued his presentation on the proposed use and need for a cell phone tower in this area of Sebastian. Mr. Dill stated the proposed tower is 175 feet. The height of the tower and time of application was discussed. The City Attorney stated the application was in compliance with the comp plan, land use compatibility, had road to provide public access, and was not governed by aesthetic guidelines. He then stated the only question that needed to be addressed was the need for a tower of this height because standards cannot be applied so restrictively that they deny provision of the service. The City Attorney asked to what degree the height is based on coverage needs. Okman Osman, a representative of Nextel stated that the tower would have to be minimum 175' because this tower is designed to provide relief for two other towers. The City Attorney stated utilities are allowed in PUD sites and he is of the opinion that this zoning use would be allowed. The Growth Management Director pointed out that this approval would be for the whole 2.25 acres development, not just the tower site. The tower site was approved for future use but not designated as to type. The Director stated the applicant has adhered to City guidelines and the City's code does have a gap defining public utilities. The Planning and Zoning Commission and staff recommends approval of this conceptual plan. There was no input from the public. 6 Regular City Council Meeting January 23, 2002 Page Seven The City Attorney swore in Lee Chapman to attest to the accuracy of the photographs depicting the site. Okman Osman was sworn in and attested to the accuracy of his previous statement regarding the height of the tower. Coniglio /Majcher "111 make a motion, are we still holding the recommended action that was for quasi judicial hearing and adoption hearing and move to pass the Ordinance No. 0- 02 -03, so I motion." ROLL CALL: MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 Mayor Barnes aye Mr. Barczyk aye Mr. Majcher aye Mr. Hill absent Mr. Coniglio aye 13. INTRODUCTION OF NEW BUSINESS FROM THE PUBLIC Item that has occurred or was discovered within the previous six months which is not otherwise on the agenda sign -up required limit of ten minutes for each speaker Herb Sturm, 549 Saunders Street, Sebastian, addressed City Council on statements made by the City Attorney regarding his former Code Enforcement case and former Attorney Torpy's statements. Mayor Barnes called recess at 8:15 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:27 p.m. 14. COMMITTEE REPORTS /RECOMMENDATIONS 02.014 A. Plannina and Zoning Commission 1. Interview. Unless Waived and Appoint to Alternate Member to Planning and Zoninra Board (City Clerk Transmittal 1/15/02. Applications, Board Member List, Advertisements) Mr. Coniglio said he had been contacted by Ms. Monier who advised him that she could not attend but was interested in continuing her membership. MOTION by Coniglio /Majcher "I make a motion that we appoint Lisanne Monier to the alternate spot on the P and Z, the Planning and Zoning Board." MOTION by Coniglio /Majcher ROLL CALL: Mr. Barczyk aye Mr. Majcher aye Mr. Hill absent Mr. Coniglio aye Mayor Barnes aye MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 7 Regular City Council Meeting January 23, 2002' Page Eight 02.015 B. Handicapped Self- Evaluation Committee 1. Interview, Unless Waived and Appoint Five Regular Member Positions to Handicapped Self Evaluation Committee (City Clerk Transmittal 1/15/02, Letter of Interest, Application, Board Member List, Advertisements? It was noted that there was an additional application from Robert Bandriner. MOTION by Coniglio /Majcher "I'll make a motion that we reappoint Harry DiSalvo, we reappoint Keith Miller, appoint Catherine Ackerman, and appoint Inez Fielding and Robert I. Bandriner, to regular member term expiring January 1, 2005." ROLL CALL: Mr. Coniglio aye Mayor Barnes aye Mr. Barczyk aye Mr. Majcher aye Mr. Hill absent MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 15. OLD BUSINESS None. 16. NEW BUSINESS 02.016 A. Presentation from Representatives of Camp, Dresser McKee Inc. Sebastian Stormwater Master Planning Update Mr. Brian Mack, project engineer from Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc. updated City Council on City stormwater master planning. Mr. Mack then responded to the possibility of water contamination from the area of Gibson Street and local groves; if the CDM proposals would minimize maintenance and would CDM's efforts interface with SJRWMD's water park. The City Manager stated CDM would be back in June /July for midway update. 02.016 B. Authorize the Execution of Addendum to Contract Between City of Sebastian and Camp, Dresser McKee, Inc. for Master Stormwater Management Plan in the Amount of $31,200.00 (Citv Manager Transmittal 1/15/02, Attachment A) Mr. Brian Mack, Camp, Dresser McKee, Inc. addressed City Council on the contract addendum which adds fifty -five additional structures to the inventory and existing stormwater model. Regular City Council Meeting January 23, 2002 Page Nine MOTION by Majcher /Coniglio "Move to authorize the City Manager to execute Attachment A as an addendum to the original contract between the City of Sebastian and Camp -Camp, Dresser McKee, Inc., in the amount of $31,200.00." ROLL CALL: MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 Mayor Barnes aye Mr. Barczyk aye Mr. Majcher aye Mr. Hill absent Mr. Coniglio aye 02.017 C. Resolution No. R -02 -02 Adopting an Amended Fiscal Year 2001 -02 Budget (Finance Transmittal 1/16/02. R- 02 -02. Memo. Proiect Status Reports. Schedule of Investments by Fund, Schedule of Investments by Type) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ADOPTING AN AMENDED BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1, 2001 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 AS PROVIDED FOR IN EXHIBIT "A PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read Resolution No. R -02 -02 by title. The Finance Director briefly explained the amended items (see Exhibit A attached). He recommended an additional $2,250 be added to the City Clerks budget for the sample ballot education program funds approved tonight. MOTION by Barczyk/Majcher "I move to approve R -02 -02 as amended with the $2,250." ROLL CALL: MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 Mr. Barczyk aye Mr. Majcher aye Mr. Hill absent Mr. Coniglio aye Mayor Barnes aye 02.018 D. Ordinance No. 0 -02 -04 Board of Adjustment Redesignation Schedule Public Hearing for 2/13/02 (City Attorney Transmittal 1/15/02. 0- 02 -04. Legislative and Final Format. P Z Minutes) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA, AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 54- 1 -2.5, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read Ordinance No. 0 -02 -04 by title and briefly described the proposed changes which would give the City Council the authority to act as the Board of Adjustment and the appeal process would go to the court, and advised the Planning and Zoning Commission approved of this ordinance. 9 Regular City Council Meeting January 23, 2002 Page Ten MOTION by Majcher /Coniglio "Move to pass Ordinance 0 -02 -04 on first reading and set adoption hearing for February 13, 2002." ROLL CALL: MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 Mayor Barnes aye Mr. Barczyk aye Mr. Majcher aye Mr. Hill absent Mr. Coniglio aye 02.019 E. Authorize the Execution of Work Order with Kimley -Horm for Engineering Services Related to the Pier Proiect in the Amount of $27,500 (General Services Transmittal 1/15/02) TAPE 11- SIDE I (9 :17 p.m.) The City Manager gave a brief history on the activity on this matter up to this time and presented his recommendation to contract with Kimley -Horn for engineering services in the amount of $27,500. Jeb Mullis, Kimley -Horn, addressed City Council on the use of the piers and the need for proper engineering to make the docks able to sustain weather and the use it will receive. City Council input followed regarding the importance of a proper plan. Mayor Barnes requested they review City engineering staff's plan. The City Manager explained that if authorized, the City will work with Kimley Horn and go over logistics in place and what is required and where the City needs to go. This will be presented publicly and assist the City with technical specs before presented for bid. The City Manager stated that a presentation would be given to Council before bids are accepted. Discussion took place on renaming Good Guys and Cavcorp properties. The City Manager stated renaming the property is part of the scheduled improvements and the City Attorney suggested South Pointe at Riverview Park for the Good Guys property. The City Attorney reiterated that we inherited these permits which could not be obtained today and these plans allow for additional piers which will benefit the City since it will probably double in population. He stated the City is trying to allow for flexibility in design for future development. MOTION by Barczyk/Majcher "Move to authorize staff to execute a work order with Kimley -Horn in the amount of not to exceed $27,500 for engineering services related to the pier project." 10 Regular City Council Meeting January 23, 2002 Page Eleven ROLL CALL: MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 Mr. Majcher aye Mr. Hill absent Mr. Coniglio aye Mayor Barnes aye Mr. Barczyk aye 02.020 F. Ordinance No. 0 -02 -05 Bicycle Regulations Schedule Public Hearing for 2/27/02 (City Attorney Transmittal 1/17/02. 0- 02 -05) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA CREATING SECTION 98 -9 BICYCLE REGULATIONS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. The City Attorney read Ordinance No. 0 -02 -05 by title and described the need for language allowing flexibility to officers in enforcing bicycle regulations. Council commended Officer Graves for his efforts with this ordinance. MOTION by Majcher /Barczyk "Move to pass Ordinance 0 -02 -05 on the first reading and set adoption hearing for February 27, 2002." ROLL CALL: Mr. Hill absent Mr. Coniglio aye Mayor Barnes aye Mr. Barczyk aye Mr. Majcher aye MOTION CARRIED 4 -0 17. Being no further items, Mayor Barnes adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:27 p.m. Approved at the February 13th 2002 Regular Council Meeting. Walter Barnes May a a, Sally Maiq, CMC City Clerk 11 Agenda Item 12.B. Quasi- Judicial within Villages of Lake Delores Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, Inc. Composite Exhibit "A" City of Sebastian City Council Wednesday, January 23, 2002 Public Hearing Ordinance No. 0 -02 -03 Revised Conceptual Plan Eage 1. Staff Report for Atlantic Coast Tower's application for a 175 foot tower as presented to Planing Zoning Commission on September 20, 2001 Property Appraiser's Map of Area showing tower site 7. 8. Letter from Atlantic Coast Tower providing Agent Authorization dated August 20, 2001 10. Letter from Walter Wulff& Associates, Aviation Consultants, to Atlantic Coast Tower dated August 9, 2001, with F.A.A. notifications dated August 24, 2001 attached 13. Letter from Atlantic Coast Tower acknowledging approval of Site Plan dated September 26, 2001 14. Letter to City regarding search for alternative tower sites dated October 17, 2001 15. Letter to City transmitting application for Conceptual Development Plan including Agent Authorization dated November 6, 2001 17. Excerpt from Planning Zoning Commission Minutes of November 15, 2001 recommending City Council adopt a six (6) month moratorium on accepting applications for new towers 20. Excerpt from Draft Minutes of November 28, 2001 City Council Meeting, initiating Ordinance for six (6) month moratorium on accepting applications for new towers 22. Letter from Atlantic Coast Tower to Terrence R. Moore, City Manager, regarding leasing of City parcels for a telecommunication tower dated November 27, 2001 23. Site Plan Review Application for Indian River County 300 Riot tower and excerpt from Planning Zoning Commission Minutes of February 1, 1996 approving the tower 32. Staff Report for Crown Castle's 170 foot tower and excerpt from Planning Zoning Commission Minutes of October 19, 2000 approving the tower 40. Certified copy of Indian River County Ordinance No. 2001 -01 imposing six (6) month moratorium on acceptance of applications for new towers 43. Certified copy of Indian River County Ordinance No. 2001 -017 extending for additional six (6) months the moratorium on accepting applications for new towers 46. City of Sebastian Land Development Code for Mobile Home Planned Unit Developments (PUD -MH) Sec. 54- 2- 5.14(a)(4), permitted uses, public and private utilities 47. City of Sebastian current Land Development Code for definitions Sec. 54-5-22.3(b)(15) for "utilities, public and private" and how such term is interpreted for purposes of being a permitted use (within the PUD -MH district) 51. Letter from Larry Fajardo, RF Engineer, Nextel Communications, setting forth need for tower dated December 6, 2001 Exhibit "B" Transcript of City of Sebastian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of September 20, 2001 Approving Site Plan for Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, Inc. Exhibit "C" Transcript of City of Sebastian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of October 4, 2001 Adoption of Motion To Reconsider their prior action approving the Site Plan for Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, Inc. Exhibit "D" Photographs of subject property and surrounding area labeled 1 through 7 3. Project Location b. Legal: 8. Project Description CDT IN SEMSTIAN HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND Growth Management Department Site Plan Approval Application Staff Report 1. Project Name: Atlantic Coast Communications Tower 2. Requested Action: Site plan approval for installation and construction of a communications tower. a. Address: 64 Avenue (Park Place Mobile Home Park) Sebastian, Florida 32958 c. Indian River County Parcel Number: 29- 31- 39- 00000 -3000- 00014.0 4. Project Owner: Village of Lake Dolores, Inc. 1000 Stratton Avenue Sebastian, Florida 32958 5. Project Agent: Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, Inc. 1201 U.S. Highway 1, Suite 230 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 (561) 694 -9445 fax: (561) 694 -6817 6. Project Engineer: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Russell Morrison, P.E. 4431 Embarcadero Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 (561) 840 -0819 fax: (561) 863 -6392 7. Project Surveyor: William B. Zents Associates, Inc. 684 Old Dixie Highway Vero Beach, Florida 32962 (561) 567 -7552 fax: (561) 567 -1751 a. Narrative of proposed action: Atlantic Coast Tower is proposing to construct a 175' monopole communications tower together with, communication lines, security fence, parking /drive area and landscaping. The plan also incorporates six proposed equipment shelters for future use. The tower will be located on a 100' x 100' lease parcel within Park Place PUD. COMPOSITE EXHIBIT "A" b. Current Zoning: PUD -MH c. Adjacent Properties Zoning Current Land Use Future Land Use North: PUD -MH Vacant R -MH East: PUD -MH Vacant R -MH South: PUD -MH Vacant R -MH West: PUD -MH Vacant R -MH d. Site Characteristics (1) Total Acreage: leased area .023 acres (10,000 SF) (2) Current Land Use(s): Vacant (3) Soil: Eaugallie (4) Vegetation: Urban Landscape (5) Flood Hazard: Zone X (6) Water Service: N/A (7) Sanitary Sewer Service: N/A (8) Parks: Wabasso Park 1 /4 mile (9) Police /Fire: Sebastian Police 5 miles Indian River Fire 4 miles 9. Comprehensive Plan Consistency a. Future Land Use: Consistent b. Traffic Circulation: Consistent c. Housing: Consistent d. Public Facilities: Consistent e. Coastal Management: Consistent f. Conservation: Consistent g. Recreation and Open Space: Consistent 1 10. Contents of Site Plan: a. lot configuration: provided b. finished ground floor elevation: provided site elevation 24.57' c. contours and designating number of dwelling units: N/A d• square footage of site: .23 acres 10,000 SF e. building coverage: not provided none proposed currently future development. f. square footage of paved areas and open area: provided g. setbacks: provided all proposed building locations exceed minimum setback standards. h. scaled drawings of the sides, front and rear of the building or structure: not provided none proposed currently I• generalized floor plan indicating uses and square footage of each proposed use within each building or structure: not provided none proposed currently. J- building exterior construction materials and color: not provided none proposed currently. k. building height: not provided none proposed currently. I• location and character of all outside facilities for waste disposal, storage areas, or display: N/A m. location and dimensions of all curb cuts and driveways: provided n. number of spaces with their location and dimensions: none required or proposed. o• details of off- street parking and loading areas (Including requirements of Sec 20A -8.1): N/A P. all off street vehicular surfaces available for maneuvering: provided q. surface materials: provided r• number of employees: N/A s. type of vehicles owned by the establishment: N/A D t. If there is a combined off street parking facility, required agreements: N/A u. Location of all pedestrian walks, malls, yards and open spaces: N/A v. location, size, character, and height or orientation of all signs: N/A w. location and character of landscaped areas and recreation areas: provided x. location, design and character of all public, semi public, or private utilities: N/A y• location, height and general character of perimeter or ornamental walls, fences, landscaping: provided site includes an 8' chain Zink fence topped with three strands of barbed wire. z. surface water drainage facilities plan certified by an engineer or architect registered in the State of Florida: N/A aa. location of existing easements and right -of -way: provided ab. Land survey with complete legal description prepared and certified by a registered surveyor: provided ac. Verified statement showing each and every individual person having a legal and /or equitable ownership interest in the subject property: provided 11. Site location and character of use: provided 12. Appearance site and structures: a. harmonious overall design: yes b. location and screening of mechanical equipment, utility hardware and waste storage areas: provided c. commercial and industrial activities conducted in enclosed buildings: yes d. exterior lighting: none required or proposed 13. Access, internal circulation, off street parking and other traffic impacts: a. internal circulation system design and access /egress considerations: provided b. separation of vehicular and pedestrian areas: N/A 14. Traffic impacts: N/A 15. Open space and landscape (including the requirements of Sec. 20A -13.1 and Sec. 20A- 14.1): a. Name, address and phone number of the owner and designer: provided b. North arrow, scale and date, minimum scale of one inch equals fifty (50) feet: provided c. Property lines, easements, and right -of -way with internal and property line dimensions: provided d. Location of existing or proposed utility service: provided e. Location and size of any existing or proposed structures: location provided f. Location and size of any existing or proposed site features, such as earthen mounds, swales, walls and water areas: N/A 9- Location and size of any existing or proposed vehicular use area: provided h. Location and size of any existing or proposed sidewalks, curbs, and wheel stops: N/A i. Location of sprinkler heads, hose bibs, or quick cupplers and other information on irrigation: N/A j. Calculations of required type, dimensions and square footage of landscape materials and of required landscape areas, including: total site area, parking area, other vehicular use area, percentage of non vehicular open space, perimeter and interior landscape strips, and required number of trees: provided see site landscape plan k. Location of required landscape areas and dimensions: N/A I. Location, name, height and size of all existing plant material to be retained: N/A m. Location, size, height and description of all landscape material including name, quantity, quality, spacing, and specified size and specification of all plant materials: provided n. Height, width, type, material and location of all barriers of nonliving material: provided o. Location, dimensions and area of landscaping for freestanding signs: N/A 4 p. Show all landscaping, buildings, or other improvements on adjacent property within five (5) feet of the common property line: N/A 16. Required screening of abutting residential and nonresidential uses: N/A 17. Flood prone land and wetland preservation: N/A 18: Surface water management: N/A 19: Available potable water: N/A 20: Wastewater service: N/A 21: Soil erosion, sedimentation control and estuary protection: provided 22: Additional considerations: None 23. City Engineer's review: No Comments 24. Other Matters: Staff requests copies of any FAA FAR compliance forms or any other documentation representing the FAA has reviewed the proposed tower and finds it to be in compliance with their regulations. 25. Analysis: Atlantic Coast Tower is proposing to construct a 175' monopole communications tower together with, communication lines, security fence, parking /drive area and landscaping. The plan also incorporates six proposed equipment shelters for future use. The tower will be located on a 100' x 100' lease parcel within Park Place PUD. 26. Conclusion: The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Code of Ordinances and the Land Development Code. 27. Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the proposed Atlantic Coast Communications Tower and finds that it demonstrates full compliance with all land development regulations and staff recommends approval with the following condition: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit copies of any FAA FAR compliance forms or any other documentation representing the FAA has reviewed the proposed tower and finds it to be in compliance with their regulations. PREPAR B Y oNL• I Ct(441 F OE i*awEo 10711- 3 S Ai s 4 bv 0 DATE 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 A[ 8 3-39 MEM IM IN VZI I® nar N' OE 11111 �I INIPP p ir#a o aoav E MEA MEN 4 AMR MOM MINMINIMII 1e.AI L OM" 4:1 to 0 4 41111111111111411111_111fit 4 #0,90514IIRRIMIKIIb, 411 MINH Mina 111©11®11111® eee1111eeee I 'i iIIIi 111111126 VU� MIMI® NIMIE =e�eei MIL in l ®v g um am I N MX �i1 Ern UM Agri EU IMM1���ll cm mi mum Mall Eli PAIN r� AO MlIP A =MIME' EM 11111 a 3 MI EH sR CM MI INI II 11 ;MI LooW 19,1,, w ,m I Q le lag eir 855(55[0 Z0 -31-31 Waal el In IL NE LII INN 1 0 900 *55[35(0 70 -11-31 853(55ED 70 -31-19 8r Section 29 31s -3 map 11.01 compiled 0: In/ the Indian River County Property Appraiser'! August 20', 2001 Mr. Tracy Hass City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32958 RE: Sebastian telecommunications tower site 64 Avenue/ vacant property Dear Mr. Hass: 1 have attached the Agent Authorization form for the above referenced tower site, which was mistakenly omitted in our zoning submittal to the City of Sebastian. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me at 561 694 -9445. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Mark Ciarfella Enclosure: Agent Authorization CC: File A I tlantic Coast Tower of Florida Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, Inc. 1201 U.S. Highway One, Suite 230 North Palm Beach, FL 33408 Phone: 561- 694 -9445 Fax: 561 694 -6817 Agent Authorization Signature: produced 1 Mr. Nelson Hyatt Village of Lake Dolores, Inc. 2512 Kelly Drive Sebastian, FL 32958 RE: Sebastian telecommunications tower site 64 Avenue/ vacant property Please accept this signed and notarized document authorizing Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, Inc. to act as agent for the Village of Lake Dolores, Inc., property owner in the submission of any applications and supporting documentation, and to attend and represent the property owner at all meetings and public hearings pertaining to the installation of an unmanned telecommunications facility as described in the attached documents at the location noted above. Additionally, this authorization shall permit Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, Inc. the ability to submit a Building Permit for the construction of the telecommunications facility. As owner of the subject property, I (we) consent to the terms and conditions that may arise as a part of the approval of these applications. Print Name lerik. CHRISTINE YARBROUGH MY COMMISSION CC 987422 EXPIRES: December 10, 2004 Bonded TNU Notify Pubic Undsiwdris STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF J-11.) �l (NOTARY SEAL) 1 Title: The foregoing instrument was acknowle t ged before me this day of 2101 b A ir He /she is personally known to me or has as ntification. Sign ure fARB °r UGH (Printed or typed name of Notary Public) Dave Herring Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, Inc. 1201 U.S. Highway One, Suite 230 North Palm Beach, FL 33412 Dear Mr. Herring: WALTER WULFF Aviation Consultants P.O. Box 914 Point Clear, AL 36564 (334) 990 -2502 Fax (334) 990 -2503 4. ASSOCIATES August 9, 2001 Ref: Case No: 01 -0739 This is a report of an aeronautical study for the proposed 185' AGL, 208' AMSL structure on the Sebastian site. The coordinates are 27 °45'22.5" N., 80°27'27.4" W. The site is 3.7 nautical miles southeast of the Municipal Airport, Sebastian, FL the nearest public use /military landing area. 1. The proposal does not require notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) according to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77. 2. The structure would not exceed FAR Part 77 obstruction standards. The FAA should approve the proposal within 60 days. 3. The maximum height on the site without an extended FAA study would be 294' AGL, 317' AMSL. 4. Obstruction marking and lighting equipment is not required. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this evaluation. Since ely, geeL Walter H. Wulff Enclosure: FAA Form 7460 -1 'lease Type of Print on This Form U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, 1. Sponsor (person, company, etc proposing this action) Attn. of: pave Herrina Name: Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida. Inc Address: 1201 US HighwayQne Suite 230 City: North Palm Beach Telephone: 561494 .9445 2. Sponsors Representative (if other than 11) Attn. of: Waiter Wulff Name: WALTF„ f t WULFF Associates Address: P.O. BQx 914 City: point Clear State: AL Zip' ,;6564 Telephone: 251-890-2502 Fax: 251-990-2503 3. Notice of: New Construction Alteration 0 Existing 4. Duration: Permanent Temporary months, days) 5. Work Schedule: Beginning End 6. Type: Antenna Tower Crane Building Power Line Landfill 0 Water Tank Other 7. Marking/Painting and /or Lighting Preferred: Red Lights and Paint Dual Red and Medium Intensity White White Medium Intensity 0 Dual Red and High Intensity White o White High Intensity Other 8. FCC Antenna Structure Registration Number (if applicable): 21. Complete Description of Proposal: Date August 9, 2001 FAA Form 7460 (2 99) Supercedes Previous Edition Failure To Provide All Requested Information May Delay Processing of Your Notice Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration State: FL. Zip: 33412 Fax: 661 6944817 9. Latitude: Typed or Printed name and Title of Person Filing Notice Waiter Wulff Form Approved OMB No. 2120-0001 FOR FAA USE ONLY 27 46' 22. 5 rr 10. Longitude: 80 27' 27. 4" 11. Datum: NAD 83 0 NAD 27 0 Other 15. Direction from #13. to Structure: southeast 16. Site Elevation (AMSL): 17. Total Structure Height (AGL): 18. Overall height #16. #17.) (AMSL): Aeronautical Study Number 12. Nearest: City: Sebastian State:FL 13. Nearest Public -use (not private -use) or Military Airport or Heliport: X26 14. Distance from #13. to Structure: 3.7 nm MHz 23 185 208 19. Previous FAA Aeronautical Study Number (if applicable): 20. Description of Location: (Attach a USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle Map with the precise site marked and any certified survey.) Frequency /Power (kW) 864- 894 1800 -2000 MHz OE ft. ft. ft. 250 Watts 250 watts Notice is required by 14 Code of Federal Regulations, part 77 pursuant to 49 U.S.C.. Section 44718. Persons who knowingly and willingly violate the notice requirements of part 77 are subject to a civil penalty of $1,000 per day until the notice is received, pursuant to 49 U.S.C., section 46301 (a). 1 hereby certify that all of the above statements made by me are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge. In addition, I agree to mark and/or Tight the structure in accordance with established marking and lighting standards as necessary. NSN: 0052-00012-0008 Federal Aviation Administration Southern Region, ASO -520 P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 ISSUED DATE: 08/24/01 DAVE HERRING ATLANTIC COAST TOWER OF FL., INC. 1201 US HIGHWAY ONE, SUITE 230 NORTH PALM BEACH, FL 33412 THIS IS NOT A DETERMINATION AERONAUTICAL STUDY No: 01- AS0- 7188 -OE The Federal Aviation Administration has received your notice concerning: Description: NEW ANTENNA TOWER 864 -894, 1800 -2000 MHZ /250 WATTS. Location: SEBASTIAN FL Latitude: 27 -45 -22.50 NAD 83 Longitude: 080 -27 -27.40 Heights: 185 feet above ground level (AGL) 208 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) NOTE: If the coordinates of your notice were submitted in NAD 27 datum, they have been converted to NAD 83 datum as shown above. NAD 83 datum will be referenced on all future correspondence and will be used for the purpose of this study. Your notice has been assigned Aeronautical Study Number 01 -ASO- 7188 -0E and we are in the process of conducting an aeronautical study to determine the effect on air navigation. A determination or response will be forthcoming. Please inform involved consultants of this correspondence. If you have any questions, please contact MICHAEL A. BLAICH at 4 04 305 -5580. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 01 -AS0- 7188 -OE. (REC) September 26, 2001 Mr. Tracy Haas Planning Director City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32958 RE: Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida Dear Tracy: Sincerely, Mark Ciarfella CC: File 'tlantic Coast Tower of Florida On behalf of Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, I would like to thank you and your staff for your efforts during the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on September 20, 2001. The professionalism and knowledge exhibited by you and your staff is directly attributed to our petition receiving the development approval. Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida will be submitting for the Building Permit within the next 45 days. I would appreciate if you could forward a letter of approval indicating the final Commission vote of approval. Again, thank you for all of your assistance. If you have any questions, please call me at 561 694 -9445. Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, Inc. 1201 U.S. Highway One, Suite 230 North Palm Beach, FL 33408 Phone: 561- 694 -9445 Fax: 561- 694 -6817 WARREN W. DILL Also admitted in Wyoming Nebraska Richard Stringer, City Attorney City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, Florida 32958 re: Atlantic Coast Towers Monopole Siting Villages of Lake Dolores PUD Dear Rich: DILL EVANS, LC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1515 US Highway 1, Suite 201 Sebastian, Florida 32958 October 17, 2001 VIA FACSIMILE THIS DATE As we discussed yesterday, my client, Atlantic Coast Towers of Florida, Inc., is not aware of any other potentially suitable sites for the monopole wireless services tower it wishes to construct in the southern -most area of Sebastian to cover a service gap that exists there. I wanted to confirm and thank you for your offer to help our client identify any alternative sites that may be available for the siting of that tower. To obtain proper coverage, we need a site as close as possible to the geographic area of the current site. Kindly advise us of your findings. WWD:dch Very truly yours, Warren W. Dill Tel: (561) 589 -1212 Fax: (561) 589 -5212 email: delaw @iu.net JOHN G. EVANS Also Admitted in California s(CD WARREN W. DILL Also admitted in Wyoming Nebraska Tracy Hass, Growth Management Director City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32958 Re: Conceptual Development Plan Village of Lake Dolores, PUD Communications Facility Dear Tracy: I have enclosed for your review an Application for a Conceptual Development Plan for Villages of Lake Dolores, a Mobile Home Planned Unit Development, along with 7 copies of the drawings and my client's $600.00 check for the Application fee. I understand that at the time this appears on the Planning and Zoning Commission Agenda, that the previously approved Site Plan, which the Planning and Zoning Commission moved to reconsider, will appear on the same Agenda. The previous Application that was filed for the Site Plan of the telecommunications facility should be referred to, because it contains information that is relevant to the enclosed Application. While my client is filing the enclosed Application, they are doing so under protest. My clients are not agreeing that this is the proper procedure, nor are they waiving any of their legal rights to challenge the necessity of filing this Application. Under the City Land Development Code, public and private utilities are a permitted use within the Mobile Home Planned Unit Development District, as such a Conceptual Development Plan for the site should not be required. If you have any questions or need any further information, please give me a call. Very truly yours, Warren W. Dill WWD /dh cc: Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, Inc. DILL EVANS, LC ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1515 US Highway 1, Suite 201 Sebastian, Florida 32958 November 6, 2001 Tel: (561) 589 -1212 Fax: (561) 589 -5212 email: delaw @iu.net JOHN G. EVANS Also Admitted in California BY HAND DELIVERY Mr. Nelson Hyatt Village of Lake Dolores, Inc. 2512 Kelly Drive Sebastian, FL 32958 RE: Sebastian PUD Amendment 64 Avenue Please accept this signed and notarized document authorizing Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, Inc. to act as agent for the property owner in the submission of any applications and supporting documentation, and to attend and represent the property owner at all meetings and public hearings pertaining to the amendment of the Park Place/Village of Lake Dolores PUD to allow for the installation of an unmanned telecommunications facility as described in the attached documents at the location noted above. As owner of the subject property, I (we) consent to the terms and conditions that may arise as a part of the approval of these applications. Signature: (NOTARY SEAL), STATE OF Fk.,ORIDA COUNTY OF f regoin ins rup!ent wa acknowledged before me this yr day of 200 by e u 1 He/she is personally known to me or has produced .sae 1,c. s identification. JUDY L BOSMENY MY COMMISSION CC 937777 EXPIRES Septirbef 18,2004 Banded nwrwrry una.mn.s Agent Authorization Si Title: (Printed or ped name of Nota ublic) I6 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 2001 approve it? The general response was that Board members are different now, and a decision is not available tonight. Ms. Monier suggested that there are other Companies who offer prefab structures that are shingle roofed, and have a better appearance in the material used, for approximately the same price, if the applicant would take the time to investigate these sources. Mr. Svatik noted that the garage doors are not an issue, but the corrugated metal surface of the building is the issue. He suggested that Mr. Bertram look at his house, then look at that metal building and explain how they are compatible. Mr. Bertram commented that he hated to see that the Commission picked him to all of a sudden institute a different policy in the City because the Commission has allowed them all over, carports or whatever. CHAIRMAN MATTERS: None MEMBERS MATTERS: Mr. Barrett commented that it is unfortunate that Attorney Stringer is not present tonight. He then spoke about the telecommunications tower issue that will be coming back before this Commission in the near future and gave a report of the meeting that was held by the County in Vero on this issue. He commented that Sebastian needs to get serious about this issue rather quickly, and will suggest to Atty. Stringer that a workshop be held, as well as dealing with the accessory structures. He further noted the importance of knowing the basis of the lawsuit by Nextel, what the denial was based on by Indian River County, then, what was the court's basis for overturning it and allowing Nextel to go ahead with the tower. He suggested that this information is necessary to deal with writing an ordinance for the City of Sebastian. He suggested that Sebastian needs to be in concert with what Indian River County and the City of Vero Beach does. He also suggested that this could be an income maker for the City if the towers were installed on City owned property and rented to the users. Mr. Rauth asked what the steps are to bring an issue to workshop. He noted the difficult decision that was made tonight, and noted this Board's responsibility to make it clear to the residents what is and what isn't acceptable. Jan King responded that this Commission can call a workshop when it wants to, and staff needs to know what the Commission expects of them and what materials are needed for back -up. She noted the survey that was done on the canopy structures. Mr. Barrett commented that with the coming holidays, it will be tough to put something together, but he suggested that a date be selected in mid January for a workshop on accessory structures. There was discussion that the County moratorium will expire in January 2002, but it was noted that it is being extended. 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 2001 MOTION by Barrett/Carbano I would propose to recommend to City Council a moratorium on accessory structures in excess of 200 square feet, until at least the end of March, 2002, due to needed clarification by the Commission through workshop processes, which are scheduled to begin January 10, 2002. Roll call: VC Vesia yes Mr. Barrett yes Mr. Mahoney yes Mr. Smith yes Ms. Carbano yes Mr. Svatik yes Mr. Rauth yes The vote was 7 0. Motion approved. Mr. Smith asked if it was possible to delay applications without going through all this until the workshop is accomplished and we can go to City Council. Mr. Rauth commented that he felt that this is the quickest and most direct method to resolve this matter the right way. The Secretary reminded the members that staff is to be unbiased in every way. Jan King noted that the Building Department has only a short amount of time before they must process any building application. MOTION by Barrett/Smith I'd like to recommend to City Council that we institute a moratorium on communication towers for a minimum of six (6) months to allow the City Staff, Planning and Zoning, and Attorney to develop a defensible ordinance to deal with the regulations to control further development of communication towers within the City. AMMENDMENT by Svatik/Barrett I'd like to add when that is commensurate or compatible with the County plan, which is not yet completed. Roll call on Amendment: VC Vesia yes Mr. Barrett yes Mr. Mahoney yes Mr. Smith yes Ms. Carbano yes Mr. Rauth yes Mr. Svatik, Jr. yes The vote was 7 0. Motion carried. 4 ti PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 15, 2001 RoII call on the Motion: Mr. Barrett yes VC Vesia Mr. Smith yes Mr. Mahone yes Ms. Carbano yes Y yes Y Mr. Svatik, Jr. yes Mr. Rauth yes The vote was 7 0. Motion carried. Mr. Svatik, Jr. referred to a copy of a letter from attorneys Dill Evans in reference to the Villages of Lake Dolores (PUD) application for a conceptual development plan amendment and asked how a moratorium might affect this process and the application for a communication tower already on file for reconsideration. This issue was discussed. The meaning of the term "abate" was discussed. Mr. Rauth suggested that when the issues under the above motions are to be discussed by City Council, it would be important that P Z Commission members be present to support their views and express the seriousness of these issues. Acting Chairwoman Vesia adjourned the meeting at 8:15 P.M. 5 (11/19/01 AB) City Council Present: Mayor Walter Barnes Mr. Joe Barczyk Mr. Edward J. Majcher, Jr. Mr. James Hill Mr. Ray Coniglio Staff Present: City Manager, Terrence Moore City Attorney, Rich Stringer City Clerk, Sally Maio Deputy City Clerk, Jeanette Williams Airport Director, Jason Milewski Public Works Director, Terry Hill S LBASTW4 4 4 4i; HOME OF PEUCAN ISLAND SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2001 7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA ALL AGENDA ITEMS MAY BE INSPECTED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA DRAFT Individuals will address the City Council with respect to agenda items immediately before deliberation of the item by the City Council limit of ten minutes per speaker (R- 99 -21) 1. Mayor Barnes called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 3. There was a moment of silence. 4. ROLL CALL Regular City Council Meeting November 28, 2001 Page Two DRAFT 5. AGENDA MODIFICATIONS (ADDITIONS AND /OR DELETIONS) Items not on the written agenda may be added only upon a majority vote of City Council members (R- 99-21) None. 6. 'ROCLAMATIONS. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND /OR PRESENTATIONS 01.188 A. Presentation of FEMA National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System Certificate The City Manager explained and presented the Federal Emergency Management Agency National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating System Certificate. He advised that the City of Sebastian's rating is 9 which provides for a savings in residents' insurance rates. 7. CITY ATTORNEY MATTERS Reported on a favorable ruling from the judge on the local option gas tax issue, and explained the formal pleading which provides no ex -parte communication Explained the School Board suit requesting exemption from City utility franchise fees, noting that FPL approached the City in 1927 to take over the electric franchise which was accomplished by an agreement that the City would not compete with them and that the agreement has been renewed Explained the stormwater fee credits in place and said that letters were mailed to all those who requested them Noted the Planning Commission had voted to recommend Council and other governmental agencies pass a six month moratorium on cell phone towers and said he can bring back an ordinance at the next meeting for first reading Advised that the next regular meeting would be the Council's last opportunity to add referendum questions Noted that consent agenda item D must be adopted by resolution and that R -01 -84 had been added to the consent agenda 8. CITY MANAGER MATTERS Reported on the proposed resurfacing program Briefly reported on the Art and Music Festival which will take place on December 15 and 16, 2001 and asked Lisanne Monier to report to Council. Ms. Monier distributed posters and briefly updated Council on the festival. 2 November 27, 2001 Mr, Terrence R. Moore City Manager, City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32958 Sincerely, Mark Cisrfella i lit 7 ■tJantl't of Florida RE: Leasing of City parcels for a telecommunication tow Dear Mr Moore: This lettler is intended to follow up our meeting on Oc wherein we discussed the availability of City own telecommunication tower- in lieu of pursuing the approval Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida has examined the tw consulted with our client on their potential for the place indicated the height of the tower antennas would have to level, should the City property be used. As a result o proximity of single family residential to the City prope Florida desires to proceed through the approval process wi Thank you and your staff for your time associated with City owned parcels. Should 3iou desire to contact me, please call 561 694 -9445. Atlantic Coast Tower of F1orf 1201 U.S. Highway One, Suite 230 North palm Phone; 561 -694 -9445 Fax; 561 -694- ber 26, 2001 at your office, properties to lease for a r the Nelson Hyatt site. properties provided and has nt of a tower. Our client has increased to over the 200' the increased height and the es, Atlantic Coast Tower of our current location. arching the availability of Inc. ach, FL 33408 817 THIS SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION MUST RETURNED WITH ALL ENCLOSURES REFERRED TO HEREIN, TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING SECRETARY LOCATED IN THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL, THE APPLICANT SHOULD REVIEW THOROUGHLY ALL ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED WITH TI -IIS APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS (IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDINANCE 0- 85 -14, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ARTICLE X "SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION CAT ION NO DATE *"/1 -7 .5.00 �j i A LI 6)/ SITE PLAN 1225 MAIN STREET SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 3295 TELEPHONE: 407/589 -S330 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY SERVICES OFFICE (407) 567 -8000, EXT. 533 1840 25TH STREET SUNCOM 224 -1533 VERO BEACH, F32960 24 HOUR WEATHER INFORMATION (4071567 -2129 OWNER __Indian Ri irpr rmil.rty ADDRESS 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Fl 32960 PHONE 407- 567 -8000 ext.533 PROJECT ARCHITECT M. J._ Anderson 11382 Prosperity Farms Road, Palm ADDRESS Pe y Beach PHONE 407- 627 -4744 ENGINEER O F RECORD Michael Schorah ADDRESS 1850 Forest Hill Blvd. WPB, Fl PHONE 407 966 0080 ZONING CLASSIFICATION PS_ LAND USE DESIGNATION Public LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT See Attached STREET ADDRESS OF PROJECT 810 Bailey Street, Sebastian, Fl PROPOSED USE 800MHz Public Safety Radio Tower DEVELOPMENT SITE SIZE App.12000" ACRES SQUARE FOOTAGE OF NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE App. 4000 TI IE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENTS SMALL ACCOMPANY THE APPLICATION: 1. A COPY OF THE OWNER'S RECORDED DEED. 2. IF APPLICANT OTHER THAN OWNER NOT AR.I. ZED TO AUTHORIZE APPLICANT 10 SIGN WILL (;.3E REQ VERIFIED STATEMENT SHOWING EACH AND EVERY% IZEP RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY ANALYST HAVING EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP IN I EREST CURRENT SURVEY OF PROPERTY. SIGNED, SEAL(: A BY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR. 5. WRITTEN VERIFICATION OF PRELIMINARY REVIE 8.-Y HM-- INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT. l l L 7: SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION PAGE Two 6. TWELVE (1 2) COPIES OF ALL PLANS, THREE (3) OF WHICH MUST OE SEALED OY A REGISTERED ENGINEER OR ARCHITECT. (NOTE: FOR SUBMITTAL AND PRIOR TO FINAL TRC REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION, APPLICANT MAY SUBMIT FOUR (4) COPIES OF ALL PLANS, TWO (2) OF WIIICII MUST SE SEALED. 7. LETTER OF INTENT (PROJECT DESCRIPTION). TIIE FOLLOWING ITEMS, AT A MINIMUM, WILL BE CONSIDERED IN REVIEWING SITE PLAN APPLICATIONS (SEC. 20A -10.2. CONSIDERATIONS IN REVIEWING SITE PLANS, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE) A. SITE LOCATION AND CHARACTER OF USE. B. APPEARANCE OF SITE AND STRUCTURE. C. ACCESS, INTERNAL CIRCULATION, OFF STREET PARKING AND OTHER TRAFFIC IMPACTS. D. TRAFFIC IMPACTS. E. OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING. F. REOUIRED SCREENING OF ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL USES. G. FLOOD PRONE LAND AND WETLAND PRESERVATION. H. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT. I. AVAILABLE POTABLE WATER. J. WASTEWATER SERVICE. K. SOIL EROSION, SEDIMENTATION CONTROL AND ESTUARY PROTECTION. L. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE COMMISSION). SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION FEES LESS THAN 5,000 SOUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS OF A SINGLE BUILDING HAVING NO MORE THAN 4 UNITS 'x125.00 LESS THAN FIVE (5) ACRES $350.00 FIvE (5) ACRES, BUT, LESS THAN TEN (10) ACRES $500.00 TEN (10) ACRES TO FIFTY (50) ACRES $750.00. OVER FIFTY (50) ACRES $15.00/ACRE ALL APPLICANTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO SCHEDULE A PRE APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OR IN -HOUSE STAFF PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL OF PLANS, PRE- APPLICATION CONFERENCE FEE: $100.00 AND REOUIRED APPLICATION FORM PER .,ITY RESOLUTION R 85 62. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT REV, 1 -2 -90 L DATE Dated this 1/ day of WAIVER AND CONSENT I /We, the owner s) of the property located at 5V/) Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, (the "Property"), authorize e h and every member of the hereby y Board ion of the City of Sebastian Board Commission") to physically enter upon the roperty view the Property in connection with my /our pending a ic /f .•%,Pc 4- (the "Proceeding I /We hereby waive any objection or defense 1 /we may have, due to the quasi- judicial nature of the proceeding, resulting from any Board /Commission member entering or viewing the property, including any claim or assertion that my /our procedural or substantive due process rights under the Florida Constitution or the United States Constitution were violated by such entering or viewing. This Waiver and Consent is being signed by me /us voluntarily and not as a result of any coercion applied, or promises made, by any employee, agent, contractor or official of the City of Sebastian. 199 �-G 1 z, e.ftuA 1 SWORN t9 and subsc before me this day of pt, 4 19 G My Commission Expires: NO SCALE LOCATION MAI' ix 0 0 co z 0 0 o h. 7NING: A -1 ZCNING: P.8- 2OD IOC 0 GRAPHIC SCALE I" 200' &mm PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE FOUR REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 1996 PUBLIC HEARING HOME OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE 144 S. WIMBROW DRIVE JOHN McCORD LAWN MAINTENANCE SERVICE Mr. McCord was present and stated he lived at 144 S. Wimbrow Drive, and was sworn in according to quasi-judicial procedures. There were 18 notices of the hearing sent out. No objection or non objection letters were received. The public hearing was opened at 7:17 p.m. There was no public input. The public hearing was closed at 7 :17 p.m. The staff had no objection to the license. Mr. McCord stated that he had storage on CR 512 for equipment to be stored indoors; would be dumping yard debris at Vero Beach landfill; and stated he had no employees. MOTION by Johns/Barnes I move to approve the home occupation license for John McCord for lawn maintenance service at 144 S. Wimbrow Drive in Sebastian. Roll call was taken. 7 -0 motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PS ZONING DISTRICT WNW OF SCHUMANN LAKE 300' PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO TOWER Doug Wright of Indian River County was present as well as the following support staff, and all were sworn in according to quasi-judicial procedures. Mr. Wright introduced other members of his group from the County: Nathan McCollum, John King, Jimmy Judge, Bob Stork, Jim Randall, Frank Hayden, Curt Niconin, Curt Carter, Lane Kloschis, Fred Roth. There were 8 notices of the hearing sent out. There was one objection letter received and no non objection letters received. Mr. Wright explained 800 MHZ has been approved for the County -wide system. This tower would be the north tower of a 3 -tower system for the entire north County area, providing 95% coverage, 95 of the time in medium density buildings. This site is critical for coverage in that area for emergency respondance. The public hearing was opened at 7:26 p.m. The public hearing was closed at 7:26 p.m. There was no public input. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PAGE 5 REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 1996 Mr. Thompson brought up the subject of a health hazard, as mentioned in the one letter of objection. Mr. Wright explained that the power was no different than that of a home with a 40 watt antenna. Mr. Thompson inquired about power lines. Mr. Wright responded that the only lines needed were to equip the building for a standing tower and had no great voltage. Mr. Thompson inquired about the possibility of the tower falling on nearby residents. Mr. Wright responded that the nearest residence was 600 to 700 feet away, and would be secure with a wind velocity of 20% above standards for the City or 120 mph wind load. He responded to various questions from the members, with assurances that there would be no interference with TV or the police tower reception, that it is very similar to the police tower; landscaping and fencing will be provided in compliance with code in front, rear and side yards under Conditional Use. Mr. Schulke asked if this tower would be in the flight path of the airport. A County member responded that they have filed for permission from FAA. Approval will be provided to the City before construction. Mr. Fischer asked what the total acreage is for this project. Mr. Wright responded that he thought it was around 23 acres. Mr. Pliska asked if there was a hurricane back -up system. County member responded that to improve stability, it is engineered conservatively to withstand 120 mph wind load. Ms. Kilkelly asked if FCC application was submitted yet. County member replied it was submitted and the request is for 40 watts; (cellular phones use 50 -100 watts). Ms. Kilkelly also asked if there is to be no disturbance to TV. County member replied there should be no disturbance to TV. MOTION by Thompson/Barnes I move to approve the conditional use for the 800' MHZ tower. Roll call was taken. 7 -0 motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW IRC PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO TOWER SEBASTIAN HIGHLANDS UNIT 9, TRACT A Mr. Fred Roth, Engineer with IRC was present. Mr.. Thompson referred to page 328.7, Section 20A -5.9 of the Land Development Code in reference to the chain -link fence being at an angle. County responded that they will revise the plan and make the fence straight up. Mr. Thompson then asked about power to the building not PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 1996 PAGE 6 being on the plan. County responded they would use existing power line with 2 transformers on the property. This will be added to the site plan for approval. Mr. Munsart asked about screening. County responded they could use opaque slats in the chain link fence. Mr. Schulke discussed landscaping with Devon Rushnell He responded that there are 23 acres and would it benefit anyone to go to the expense to landscape it? Who owns property adjacent, 157' west of tower? Landscaping on that side was made a condition. Mr. Pliska inquired about back -up security. County responded that there would be nightly patrols, alarm system on building; there is no high voltage on site. County responded that the tower is not set to climb up as a ladder. Mr. Fischer suggested County liability. Mr. Wright said area residents will be isolated, alarm will be on building, but not planning an extravagant alarm system. Mr. Munsart was assured that the present buildings and sediment trap will be removed and filled in by the Utility Department. Mr. Barnes asked if it would be used only for an emergency. Mr. Wright responded that- no, it will be in use 24 hrs. a day throughout the year. It will be checked three or four times a month. MOTION by Thompson/Barnes I move that we approve the Indian River County request for their site plan for a 800 MHZ tower at 810 Bailey Street, Sebastian, FL as identified on drawing SP 1, Job Number 90496, and SP2, Job Number 90496 with the latest date of 12/28/95 on SP 1 and also on SP2, plus sketches that are in our packet prepared by MUA which shows the elevation of this proposed building, the floor plan of this proposed building, with the condition that prior to issuance of building permit and official communication from FAA stating that they have no objection to this tower in this location shall be included in the City of Sebastian official file for this project. Also that the fence detail shall be modified to meet our code, and the power lines from their source to the building shall be added to the site plan. Roll call was taken. 7 -0 motion carried. SITE PLAN REVIEW HIGH STREET MINI STORAGE MR JIM WEBER LOTS 3, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, BLOCK 6, HARDEE'S ADDITION Mr. Randy Mosby was present and representing the applicant, Mr. Weber. Mr. Mosby of Mosby and Associates, Vero Beach was sworn in according to quasi-judicial procedures. v_l Growth Management Department Site Plan Approval Application Staff Report 1. Project Name: Crown Castle International Communications Tower 2. Requested Action: Site plan approval for installation and construction of a communications tower. 3. Project Location a. Address: 1201 Main Street b. Legal: c. Indian River County Parcel Number: 4. Project Owner: City of Sebastian 1225 Main Street Sebastian, Florida 32958 (561) 589 -5530 5. Project Agent: Crown Castle International Leslie Liesenfelt 7777 Glades Road, Suite 100 Boca Raton, Florida 33434 (561) 218 -1243 fax: (561) 218 -9934 6. Project Engineer: Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. Russell Morrison, P.E. 4431 Embarcadero Drive West Palm Beach, Florida 33407 (561) 845 -0065 fax: (561) 863 -8175 7. Project Surveyor: W.L. Fish and Company 105 S. Narcissus Avenue, Suite 172 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (561) 833 -5001 fax: (561) 659 -6745 8. Project Description a. Narrative of proposed action: The applicant is proposing to construct a 170' monopole communications tower together with a 10' x 21' Bellsouth equipment shelter, communication lines, security fence, parking /drive area and landscaping. The plan also incorporates three additional 10' x 21' equipment shelters for future use. The tower will be located on a 50' x 50' lease parcel behind the Sebastian Police Department. b. Current Zoning: PS c. Adjacent Properties Zoning Current Land Use Future Land Use North: CG Vacant CG East: CG Vacant CG South: PS Sebastian PD INS West: PS Vacant INS d. Site Characteristics (1) Total Acreage: leased area .057 acres (2,500 SF) (2) Current Land Use(s): Vacant (3) Soil: Immokalee (4) Vegetation: Grass (5) Flood Hazard: Zone X (6) Water Service: N/A (7) Sanitary Sewer Service: N/A (8) Parks: Main Street 1 /4 mile (9) Police /Fire: Sebastian Police adjacent Indian River Fire —'A mile 9. Comprehensive Plan Consistency a. Future Land Use: Consistent b. Traffic Circulation: Consistent c. Housing: Consistent d. Public Facilities: Consistent e. Coastal Management: Consistent f. Conservation: Consistent g. Recreation and Open Space: Consistent 10. Contents of Site plan: a. lot configuration: provided b. finished ground floor elevation: provided 25.9' c. contours and designating number of dwelling units: N/A d. square footage of site: .057 acres 2,500 SF e. building coverage: provided 210 sq. ft. f. square footage of paved areas and open area: provided setbacks: provided all setbacks exceed minimum standards. 9. h. scaled drawings of the sides, front and rear of the building or structure: provided I. generalized floor plan indicating uses and square footage of each proposed use within each building or structure: provided j. building exterior construction materials and color: not provided k. building height: provided 10' I. location and character of all outside facilities for waste disposal, storage areas, or display: N/A m. location and dimensions of all curb cuts and driveways: provided n. number of spaces with their location and dimensions: provided 1 space provided for service vehicles. o. details of off street parking and loading areas (including requirements of Sec 20A -8.1): N/A P. all off- street vehicular surfaces available for maneuvering: provided q. surface materials: provided r. number of employees: N/A s. type of vehicles owned by the establishment: N/A t. If there is a combined off street parking facility, required agreements: N/A u. Location of all pedestrian walks, malls, yards and open spaces: N/A v. location, size, character, and height or orientation of all signs: N/A w. location and character of landscaped areas and recreation areas: provided x. location, design and character of all public, semi public, or private utilities: N/A y• location, height and general character of perimeter or ornamental walls, fences, landscaping: provided site includes an 8' chain link fence topped with three strands of barbed wire. z. surface water drainage facilities plan certified by an engineer or architect registered in the State of Florida: N/A aa. location of existing easements and right -of -way: provided ab. Land survey with complete legal description prepared and certified by a registered surveyor: provided ac. Verified statement showing each and every individual person having a legal and /or equitable ownership interest in the subject property: provided 11. Site location and character of use: provided 12. Appearance site and structures: a. harmonious overall design: yes b. location and screening of mechanical equipment, utility hardware and waste storage areas: provided c. commercial and industrial activities conducted in enclosed buildings: yes d. exterior lighting: provided 13. Access, internal circulation, off street parking and other traffic impacts: a. internal circulation system design and access /egress considerations: provided b. separation of vehicular and pedestrian areas: N/A 14. Traffic impacts: N/A 15. Open space and landscape (including the requirements of Sec. 20A -13.1 and Sec. 20A- 14.1): a. Name, address and phone number of the owner and designer: provided b. North arrow, scale and date, minimum scale of one inch equals fifty (50) feet: provided c. Property lines, easements, and right -of -way with internal and property line dimensions: provided d. Location of existing or proposed utility service: provided e. Location and size of any existing or proposed structures: provided f. Location and size of any existing or proposed site features, such as earthen mounds, swales, walls and water areas: N/A g. Location and size of any existing or proposed vehicular use area: provided h. Location and size of any existing or proposed sidewalks, curbs, and wheel stops: N/A i. Location of sprinkler heads, hose bibs, or quick cupplers and other information on irrigation: N/A J. Calculations of required type, dimensions and square footage of landscape materials and of required landscape areas, including: total site area, parking area, other vehicular use area, percentage of non vehicular open space, perimeter and interior landscape strips, and required number of trees: provided see site landscape plan k. Location of required landscape areas and dimensions: N/A I. Location, name, height and size of all existing plant material to be retained: N/A m. Location, size, height and description of all landscape material including name, quantity, quality, spacing, and specified size and specification of all plant materials: provided n. Height, width, type, material and location of all i barriers of nonliving material: provided o. Location, dimensions and area of landscaping for freestanding signs: N/A P. Show all landscaping, buildings, or other improvements on adjacent property within five (5) feet of the common property line: N/A 16. Required screening of abutting residential and nonresidential uses: N/A 17. Flood prone land and wetland preservation: N/A 18: Surface water management: N/A 19: Available potable water: N/A 20: Wastewater service: N/A 21: Soil erosion, sedimentation control and estuary protection: provided 22: Additional considerations: None 23. City Engineer's review: No Comments 24. Other Matters: The proposed communications tower is located approximately six thousand (6,000) feet from the end of the active runways at Sebastian Municipal Airport. Therefore, the tower does not appear to be in conflict with airport height limitations and should not interfere with aircraft operations. "Staff requests copies of any FAA FAR compliance forms or any other documentation representing the FAA has reviewed the proposed tower and finds it to be in compliance with their regulations. 25. Analysis: The applicant is proposing to construct a 170' monopole communications tower together with a 10' x 21' Bellsouth equipment shelter, communication lines, security fence, parking /drive area and landscaping. The plan also incorporates three additional 10' x 21' equipment shelters for future use. The tower will be located on a 50' x 50' lease parcel behind the Sebastian Police Department. 26. Conclusion: The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Code of Ordinances and the Land Development Code. 27. Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the proposed Crown Castle Communications Tower and finds that it demonstrates full compliance with all land development regulations and staff recommends approval with the following condition: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit copies of any FAA FAR compliance forms or any other documentation representing the FAA has reviewed the proposed tower and finds it to be in compliance with their regulations. 2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a copy of the fully executed lease agreement including the first amendment to option and lease between the City of Sebastian and Bellsouth Mobility Inc. Z /4 [b t v I va PREPARED BY DAT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2000 The vote was 7 0. Motion carried. B. QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING Site Plan Review Crown Castle Communication Tower 1201 Main Street/Police Station No ex parte communications were reported. Mr. Johnnie Lynch, engineer with Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., West Palm Beach, FL, was present representing the applicant, and was sworn in by Chmn. Schulke at 7:24 pm. Mr. Lynch gave his presentation of the proposed communication tower at the Police Station, with BellSouth the anchor tenant. He also provided visual examples of other tower projects. Tracy Hass gave staff presentation and noted two (2) conditions in the staff report. He indicated that the tower will have to meet the minimum standards in the Building Department for wind resistance. There was discussion on landscaping and height limitations. It was noted that a decorative cone will be used with this tower. Chmn. Schulke opened and closed the public hearing at 7:36 pm, as there was no public input. MOTION by Barrett/Mather I'll recommend that we approve the site plan for the Crown Castle Communication Tower in accordance with Kimley- Horn's submitted sheets one (1) through six (6), with the conditions one (1) and two (2) per the staff report. Roll call: Chmn. Schulke yes Mr. Mahoney yes VC Mather yes Mr. Barton(a) yes Mr. O'Donnell yes Mr. Smith yes Mr. Barrett yes The vote was 7 0. Motion carried. CHAIRMAN MATTERS: Chmn. Schulke announced that he will be resigning the Planning and Zoning Commission because of a personal commitment to opening his new consulting firm. He expressed his pleasure and appreciation for having served on this board, and hopes to return at some time in the future. All members wished him well. 3 1 /00(ord/moratorium)Ck ORDINANCE NO. 2001-01 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA DECLARING A SIX -MONTH MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS; PROVIDING FOR EXCEPTIONS; SETTING FORTH EXPIRATION AND EFFECTIVE DATES. WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1(0, Article VIII, of the Florida Constitution and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, Indian River County is authorized and required to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and may exercise any power for a governmental purpose except when expressly prohibited by law, and, pursuant to this authority and Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes, Indian River County has enacted land development regulations, consistent with its adopted Comprehensive Plan, which protect the quality of life in Indian River County; and WHEREAS, Indian River County adopted Ordinance No. 97 -16 on May 6, 1997, implementing regulations regarding location and criteria for commercial communication towers; and WHEREAS, since that time technological innovation has been explosive, and experience has revealed deficiencies in County regulations; and WHEREAS, good land planning and concern for the quality of life in our County dictate that tall structures not be place haphazardly or allowed in a greater number than need be; and WHEREAS, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 makes it clear that, as long as local zoning requirements satisfy certain conditions, the authority of local governments over the placement, construction, and modification of wireless telecommunications towers "towers is neither limited nor affected; and WHEREAS, the County has only a limited number of potential sites which would be acceptable for the installation of towers; and WHEREAS, the County is cognizant of the need for modern communications and for effective competition in the field and also desires that the County residents receive adequate wireless telecommunications services, provided that the facilities are designed and located to minimize safety and aesthetic concerns; and WHEREAS, information received from the industry and from other governmental agencies that have studied current technology establishes that towers can be designed and installed in ways that will minimize safety and aesthetic concerns; and STATE OF FLORIDA INDIAN RIVER COUNTY THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE, DATE is BARTON, CLERK CLERK D.C. and SECTION 1. PROHIBITION SECTION 2. EXCEPTIONS 4. Amateur radio antennas and towers; 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2001-01 WHEREAS, these design and installation methods need improvement in our ordinances; WHEREAS, the County planning staff requires a reasonable time period to engage a consultant about the technical aspects of the telecommunications industry as they impact land use decisions so that the County Commission can properly plan for and implement an efficient and cost effective wireless communications services network that meets national and local goals and legislative mandates; and WHEREAS, in view of the foregoing and the experienced shortcomings of existing ordinances, a situation exists which requires an immediate moratorium on commercial communication towers; and WHEREAS, this moratorium will be of temporary impact to real properties within the unincorporated area of the county and WHEREAS this moratorium is being enacted in good faith, without unjust discrimination, in reliance upon the decision of Sprint Spectrum. L.P. v. City of Medina, 924 F. Supp. 1036 (W.). Wash. 1996) and is of the minimum feasible duration; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Except as otherwise provided herein, no applications for tower permits shall be accepted and no Special Exception Permits or other permits shall be issued for commencement of towers for six months from the effective date of this ordinance or until the adoption of new and /or amended land development regulations applicable thereto, whichever shall first occur. The prohibition set forth in Section 1 hereof shall not apply to: 1. Any complete application for a tower which was on file on the effective date of this ordinance and which is subsequently determined by the County Commission to meet all applicable requirements on the Land Development Code; 2. Any tower which is determined by the County Commission to be necessary to any governmental utilities or emergency communications system; 3. Any existing tower replacement or repair; 5. Adding an antenna to an existing structure so that the height of the original structure is not increased by more than 10 or 6. The replacement or reconfiguration of an existing utility pole only within the ten mile ridge FPL easement for purposes of accommodating an antenna, provided that the height shall not exceed 130 feet. Aye Aye Aye Aye Aye Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Vice Chairman Ruth Stanbridge Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Commissioner John W. Tippin Commissioner Fran B. Adams ORDINANCE NO. 2001-01 SECTION 3. CONFLICTS The application of any Indian River County ordinance in conflict herewith is hereby suspended during the time period set forth in Section 1 to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary of State. The ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press Journal on the 15th day of December, 2000, for a public hearing to be held on the 2nd day of January, 2001, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Stanbridge, seconded by Commissioner Adams, and adopted by the following vote: The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 2nd day of January, 2001. Attest: J. K. Barton, Clerk Olata! Deputy Clerk 3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By treat e-44-ry Caroline D. ginn Chairman ACKNOWLEDGMENT by the Department of State of the State of Florida, this I day of January, 2001. y APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY BY 4(7 WiLLIAM G. COLLINS H DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 017 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA EXTENDING FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS A MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS; B PROVIDING FOR EXCEPTIONS; SETTING FORTH EXPIRATION AND EFFECTIVE DATES. 3/01 ORD(LEGAL)WGC/nhm WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1(f), Article VIII, of the Florida Constitution and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, Indian River County is authorized and required to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and may exercise any power for a governmental purpose except when expressly prohibited by law, and, pursuant to this authority and Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes, Indian River County has enacted land development regulations, consistent with its adopted Comprehensive Plan, which protect the quality of life in Indian River County; and WHEREAS, Indian River County adopted Ordinance No. 2001 -01 on January 2, 2001 declaring a 6 -month moratorium on the acceptance of applications for wireless telecommunications towers and on the issuance of permits and approvals for the construction of wireless telecommunications towers; and WHEREAS, since that time the County has researched other local government wireless master planning efforts; has prepared a detailed scope of services identifying necessary tasks for preparing a wireless master plan and revising county land development regulations; has issued a request for consultant proposals; has evaluated and ranked proposals, and interviewed the top four ranked firms; has negotiated and entered into a contract with the top ranked firm; and WHEREAS, the moratorium imposed by Ordinance 2001 -01 will expire July 11, 2001; and WHEREAS, the consultant and County require additional time to implement the wireless master planning contemplated by their contract; and WHEREAS, this wireless master planning effort is a necessary and bona fide effort to act carefully in a field with rapidly evolving technology" and the 1 STATE OF FLORIDN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS 15 A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS OFFICE. DATE PQ co/ EY K. BARTON, CLERK D.C. ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 017 circumstances call for study, deliberation and decision making Sprint Spectrum, I_,P, v. City of Medina, 924 F. Supp. 1036, 1040 (W.D. Wash. 1996); and WHEREAS, "by requiring action within a reasonable period of time, Congress did not intend to create arbitrary time tables that force local authorities to make hasty and ill- considered decisions SNET Cellular. Inc. v. Angell, 99 F. Supp. 190, 198, (D.R.I. 2000). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION 1. PROHIBITION Except as otherwise provided herein, the moratorium imposed by Ordinance 2001 -01 is hereby extended an additional six months and no applications for tower permits shall be accepted and no Special Exception Permits or other permits shall be issued for commencement of towers for six months from the effective date of this ordinance or until the adoption of new and /or amended land development regulations applicable thereto, whichever shall first occur. SECTION 2. EXCEPTIONS The prohibition set forth in Section 1 hereof shall not apply to: 1. Any complete application for a tower which was on file on the effective date of Ordinance 2001 -01 and which is subsequently determined by the County Commission to meet all applicable requirements on the Land Development Code; 2. Any tower which is determined by the County Commission to be necessary to any governmental utilities or emergency communications system; 3. Any existing tower replacement or repair; 4. Amateur radio antennas and towers; 5. Adding an antenna to an existing structure so that the height of the original structure is not increased by more than 10 or 6. The replacement or reconfiguration of an existing utility pole only within the ten -mile ridge FPL easement for purposes of accommodating an antenna, provided that the height shall not exceed 130 feet. 2 SECTION 3, CONFLICTS The application of any Indian River County ordinance in conflict herewith is hereby suspended during the time period set forth in Section 1 to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE of State. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press Journal on the 22nd day of June, 2001, for a public hearing to be held on the 3rd day of July, 2001, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Macht seconded by Commissioner Adams and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Aye Vice Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 3rd day of July, 2001. Caroline D. Ginn, C !irman APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY BY 1 WILLIAM G. COLLINS II DEPUTY COUNTY' ATTORNEY ACKNOWLEDGMENT by the Department of State of the State of Florida, this w roc. day of July, 2001. ATTEST: Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk �w tea f -����gL Deputy Clip ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 017 This ordinance shall take effect upon filing with the Florida Secretary 3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: 54 -2 -5.13 SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (i) Screening and buffer yard requirements. See article XIII for specific criteria to be applied in assessing the required screening and buffer yard requirements. (j) Subdivision improvements and urban design amenities. In addition to requirements of article XIX of this code as well as open space systems and street furniture, shall reflect principles and practices of urban design, including streetscape amenities which promote a harmonious and aesthetic environment for pedestrians and other user groups within the proposed development. This requirement shall be enforced in order to implement the purpose and intent of the PUD(C) and section 54- 4- 20.1(j). Sec. 54 -2 -5.14. Mobile Home Planned Unit Development (PUD -MH). This section provides specific regulations for the development of Mobile Home Planned Unit Developments PUD(MH) in areas designated for residential development on the comprehen- sive plan future land use map. (a) Permitted uses and structures. The following land uses and structures are permitted in the PUD(MH) district subject to compliance with the provisions of this code: (1) Single family detached mobile homes and residential manufactured homes as defined in section 54- 2- 5.2.7(b). (2) Parks, playgrounds, community facilities and noncommercial recreational facil- ities such as golf courses, game rooms, tennis courts, libraries, and similar uses. (3) Uses and structures which are customarily accessory and clearly incidental and subordinate to the above uses and structures, including approved storage facilities. (4) Public and private utilities. (b) Conditional uses and structures. In this district as a conditional use a building or premises may be used for only the following conditional uses upon compliance with applicable conditions stated herein and upon compliance with all other applicable provisions of this code, including site plan review and performance criteria. the planning and zoning commission shall ascertain if such conditions and provisions are satisfied. (1) Recreational vehicle areas. Recreational vehicle areas may be allowed in a PUD(MH) district as a conditional use subject to compliance with the standards set forth below: a. Area requirements. The maximum area allowed for the establishment of a recreational vehicle area within a PUD(MH) District is ten acres or ten percent of the total land area within the PUD(MH) District, whichever is the lesser land area. b. Density. The maximum density permitted for recreational vehicles shall be 15 units per gross acre of land comprising the recreational vehicle area. The minimum size site for each recreational vehicle space shall be 1,500 square feet. LDC5:42 54 -5 -22.2 SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE Wetland. Lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) At least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) The substrate is predominately undrained hydric soil; and (3) The substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. Wetland jurisdictional determinations shall be consistent with those of the SJRWMD, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Yard. Ayard shall be defined as an open space at grade between a building and the adjoining lot lines, unoccupied, open to the sky and unobstructed by any portion of a structure from the ground upward, except as otherwise provided herein. In measuring a yard for the purpose of determining the width of a side yard, the depth of a front yard or the depth of a rear yard, the minimum horizontal distance between the lot line and the structure shall be used (A driveway or off street parking area may be a portion of a "yard Yard, front. A yard extending across the front of a lot between the side yard lines, and being the minimum horizontal distance between the street line and the structure of any projections thereof_ other than the projections of uncovered steps, and those allowed per section 54 2w 5.10(e)(2)f. On corner lots and through lots, all yards which abut the street are considered front yards for setback purposes. Primary front yard. The yard of an improved corner lot which is located between the wall of the structure facing the street where the primary entrance is located and the street. Secondary front yard. The yard of an improved corner lot which is located between the wall of the structure facing the street where the primary entrance is not located and the street. Yard, rear. A yard extending across the rear of a lot between the side lot lines and between the rear lot line and the nearest structure. On lots with one front line, the lot line opposite the front lot line shall be the rear lot line. On corner lots which abut two streets with front lot lines of unequal length, the rear yard line shall be opposite and parallel to the shortest front lot line. On a corner lot which abuts three streets, the remaining lot line shall be a side yard if it abuts a side yard and shall be a rear yard if it abuts a rear yard. Yard, side. A yard between any structure and the side line of the lot, and extending from the front lot line to the rear yard and being the minimum horizontal distance between a side lot line and the side of any structure. A yard which is not a front or rear yard. (Ord. No. 0- 01 -12, 1, 6 -13 -2001) Sec. 54 -5 -22.3. Land use classifications. The purpose of these provisions is to classify uses into specially defined types on the basis of common functional characteristics and land use compatibility. These provisions apply Supp. No. 1 LDC22:34 LANGUAGE AND DEFINITIONS 54 -5 -22.3 throughout the zoning regulations. All land use activities are classified into the following activity types. This section shall not be considered an all inclusive list of all permitted and/or conditional uses contained within the land development regulations. (a) Residential activities: (1) Single- family dwellings. (2) Duplex dwellings. (3) Multifamily dwellings. (4) Mobile homes. (5) Foster care/group homes. (6) Accessory residential activities. (b) Community facilities: (1) Administrative services. Activities typically performed by not for -profit private or public social services and utility administrative offices. (2) Airport facilities. Activities which are customarily incidental to airport opera- tions and maintenance including airport terminal; heliport; fixed base operators; airport hangars; runways, taxiways, ramps and aprons for the landing, takeoff, or surface maneuvering of aircraft; and communicative and visual guidance sys- tems. (3) Cemetery. Property used for the interring of the dead. (4) Child care services. A facility which includes any duly licensed child care center of child care arrangement that provides child care for more than five children unrelated to the operator and which receives payment, fee or grant for any of the children receiving care, wherever operated, and whether or not operated for profit. The provisions of this act shall not apply to a child care facility which is an integral part of a church when such child care is only associated with child care provided during services and other church activities or parochial schools conduct- ing regular classes or courses of study. (5) Churches. An institution that people regularly attend to participate in or hold religious services, meetings, and other activities. The term "church" shall not carry a secular connotation and shall include buildings in which the religious services of any denomination are held. (6) Clubs, and lodges. Not for -profit activities typically operated by a government or by a group of persons for social or recreational purposes and primarily including services which are not customarily carried on as a business for profit. For the purposes of this code, clubs and lodges shall include Community centers. LDC22:35 54 -5 -22.3 (7) SEBASTIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE LDC22:36 Cultural and civic activities. Activities typically not for -profit private entities for the promotion objective such as historical, literary, scientific, similar objectives. (8) Foster care/group home facility. A residential facility which provides a family living environment including supervision and care necessary to meet the physi- cal, emotional, and social needs of its residents. (9) Golf course and support facilities. Large unobstructed acreage with enough room over which to walk or ride a prescribed course, and to stroke one ball long distances. Commercial miniature golf courses and independent driving ranges and similar facilities are excluded from this activity as defined. 10) Hospitals and intensive care facilities. Institutions providing health services, primarily for in- patients, and medical or surgical care; including, as an integral part of the institution, related facilities, central service facilities, and staff offices 11) Nursing homes. Activities customarily performed by a home for the elderly or infirmed in which three or more persons not of the immediate family are received, kept or provided with food, shelter and care for compensation. This activity shall include rest homes, convalescent homes and extended care facilities. 12) Parks and recreation, public. Public parks and recreation land and facilities performed by public or private of a common cultural or civic musical, dramatic, artistic or developed for use by the general public. a. Active parks and recreation. Leisure time activities, usually of a more formal nature and performed with others, often requiring equipment and taking place at prescribed places, sites or fields. This may include but is not limited to swimming, tennis, and other court games, baseball and other field sports, and playground activities. b. Passive parks and recreation. Leisure time activities not considered active. This may include water related activities such as boardwalks and interpre- tive trails, fishing piers as well as boating. Passive recreation may also include non water related activities such as hiking, golfing, observation towers, and picnicking. (13) Protective and emergency services. Fire, law enforcement and emergency medical related facilities planned and operated for the general welfare of the public. (14) Schools. A private or public or not for profit institution conducting regular academic instruction at kindergarten, elementary, and secondary levels, operated by a governmental or non governmental organization, which is licensed by the State of Florida. (15) Utilities, public and private. Use of land which is customary and necessary to the maintenance and operation of essential public services, such as electricity and gas transmission systems; water distribution, collection and disposal; communi- cation; and similar services and facilities. LANGUAGE AND DEFINITIONS 54 -5 -22.3 (c) Commercial activities: (1) Adult entertainment establishments. Any of the following described businesses: Adult arcade, adult bookstore, adult dancing establishment, adult motion picture booth, adult mini- motion picture theater or drive -in, adult motel/hotel, adult personal service business and adult theater. (2) Bars and lounges. A commercial establishment selling and dispensing, for the drinking on the premises, of liquor, malt, wine or other alcoholic beverages. This shall not include the sale of alcoholic beverages accessory to and within a restaurant use duly licensed by the state as a restaurant. (3) Bed and breakfast. An owner- occupied dwelling unit where guest room lodging, with or without meals, is provided for compensation. (4) Boat sales and rentals. A commercial establishment where boat sales and rentals may occur together with servicing and sales of marine supplies but excluding boat or ship building. (5) Business and professional offices. Government offices and private for profit offices extending advice, information or consultation of a professional nature. Offices exclude commercial storage of goods and possessions for the purpose of sale or resale as a principal use. (6) Commercial use. All nonresidential, noninstitutional and industrial establish- ments, but not limited to and without regard to whether they are profit or nonprofit organizations or retail and/or wholesale establishments; including motels, hotels, stores, office buildings, restaurants, service stations, garages, laundries, cleaning establishments, for hire services and all other business required to obtain occupational licenses. (7) Commercial amusements. Establishments engaged primarily in providing amuse- ment or entertainment for a fee or admission charge. (8) Farmers market. Sale of agricultural produce within an enclosed building. (9) Fish markets and packing facilities. Commercial establishments for the receiv- ing, processing, packaging, storage, wholesale or retail distribution and sale of products of the sea. Such an establishment may include facilities of the docking, loading, unloading, fueling, icing and provision of vessels and for the drying, maintenance, and storage of equipment. (10) Flea market. Those uses which involve the setting up' of two or more booths, tables, platforms, racks or similar display areas for the purpose of selling or buying merchandise, goods, materials, products or other items offered for sale inside an enclosed building. A "flea market" as defined herein shall not be intended to include a "garage sale," "bake sale," fruit or produce stands, or art festivals or any similar activities. LDC22:37 ..o..: T._ i 4)A. u`ODU ORDINANCE NO. 2001- 037 A N ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA EXTENDING FOR AN ADDITIONAL THREE MONTHS A MORATORIUM ON THE I ACCEPTANCE OF AP PLICATIONS FOR WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND ON THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS AND APPROVALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS; PROVIDING FOR EXCEPTIONS; SETTING FORTH EXPIRATION AND EFFECTIVE DATES. 12/01 ORb(LEGAL)wcC /nhm WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1(f), Article VIII, of the Florida Constitution and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, Indian River County is authorized and required to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and may exercise an power for a governmental purpose except when expressly prohibited by law y pursuant to this authority and Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes, Indian River County has enacted land development regulations, consistent with its ado pted Comprehensive Plan, which protect the quality of life in Indian River County; an d WHEREAS, Indian River County adopted Ordinance No. 2001 -01 on January 2, 2001 declaring a 6 -month moratorium on the acceptance of applications for wireless telecommunications towers and on the issuance of permits and approvals for the construction of wireless telecommunications towers; and WHEREAS, since that time the County has researched other local government wireless master planning efforts; has prepared a detailed scope of services identifying necessary tasks for preparing a wireless master plan and revising county land development regulations; has issued a request for consultant proposals; has evaluated and ranked proposals, and interviewed the top four ranked firms; has negotiated and entered into a contract with the top ranked firm; and WHEREAS, the moratorium imposed by Ordinance 2001 -01 extended for an additional six months by Ordinance 2001 -017 which was ado ted o July 3, 2001 and which will expire January 6, 2002 and p on WHEREAS, the consultants workshop scheduled for September 11, 2001 had to be cancelled due to acts of war against the United States of America and civilized society everywhere; and 1 p 2 2 ORDINANCE No. 2001- 037 WHEREAS, the consultants workshop could not be rescheduled until November 13, 2001; and WHEREAS, the consultant and County require additional time to implement the wireless master planning contemplated by their contract; and WHEREAS, this wireless master planning effort is a bona fide effort to act carefully in a field with rapidly evolving technolo necessary one circumstances call for study, deliberation and decision -makin gyr, and N the L.P. v. Cit of Medina, 924 F. Supp. 1036, 1040 W.D. Wash. 5 rint S estrum ash. 1996); and WHEREAS, "by requiring action within a reasonable period of time Congress did not intend to create arbitrary time tables that force local auth make hasty and ill- considered decisions SNET Cellul r Inc. v F.ties to 190, 198, (D.R.I. 2000). 99 F. Supp. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION I. PROHIBITION Except as otherwise provided herein, the moratorium imposed by 2001 -01 and extended by Ordinance 2001 -017 Is hereby extended three months and no applications for tower permits shall be accepted y no Special Exception Permits or other permits shall be issued for c ded an towers for three months from the effective date of this ordinance or the adoption a d and of new and/or amended land development regulations applicable commencement until ement of lira shall first occur. pp ble thereett o, whichever S CTI N 2. EXCEPTIONS The prohibition set forth in Section 1 hereof shall not apply to: 1 Any complete application for a tower which was on file on the effective date of Ordinance 2001-01 and which is subsequently determined by the County Commission to meet all applicable requirements on the Land Development Code; 2. Any tower which is determined by the County Commission to be necessary to any governmental utilities or emergency communications system; 3. Any existing tower replacement or repair; 4. Amateur radio antennas and towers; 5z P -3 SECTION 3. CONFLICTS The application of any Indian River County ordinance in conflict herewith is hereby suspended during the time period set forth in Section 1 to the extent of such conflict. SECTION SEVERAg LITY If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holdin shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. 9 SECT ON 4. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect on January 7, 2002. This ordinance 8th day of December, 2001 December, 2001, at which Stanbridge seconded the following vote: Chairman Caroline D. Ginn Vice Chairman Ruth M. Stanbridge Commissioner Fran B. Adams Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Ay Commissioner John W. Tippin The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 18th day of December, 2001. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUF ICIENCY ay L I WILLIAM G. COLLINS II DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY ORDINANCE NO.2001 -auL 5. Adding an antenna to an existing structure so that the height of the original structure is not increased by more than 10 or 6 The replacement or reconfiguration of an existing utility pole only within the ten -mile ridge FPL easement for of accommodating an antenna, provided that the height sha not exceed 130 feet. was advertised In the Vero each Press Journal on the for a public hearing to be held on the 18th day of time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner by Commissioner Adams and adopted by 3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Caroline D. Ginn, Chairm r• ORDINANCE NO. 2001 037 ATTEST: Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk ECK. orAMOARA. Deputy ACKNOWLEDGMENT by the Department of State of the State of Florida, day of December, 2001. this 4 ..I p.5 NEXFEL RE: Site F -2593 Wabasso To Whom It May Concern: Nextel Communications 6700 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 700 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309 954 275 -2400 FAX 954 275-2401 December 6, 2001 Regarding our proposed site F -2593 Wabasso (collocation with Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida), the purpose for building this site is to provide capacity relief to sites F -1592 Sebastian (located on the Bailey Drive Tower) and F -1596 Winter Beach (located near 65 near US 1). According to our traffic engineer, these sites are predicted to exceed their traffic capacities by End of Year 2001. Originally, the site was proposed to be located at the intersection of Wabasso Rd. (Route 510) and US 1. Due to uninterested parties or zoning requirements the site was pushed further and further west until after several sacrifices the proposed location was a collocation with Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida on their proposed site north of Wabasso Rd. on Braxton Rd. This site location is marginal and we have had to increase the height of our antennas to barely provide relief to the sites mentioned above. In summary, after being forced away from the original search ring, the proposed site by Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida meets Nextel's requirements to provide capacity relief and coverage. if you have any questions please call me. Thank you. Respectful' I Larry Fajardo RF Engineer Nextel Communications 954-229-2726 C)r- January 17, 2002 City of Sebastian Planning Department 1225 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32958 >1; cingular WIRELESS RE: Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida's Wabasso site Sir: Cingular Wireless has a 2002 network build plan tv improve system coverage performance in the area from south Sebastian to Orchid Island, and to provide traffic capacity relief for neighboring cell sites. Although we world prefer to be located closer to US 1 for a more desirable solution, we believe the propo :ed site will meet our needs. 1 am writing to inform you that Cingular Wireless support:~ the proposed colocation site and intends to utilize it as soon as it becomes available, if you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (561) 312 3000. Sincerely, George Brosseau Sr. RF Engineer Manager of RF Design ring „I,, Wireless 5201 C Averrtrr r L 33487 Ma it CiarfeHa Froi n: Lee Chapman (lee(atlanticcoasttower.com] Seri Tuesday, January 22, 2002 11:51 AM To; Mark Ciartella Suti iect: Fw: Collocation Application for Sebastian Original Message F'i: c:c: Lee Chapman •:lee @at1 antiocoaattowc r. rom> To: Lee Chapman •:lc c-c @a Llanticcoasttower,rom> Sen Monday, January 21, 2002 3 :55 PM :>»b lecl Fw: Collc)c- :aLi.on Application for Sebastian Original Message F om: Killian, Bob <Etctl>. Killianevoicestrr:,;am, c_;<atii, T ..1. c :c4ltrt.lanticcoasttower.eom> S +nt Monday, January 21, 2002 2:05 FM S cbjcct: Co11oe :at ion Application tor Seb9.-',t_.iur, 1 vc i,ee, T :gym wr,i,Li. rig to make application on this tower. VS world l i k e to lea.:e ground space (15X25) and tower space at 11 or h i ghe (if po Please send all the due diligence you have available .Lt this s I:age. FAN, FCC, site plans, construction plans tower draw.ngs, address for s te, jurisdition, ground lease, NEFA, phase 1 etc if you could fax or email me the following: FCC# FAA# Site Plan showing 1.oased area with tower and ground space that in a l r: arty taken Site Address Zoning Jurisdiction Power and t.e.l ephone companies 1 need this info right away to process through our RF approval pro !ens. Call with questions. Sincerely, Bob Killian Vc.1iceSLLeartl 3111 West Dr. Martin Luther King Blvd Tampa, P1. 33607 Mohi1 -813- 2.67 -1059 reach 2/2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: CITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN RE: 7.C. Quasi Judicial Hearing Site Plan Review Atlantic Coast Communication Tower S.W. Corner of Park Place September 20, 2001 Transcript of proceedings before the Sebastian Planning and Zoning Commission, held at City Hall, 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida, commencing at 7:00 p.m., on the day and date above set forth. Kelly Mather, Chairman Emil Svatik, Board Member Richard Smith, Board Member Lisanne Monier, Board Member Charles Barrett, Jr., Board Member William Mahoney, Board Member Jean Carbano, Board Member- ORIGINAL AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 1 Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, Inc. EXHIBIT "B" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: On Behalf of the City: Mr. Tracy Hass Ms. Jan King On Behalf of the Applicant, Atlantic Coast: Mark Ciarfella, Esquire Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida 1201 U.S. Highway One, Suite 230 North Palm Beach, Florida 33408 (561)694 -9445 AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (Be it remembered that this is a partial transcript of the proceedings had in the above styled cause which was taken before the Sebastian Planning and Zoning Commission commencing at 7:00 p.m., on the day set forth above, to wit:) CHAIRMAN MATHER: Okay. We now have a quasi-judicial site review, Atlantic Coast Communication tower, southwest corner of Park Place. Okay. Let me swear you in. MR. CIARFELLA: I haven't been sworn. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Give your name and address for the record. MR. CIARFELLA- My name is Mark Ciarfella. The address is 1201 U.S. Highway One, Suite 230 and that's in North Palm Beach, Florida. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Do you swear or affirm the factual statements and factual representations which you are about to give are presented for this or to this public hearing will be truthful and accurate? MR. CIARFELLA: I do. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Okay. MR. HASS: I do as well. AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 3 1 THE CLERK: Can I ask you to spell your 2 last name, please? 3 MR. CIARFELLA: Yes, ma'am. It's 4 C- i- a -r--f as in Frank e -1 -1 -a 5 THE CLERK: Thank you very much. 6 MR. CIARFELLA: You're welcome. 7 CHAIRMAN MATHER: Is there any 8 ex- communique parte communications with 9 anybody? Board? Okay. 10 Would you like to give us a little 11 presentation of your application? 12 MR. CIARFELLA: Certainly. This is a 13 proposal or this request here before you this 14 evening is for a site plan review in accordance 15 with your land development regulations under 16 the mobile home PUD regulations, and I think 17 Staff has gone through a fairly comprehensive 18 staff report here in terms of how we satisfy 19 those code provisions. 20 What we're proposing simply is a permanent 21 structure. I don't think there's any debate about 22 whether or not this structure is permanent and 23 temporary. It's permanent. It's a 175 -foot tall 24 telecommunications tower. It is identical to the 25 facility that's located right out here behind the 'AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 4 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 L8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 police station. MR. SVATIK: We all see it. MR. CIARFELLA: I'm sorry? MR. SVATIK: We all see it. MR. CIARFELLA: It's identical to that facility. It is in the south end of your town and it is going to be designed for multiple wireless service providers to produce a proliferation, and we believe that we satisfy the regulations in your code in terms of landscaping, in terms of setbacks and we ask for your approval this evening. If you have any questions, certainly we're here to answer those. CHAIRMAN MATHER: All right. Thank you. Staff? MR. HASS: Yes. This is a fairly straight forward application. As has been mentioned, it's a 175 -foot monopole communications tower. It's very similar as a matter of fact, 1 believe it's identical to the tower that was just constructed here at the City Hall on the City Hall property behind the police station. Very similar layout of roughly the same size of the lease parcel. This one is proposing AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 possible six future communications bunkers but right now there aren't any proposed to be constructed at this time. They have fully landscaped the site not that you can landscape the tower itself, but we do require the landscaping around the perimeter of the fence `and, of course, the perimeter of any of the buildings there. So, they've shown that fully represented on the site plan. This is located in the far south I guess would be west corner of Park Place PUD and it was the PUD mobile home development and it appears that it does not have any direct impacts on the existing community. I know that there's some future development just to the north of this. They have not actually submitted their conceptual plan for that but they are going to be expanding the PUD and expanding the mobile home park. However, this will still be sufficiently buffered from any future construction within the subdivision. And, of course, the property owner has agreed to lease this parcel for this use and Staff recommends approval with the one condition as listed in the Staff report. CHAIRMAN MATHER: All right. Okay. T AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 open the court. Anybody like to speak for this Applicant? Seeing none, I move to move it and I open the court. Anybody would like to speak against this Applicant? Would like to speak? Go up and you need to be sworn in. MS. TURNER: Yes. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Do you swear or affirm that the factual statements or factual representations which you are about to give or present before this and during this public hearing to be truthful and accurate? MS. TURNER: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Your name and address, please. MS. TURNER: Joan Turner, 3315 East Derry Drive in Sebastian. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Okay. MS. TURNER: My husband and 1 and my son and his wife are the owners of Park Place and we just recently found out about this. We have some concerns, as our residents do, and we wanted to know how this will affect us, you know. We would like more information about it because no one was notified to my knowledge that this structure was going to be built. 'AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 7 1 II! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN MATHER: The Applicant can address that to you. MR. HASS: As the Turners are the new owners of the Park Place, the former owner was Nelson Hyatt and apparently as part of the sale, I guess this was not disclosed to the new owners. But as far as this lease parcel, this was approved under Nelson Hyatt and so MR. BARRETT: Sound so kosher to me. (More than one person speaking at once.) MR. HASS: We just found out about this right this minute, so. MR. SMITH: Boy, oh boy. MS. TURNER: What did you find? You didn't know that we were the owners? MR. HASS: No. We knew you were the new owners but we didn't know that you weren't aware of this. I mean, because this was MS. TURNER: But we haven't been who would notify us? MR. HASS: Well, we assume under the disclosure of the sale of the property that it would have been MR. SMITH: Who can you lease it to? Who 'AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is your lessee? You're the leasee. Who are leasing the property? MR. CIARFELLA: I'm sorry, sir? MR. SMITH: Who is the owner of the property you're leasing? MR. CIARFELLA: Lake Dolores, Inc. is the was the owner of record and we have a recorded memorandum of lease and title that shows we have a fully executable and legally enforceable lease. MR. MAHONEY: You're talking about the (More than one person speaking at once.) MR. CIARFELLA: That's correct. MR. MAHONEY: Which was originally approved back in the early '80s? MR. CIARFELLA: That's correct. MR, MAHONEY; Straighten that and straighten that Barber Street extension. Thank you. THE CLERK: It very well may be a civil matter then. MR. SVATIK: How close are you to the site, ma'am? May I ask? CHAIRMAN MATHER; They own the park. AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. TURNER: We own the community. We own the community and my husband and I live in the community. MR. MAHONEY: But that is over where? Maybe that may MS. TURNER: And we I hope to be developing the rest of the community. MR. MAHONEY: I mean, how far actually in geographic distance would you estimate you are from this particular site? Three hundred feet? Five hundred feet? Six hundred feet? CHAIRMAN MATHER: This is in the park. MS. TURNER: Well, it's not part of our property. It's not part of Park Place property as far as I know. I don't know. Unless MR. CIARFELLA: It's not. Maybe I can clarify a little bit for the board and Certainly MR. MAHONEY: I thought it might be worried about the topping profile or something like that. MR. CIARFELLA: This is and you all are certainly more familiar with the parcel then I would be. This is the county field here. This is I believe this is 510 right here. The AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 10 site that is leased is right here south of the ball field access road. The mobile home park comes down like this here. Would that be correct? So it's actually south of the ball fields. MS. TURNER: Right. And this is part of the Okay. So this may be part of it. It's current. It's it's you can see right now it's currently vacant but the parcel itself here is a 100 -by -100 lease parcel. It's fairly close to the existing lighted ball field. I believe that's right here. So, I don't know if that helps you at all, but it is south of the access road right here. And if you want to see a plan MR. HASS: I want to clarify a point too. I maybe misstated that it's part of Park Place PUD, It is part of the PUD, but it's not part of the actual subdivision itself. MR. MAHONEY: Okay. MR. HASS: Right. MR. MAHONEY: We doubted that because of the proximity to. MR. HASS: Right. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Proximity to the places. "AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It may be a little less desirable. There's no tenants. Any other questions? MS. TURNER: I don't have any other questions but I'm not very comfortable about that. When you build a structure like you do, don't you have to notify people within so many feet of the structure? MR. HASS: Our code requires that before site plan review process that we notify everyone within 300 feet and so everyone within 300 feet was mailed a notice of this hearing this evening. As far as when they get to the construction phase now, there aren't any other notice requirements for code. MR. SMITH: Well, all of the owners of the 300 feet radius notified? MR, HAW; Yes, they were. MS. KING: Yeah. MR. BARRETT: It looked like from that map that that access road at this parcel is just south of and she said her property begins just north of that access road that they're within 300 feet. MS. TURNER: Yes. 'AMY J. SCH1 ECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BARRETT: That she's within 300 feet. She didn't get a notice, something is MR. HASS: You didn't get a notice? MR. BARRETT: Something is wrong in Denmark. MS. KING: There is. I can read them off. There's not that many. Villages of Lake Dolores, Inc., Robert Kusch, Eugene Douglas (phonetic), Woodrow Dossey (phonetic) and Ethel Sears (phonetic), Albert Slaughter (phonetic), Jackson Brothers Groves, Park Place at Sebastian, Inc. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's them, isn't it? MS. TURNER: Yes, that is. MS. KING: It went out to 1001 West Lake View Drive, Sebastian, Florida. MS. TURNER: Yes. M$. KING; That's where the notice was sent. So, we did send out the notice and there's about four or five other ones. We get we get that information from the tax rolls and so what ever the address is then, what ever the property appraiser's office's show, was the owner of the property. Some times we don't catch them if it's newly 'AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 13 transferred to new ownership or what ever, some times the tax rolls aren't as current as we would like but that's all MR. BARRETT: But they were notified? MS. KING: Yes. MS. TURNER: Oh, yeah. Okay. Thank you. MR. BARRETT: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Okay. Staff like to summarize the public hearing? I'll close the public hearing. Excuse me. MR. BARRETT: We have some questions before Staff summarizes? CHAIRMAN MATHER: Sure. Is there any other questions from the board? MR. BARRETT: Yeah. I'd like to ask a question. This is purely a spec tower; am I not correct? You have no users at this point in time. How can you justify the expense of building a tower if you can't hang anything on it yet? MR. CIARFELLA: Sir, we're actually in negotiations with two tenants for the tower right now. MR. BARRETT: Well, the negotiation and having them in your pocket is two different 'AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 things. You don't put out the expenditure. MR. CIARFELLA: It's the cat and mouse game, sir. They want to know that the site is real before they sign the lease. So, we've got two tenants that we're negotiating right now for the facility and we have a very high confidence level that both of those both of these both of those tenants will go on this tower. Obviously you're right; it gets to be a very expensive endeavor to build a facility with no tenants. Many shopping center owners don't do that. Certainly we have no interest in doing that as well. MR. BARRETT: Well, can I also ask what type of communication activity are you soliciting? MR. CIARFELLA: It would be for the wireless telecommunications operators, Very similar exactly similar to my statement earlier that the facility behind your police station is for Bell South Mobility, Cingular Wireless now. Carriers like Nextel, Sprint, Verizon, Voice Stream; nationally recognized anchor tenants. It's not going to be mom and pop, you know, radio shop down the street. AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 110 25 16 These are broad band wireless tenants. MR. BARRETT: One of my concerns is as being a former pilot, these pose a second greatest hazard to a general aviation pilot other than birds and rabbits on the runway. These towers don't always appear on the AA maps. And when you have to clear an airport zone because of traffic and appearance and these towers don't show up, you can be in a world of hurt in a hurry. And I just hate to see us being inundated with tower city here in Sebastian. I went through some of that down there in the Fort Lauderdale area from whence I came and probably one of the reasons why I gave up flying is because Fort Lauderdale /Hollywood area was just such a hazardous area to fly and I would hate to see that we we encourage a potential hazard to the area up here. 1 cannot just review, you know, that you come and John Doe is going to want one next month. You know, pretty soon we're going to have towers out here just like the T.R.T. facility down there in 441 north of Sunrise in Fort Lauderdale. I mean, that was antenna city down there. MR. CIARFELLA: And I certainly can understand the concern. The facts are that 'AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 your code is restrictive in terms of the placement. You're not going to not in the City of Sebastian see facilities pop up on every corner. That's one of the reasons why we're building this facility to accommodate multiple providers so you just prohibit the exact thing that you're concerned about. And clearly we are required actually we're not even required to obtain the FAA approval on this facility but we MR. BARRETT: Yes, you are. MR. CIARFELLA: We are not. We are not. It is under 200 feet. It's outside the glide path of the airport and we are not required to obtain the FAA approval. However, we have done so. It's registered with the FCC. This facility would be registered with the FCC. So we're taking extraordinary steps beyond what we are minimally required to do to make sure that this facility is in accordance with all Federal and local regulations. So I understand your concern, but we're going above and beyond what the minimum requirements are to make sure that we're in compliance with all all of the regulations. AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BARRETT: Okay. I appreciate that. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Any questions? MS. CARBANO: No, I don't. MR. SVATIK: I do. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Sure. MR. SVATIK: Which telecommunication broad band access bands are you going to work in? MMDS, OMDS? MR. CIARFELLA• These are PCS and analog cellular. MR. SVATIK: But you are open to negotiations for MMDS and OMDS at this point forward? MR. CIARFELLA: Anybody who wants to come and talk to us, you know, about tenancy on our facilities MR. SVATIK: So you would put up so you would put up third generation broad band wide band CDMA on this tower? MR. CIARFELLA: Uh -huh. Absolutely. MR. SVATIK: Well then this drawing you have is a separate issue the antenna because the correlation factor would be some where close to 15 to 20 feet apart up here 'AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 unless the drawings shows these antennas nicely nestled together. MR. CIARFELLA: Right. MR. SVATIK: But if you do lease to them because of smart antenna technology, this is 19 going to widen out. MR. CIARFELLA: The illustration and the diagram that was supplied to you was for illustrative purposes, obviously. Certainly different tenants use different antenna types. We have constructed facilities in south Florida where obviously you seem to know a little bit about it, so 3 -G technology is in the United States right now. MR. SVATIK: It's coming. MR. CIARFELLA: 3 -G technology is being just deployed in Japan and ultimately will go to Europe. Supposedly in Europe this year, maybe early next year, and ultimately obviously the United States will get 3 -G technology. There are certain providers right now that are preparing for what we call 2 -G now. There are some providers right now that are preparing for 3 -G and going back and doing it. But really what it is, it's not so much a changing out; it may AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 require some change -out of some antennas but it's basically the radio box at the base of the tower that the drawing that you have before you this evening was for illustrative purposes by no means where the intent is going to be all identical, all the same type and at the levels necessarily shown on that drawing. Again, what we wanted to try to show you was that this facility was going to be built on a date, multiple uses and multiple providers. That was really the intention but clearly this facility can accolulnodate 3 -G when it does get deployed here in the United States. MR. SVATIK: What is I don't understand why this fits the code for PUD MH. MR. HASS: It is under regrouped under utilities and utilities are allowed within the PUD MR. SVATIK: Where is that in here? Because I can't what utility? Is the utility does that service that community there? MR. HASS: Public or private utilities. MR. SVATIK: But this facility MR. HASS: Communication towers are AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 grouped under public utilities. MR. SVATIK: Okay. Then where does it say you can put up 175 -foot, 40 -pound 40 -ton steel tower? Where MR. HASS: That doesn't say that. It's just grouped under the utilities category. That's traditionally how we reviewed them under our code provisions. MR. SVATIK: So there's no limit really to 175 -foot towers to be put there? MR. HASS: No. MR. SVATIK: This is a problem that is California doesn't even accept this in the city any more and one thing I want to point out is that towers in the United States are this big. These are towers. This is the state of the art in towers, Tracy. You said nothing can be done about the aesthetics. MR. HASS: No, I didn't say that. MR. SVATIK: Of the tower. MR. HASS: No, I didn't say that. MR. SVATIK: Okay. You realize that we can do something about these towers. MR. HASS: Yes, I fully realize that, but that's not what is before us this evening. 'AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SVATIK: Well, I submit that that this is not in the general aesthetic nature of that of that, you know, proposed mobile home park area. 1 certainly don't think that, you know, it's something that I would want to see in my neighborhood, and I just can't accept it 22 because the antennas are going to get larger. As they sectorize MMDS and Sprint tries harder to get more capacity and MMDS the size of the antennas are going to increase. While this one is the company that is doing this so they're getting larger and larger and larger and pretty soon they are going to be eye sores and that's why communities are putting a hault to just rampant towers. It seems we ought to get on board with that. I'm certainly CHAIRMAN MATHER: There's no violation of our code, MR. HASS: It's just that we don't have specific telecommunications ordinances within our code right now. CHAIRMAN MATHER: So that's another area that we should possibly address and look at in the future. MR, HAS$: Certainly. AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN MATHER: Are you taking that under advisement? MR. HASS: Yes. CHAIRMAN MATHER: I didn't see you write any note down. MR. BARRETT: I was going to say, did he make a note? MR. HASS: It is up there. We were discussing that as well and it's something the city attorney is well aware of. I don't know if you remember, but when they proposed this tower, both the city attorney and I came up with all these wonderful designs. As a matter of fact, like a light house or something as opposed to the monopole tower. But any way, it's something that I know the city attorney is very familiar with and I don't think it would take much effort to create a telecommunications ordinance. MR. MAHONEY: Well, shouldn't this be a conditional use? MR. HASS: I'm sorry? MR. MAHONEY: Should this not be a conditional MR. HASS: It's listed under permitted AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 uses. MR. MAHONEY: Okay. I was looking at mobile home district RNH. Permitted mobile home accessory residential uses. Conditional uses; utilities, public and private on an LDC 5 -9. I was just looking at the outline. MR. HASS: Are you saying five MR. SVATIK: We were talking about underlying districts. This apparently is an underlying district. LDC 542. It says public and private utilities. Okay. Are you saying private utilities are considered the telecommunication towers? MR. HASS: Yes, that. MR. SVATIK: I find them remarkable that in the same zoning a person can't put a canopy on his yard but the person next door can put a 175 -foot tower. That is just ludicrous. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: ludicrous. That is most that's all. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Do you have more? Okay. MR. MAHONEY: Just a question. Could I ask about the fence? This fence is going to be eight feet tall with barbed wire. Barbed wire is not permitted in residential area and we JAMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 should have no more than a six -foot fence in residential area. Eight feet per minute. MR. HASS: Well, that's one of the things that we wanted to discuss this evening essentially I think it's essential that a communications tower have the chain link fence with barbed wire around it (More than one person speaking at once.) MR. HASS: trespassers but MR. MAHONEY: Wholeheartedly but its not mentioned in your recommendation about three and a half. (More than one person speaking at once.) MR. HASS: Yeah. MR. MAHONEY: Yeah. Okay. Yes. So we need to make a provision in that some kind of condition that that would be allowed. MR. HASS: Yes. MR. MAHONEY: We could vote on that. MR. HASS: Yes, we need to make that as part of the their condition of approval. MR. MAHONEY: Permit the 8 -foot chain link fence with three strands of barbed wire not AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 facing outwards that can extend beyond the MR. HASS: Yes. MR. MAHONEY: Thank you. MR. HASS: They will have to follow the guidelines that is actually code for barb wire. MR. MAHONEY: Okay. We should make that point. Thank you. That's about it. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Okay. Miss Monier? MS. MONIER: No comments. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Any other discussion? Staff, would you like to summarize your position? MR. HASS: Staff recommends approval with the one condition that is listed in the Staff report and the second condition being that the Applicant be permitted to install the chain -link fence with I'm sorry. The eight foot min -link fence with the three strands of barbed wire. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Is there a motion? Chair, I make a motion that they approve the tower of the 64th Avenue Park Place Mobile Park. Is there a second? THE CLERK: Do you want the two conditions with that? AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN MATHER: With the two conditions the Staff recommended. MS. MONIER: I'll second the motion for the 175 -foot tower at 64th Avenue with the two conditions. CHAIRMAN MATHER: We have a motion and a second. Role call, please. THE CLERK: Mr. Mahoney? MR. MAHONEY: Yes. THE CLERK: Miss Carbano? MS. CARBANO: No. THE CLERK: Mr. Svatik? MR. SVATIK: No. THE CLERK: Mr. Barrett? MR. BARRETT: No. THE CLERK: Mr. Smith? MR. SMITH: No. THE CLERK: Chairman Mather? CHAIRMAN MATHER: Yes. THE CLERK: Miss Monier? MS. MONIER: No. MR. HASS: If I might add, the commission would be in your best interests to list a reason for denial because of the challenges. THE CQORT; The vote w48 five -tp -two AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 against. CHAIRMAN MATHER: The chair has nothing to see why it doesn't fit with the code. From the chair standpoint, it does comply with the code. So, it would be up to the members of the board to come up with a reason why it doesn't meet code. MR. HASS: And when I say reason, it has to be justifiable reason per code. You can't just say that you don't like it or you don't agree with it. It has to be a justifiable reason per code. THE CLERK: All those who voted no, you need to show us a reason why. MR. BARRETT: Yes, sir. At this time? MR. HASS: Yes, at this time. MR. BARRETT: I'll cite aesthetics. MS, CARBANO; Same, aesthetics, MR. SVATIK: I say it didn't meet the intent of the utility as described in this document because telephone communication towers are not mentioned, therefore, we can't say that it goes in there. It fits as a utility. MR. HASS: It says communications and this and iS a comnunicatiane tower and might I add AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 28 we have approved three other antennas within the city for the same reason under the exact same code. Now we're all of a sudden changing midstream here. MS. KING: And I might point out that in the language and definition section of the code the LDC Chapter 22, 36 or Page 36, utilities; public and private use of land which is customary and necessary to the maintenance and operation of essential public services such as for electricity and gas transmission systems; water distribution, collection, disposal; communication; and similar services as facilities. That's what we're basing the communication on. MR. SVATIK: Then I have to say that a 175 foot given down to it you probably have the highest antennas, This is not serving this area. This is for beachside and way up close if you're doing how many degrees down MR. CIARFELLA: May I answer him? THE CLERK: In the microphone, please. MR. CTARFELLA: I'm not an engineer and if you want to disclose your qualifications for me, I'd be interested to know what yours Are. AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 But 1 will tell you that this facility is not intended at all to cover the beach side. It is the beach side is over five miles away and this facility at 175 feet will not cover PCS or analog cellular the beach side. Period. 30 The pure intention if you know anything about the way wireless telephones operate and towers, think of a flashlight. The further the flashlight gets from the ground, the bigger the area it covers and it only covers a little small geographic area. The intent of this facility is to cover the geographic area where it's located. Its intention is not to cover, you know, north Sebastian up near the airport because you have a facility over here to do that. We feel very strongly about our position we aatiSfy the code, Ypu've heard your Staff your professional Staff that does this. You have three other facilities in your town. Okay. How are we any different? You have 175 -foot tall tower right here closer to residential, aesthetically seen from the water. Your main artery of this town what makes this town S0 beautiful, we have a facility "AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 that is a mile and a half to two miles off the water clustered in near a high intensity park with lights. Okay. What makes our facility any different than the facilities that you permitted previously? I don't know. I mean, I don't know. We satisfy the MU the mobile home PUD regulations. We satisfy the setbacks, we satisfy that we're a public or private utility. You heard your Staff say that. But one thing (More than one person speaking at once.) MR. CIARFELLA: We satisfied everything. MR. BARRETT: One key thing that Jan said when she read that a while ago, "essential public use." MR. CIARFELLA: You know something? Let me tell you about essential public use, There are 110 million people in this country that use wireless telephones today. That number (More than one person speaking at once.) MR. CIARFELLA: Ask the people that were buried in the World Trade Center if they were essential and they saved their lives. Ask the AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 people during Hurricane Andrew if they were essential; because that was the only means of communication at that time. You're damn right they are essential. 110 million people use these phones. That number is going to go up. 32 These these products and these things are essential. They save lives. People use them for 911 all the time. You know something? You can only look to last week's tragedy and sit there and you hate to use something like this and throw it in all your faces, but it's the facts are this. That these phones saved peoples' lives last week. Now, it may be a far cry that if something God forbid happened in this town but people use these devices. Are they essential? Absolutely. I would challenge each one of you to tell me how they're not essential in today's environment. Like 1 said, I believe very strongly we satisfy your code. May not necessarily like to look at them and I can certainly appreciate that but they're essential, they're necessary and we have to have them. They're the modern day telephone pole, folks. The turn of the century when the Bell South and Ma AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 Bells built telephone poles, no one liked to look at them, but I will tell you what. Everyone wanted to use their phones, didn't they? It's the same thing with telecommunication towers. We're trying to make sure that you don't 33 have any more in this town by building a facility that will accommodate multiple providers. We think this location is I mean, can you see it? Absolutely. But how often do you see the facility out here? I mean, you drive here every night once a month twice a month. You don't give it a second thought, I'm sure. MS. MONIER: I have a couple of questions since I'm a new comer. The other three towers, were they on residential residentially zoned lots or commercial lots or like I would assume that the City Hall here is not a residential lot. MIt. HASS: One is a public services, one is in one that was rezoned to public service and none of them are commercial. They're either in residential or public service. None of them are in commercial; none of them are industrial. I'm trying to think of the last one. The AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 daily drive. That one was the one that was rezoned to public service. I don't believe that they're probably all in public service now, but when they were constructed they weren't. Two of them were in residential when they were reconstructed but they were rezoned during our rezoning efforts to public service because MS. MONIER: Sir, our code opens up that these can be built in residential. MR. HASS: As part of the communications of public service I mean public utility or private utilities, they are basically allowed in all of our zoning districts. MS. MONIER: Okay. I'm not arguing this. I mean, I would love to get reception in this town where I don't have to do long distance in your home and for a year or so but I you know, but I'm really I guess from a personal standpoint I don't want to see a hundred towers popping up in residential communities, you know, if it's in a public service area or it is very contained, you know, but I guess that's my dilemma right now. You know, I think these guys are very viable, they are professional, I think they know what they're doing, you know. AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 2600 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I would like to see something more aesthetics. MR. HASS: We need to come up with guidelines. We need to have a telecommunications ordinance. MS. MONIER: Yeah. The real reason this doesn't, you know, my thing is if I vote yes to this, am I voting yes to 500 hundred of them coming down the road? MR. HASS: I don't think that would be a worry. Of course, after this the immediate first thing that we're going to have to work on is telecommunications ordinance, if there are any future proposals that they would be specific guidelines as to where they would be permitted and the size and effectual features and all of those elements. But at this point we don't have any ordinances in place other than what we've used as our communications ordinance which has been traditionally the way the others have been reviewed and approved and therefore that was the precedent that was set for this one as well. MR. SVATIK: I would like to make a comment on no more towers in this town. I don't know if you're aware, but the role out of 'AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 35 36 1 MMDS is happening with Sprint and Worldcom. 110 2 The next is MLS and then there's a digital 3 radio that you're going to have and then 4 digital television if the FCC lets up 1.7 5 gigahertz band and takes away from the 6 government and actually gives it for commercial 7 digital television. That's a prime spot. 8 And for your information, I designed MMDS and 9 MLDS antennas for hub applications, so I know the 10 range of those. I designed supercells. But what 11 you're putting up there is not a macrocell. It's 12 a supercell tower which means it's not designed to 13 cover a big area. Especially MMDS is sectorized 14 antennas. It's you can shake your head and say 15 this is the only tower. You're going to put as 16 many towers up as you can get revenues from in the 17 town and 18 MR. CIARFELLA: I'm not going to get into 19 a debate with you. The only thing can I tell 20 you is this. I can't put a tower in a 21 residential zoning district in your town. Your 22 code doesn't permit it. I can't put even if 23 I wanted to go a mile up the road in the same 24 mobile home PUD and I come back here next month 25 and ask you to put a tower a mile up the road .AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in the same zoning district, you guys are going to laugh at me. You're going to say, Go to that tower. He's not even going to process the application because he's going to say go to that tower. That's not MR. SVATIK: We can't stop you. MR. CIARFELLA: That the fact is that you can't have towers in this community every thousand feet. It's not going to happen because your code doesn't permit them in every zoning district. MR. SVATIK: Technology allows that. I'm just I can't I tell you what. I'm personally I'll just be done with this that I don't consider this a utility that services the community essential like this. That deserves to in the residential or P0D MH which is trying to get to MH, you know, level residency per the planning. The intent is for this to go to a out of the PUD type of zoning. MR. MAHONEY: What is the County's position? As I understand are quite restricted as far as permitting tho$e towers. AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HASS: Well, they have recently from my understanding, I don't know if it's been implemented yet or not but they were working on a telecommunications ordinance and I don't know exactly where they stand at this point or whether or not it's actually been approved by the county commission. I haven't received any official notices to that effect, so I don't know. MR. MAHONEY: I understand that with some subdivisions that would engage in almost to a proper uprising to prevent them being placed any where near the communities, so perhaps that's the reason they're farming towards Sebastian because we're more open and accepting of it. They improve their tower up there, we thought that we would have secondary and tertiary users and that would probably take care of the need for quite some time but apparently that is not so. I'm sorry. MR. CIARFELLA: You know something? I know I'm out of order so I apologize. But if you all have a concern over the placement, I mean, this is very similar to the discussion that you just had with the canopy structures, AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 If you don't like the ordinance that you have okay MR. BARRETT: Fix it. MR. CIARFELLA: Yeah. I mean, fix it but at the same token we applied under the rules and regulations that are in effect to that and 39 I certainly, you know, just like the gentleman sitting here before me here this evening, if you all want to change them, if you want to modify them, that's great and we'll participate and we'll help you. How ever you think we can be of benefit, we'll do it. I've done that in communities throughout Florida. But pass this one this evening and then tell your Staff, Draw up new regulations. Go to the council and ask them. We need to do this for the protection of our community but don't hold us hostage in fairness. Again, we believe we satisfy the code. Okay, if you CHAIRMAN MATHER: Let me back up. At the state we're at right now, this could be appealed to the city council. MR. HASS: Yeah. The appeals go city council from this level CHAIRMAN MATHER: Because right now you "AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have a five -two vote that's been taken. MR. HASS: Right. CHAIRMAN MATHER: The rationale each one of the no's needs to be so stated and that would be forwarded to the city council on 40 appeal. MR. HASS: That's correct. Might I add this may be out of line for me; I don't know but in my job as a professional planner for the City is to put all my personal feelings aside and go by the strict interpretation of the code. Now, that's always very difficult to do. I'm not going to lie to you and say that it isn't. And that's where tonight you know, I may not agree with this particular tower. I look at one out my bedroom window every night and flashing every night and where that personally doesn't bother me but it's not the most aesthetically pleasing thing to look at every evening. But the fact is, that one is no different than the one before you this evening. They were reviewed under the same code provisions in which they were listed as communications towers under public utilities public or private utilities "AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 and under the guidelines that we have, they have satisfied those provisions and therefore that's why I have forwarded a recommendation of approval to you. And, yes, we did outline the two conditions. 41 The one condition being that they have to satisfy any FAA, FAR compliance regulations which they are exempt from but have taken the step to at least provide us with those necessary exemption forms and also with the chain link fence. Yes, aesthetically, it's not pretty. It is prettier than the older towers. I mean, it's a monopole so it's a little bit more attractive. But the fact is, it's not going to be the ones that you see now that look like fake pine trees or actually look like real pine trees that are artificial trees and, you know, some of these that are on church steeples. There's all kinds of new antennas out there that are completely disguised that you don't even realize that they are out there and that's the direction that we need to go as a city and we need to implement restrictions so that in the future that we will have regulations so that we can review them. AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 42 At this point, though, we have a situation exactly like the canopies before where we had something before us that we didn't it just kind of fell in between loopholes of the code, if you will, and we approved them with direction to go back and work on the regulation and I feel that that is where we need to be tonight as well. We need to review this one, approve it and move forward with restrictions in the future. MR. SMITH: Tracy, could I ask you one question? When would you start on this review and upgrading the standards for this? What you said I agree with completely. But you said before that the attorney was supposed to be presenting a program or study or something else to get better towers. When? MR. HASS: If I said that, I misstated myself. What 1 said is the city attorney I believe 1 said the city attorney is very familiar with these regulations. He worked very diligently on getting approval for this one behind the police station, and 1 know he's familiarized himself from other communities' regulations. So, I can sit down immediately tomorrow with AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 him and hopefully come up with something that we can have before you at it won't be our next meeting but hopefully the second meeting in October. What we'll do is, we'll try to bring both of those before you the canopy issue and the telecommunications ordinance at one time. MR. SMITH: Okay. Well, thank you very much. And I'd like to change my vote to a yes vote. CHAIRMAN MATHER: I think we actually have to bring the whole thing up back before the board. MR. SVATIK: One thing less, where do you find in the code book that the utilities are telecommunications Where in here? MR. HASS: It doesn't say telecommunications. It says communications under the definition and the utilities and Article 22 stipulates under utilities communications is one of the permitted utilities public or private. MR. SVATIK: Okay. And it doesn't specify any limit to? MR. HASS: No. That just says straight communication. That's all it says. AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 4111) 25 CHAIRMAN MATHER: Somebody would like to review the vote and there has to be a motion. THE CLERK: Our attorney is not here tonight. MR. HASS: I think with one of the member or THE CLERK: Withdraw the vote? MR. HASS: No. What would happen is one of the dissenting members would have to make a new motion. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Right. All of the majority would have to do it, right. MR. SMITH: I'll make that motion. THE CLERK: Mr. Smith is going to make a motion. All right, Mr. Smith. MS. MONIER: And I'll second that motion. THE CLERK: He has to make it first. More than one person speaking at once MR. SMITH: 1 make a motion to make a motion to approve the site plan for the installation and the construction of a communication tower at 64th Avenue and parentheses Park Place Mobile Home Park. CHAIRMAN MATHER: This is to review and do AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in place of the present one that's been passed. MR. SMITH: Correct. THE CLERK: And you move the two conditions in the Staff report. MR. SMITH: Yes. MS. MONIER: Yes. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Do we have a second? MR. SMITH: We have a second. MS. MONIER: I'll second it. MR. MAHONEY: A motion to reconsider or can we just go ahead and make another motion? MR. HASS: That's what we just did. CHAIRMAN MATHER: That is what this is a motion to reconsider the previous motion. MR. HASS: Yes. MR. MAHONEY: What we vote for that we're voting for the tower or are we voting to rescind the previous motion? MR. HASS: I believe been grouped under one. What's essentially happened here THE CLERK: The approval? Is that how MR. HASS: Right. THE CLERK: Motion to reconsider the approval with all of the rest of the technical information in the approval on the Atlantic 'AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Coast Communication tower and I have the wording on. MR. MAHONEY: Are you asking to vote (More than one person speaking at once.) MR. BARRETT: you're obliterating THE CLERK: Reconsider to approve. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Right. Then we'll have a motion after that for approval. MR. MAHONEY: Okay. We're abolishing the THE CLERK: A motion for reconsider. MR. MAHONEY: Right. We're abolishing the previous motion and we're going to create another motion. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Right. Role call, please. THE CLERK: This is a motion to reconsider the previous hearing. Mr. Mahoney? MR. MAHONEY: I voted yes for the other motion. I don't believe I'm THE CLERK: Voted for us to reconsider. MR. MAHONEY: Yes, I would vote to reconsider, of course. (This is the end of the cassette AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 411 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wish. and another one was started.) THE CLERK: Now we can do a new motion. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Do a new motion if we MR. SMITH: Okay. We'11 give you another motion then. THE CLERK: All right. I'm ready. MR. SMITH: Make a motion to approve the site plan for the installation and construction of a communications tower at 64th Avenue, Park Place Mobile Home Park. THE CLERK: Including the two conditions MR. SMITH: Including the two conditions as stated. MR. BARRETT: I don't think you need you should put Park Place Mobile since it's not a part of Park Place. MR. SMITH: That's part of the address. MR. HASS: It's part of the PUD. It is officially part of the PUD. MR. BARRETT: Motion it be listed as Park Place PUD and not Park Place, Inc. MS. KING: Park Place PUD is the zoning. MR. HASS: That's the zoning. That's the AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 actual subdivision. MR. BARRETT: Right, but it's not in the property of Park Place. MR. SMITH: Right. MR. HASS: No. It's under Villages of Lake Dolores. MR. BARRETT: Then I think that's what it should read. Just to be clear. THE CLERK: the Villages of Lake Dolores? MR. BARRETT: I think just to be clear, we're going to have to have a problem with Park Place. MR. HASS: I would say the property is the Atlantic Coast Communication tower location in Park Place PUD. MR. BARRETT: There you go. THE CLERK: You agree with that, Mr. Smith? MR. SMITH: Fine. Okay. 1 need to be a Philadelphia lawyer here. MR. BARRETT: I just think we need to be careful. MR. SMITH: Park Place PUD. CHAIRMAN MATHER; DO we have a second? We AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have a motion. Do we have a second? MS. MONIER: I will second that. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Okay. Any discussion? MR. MAHONEY: Yeah. I've lived 24 years within the 150 feet of the Florida Power and Light main towers that go right by my back yard and you don't even notice them after a while and they're as big as this as wide as this table. You get used to them. It gives you a certain seclusion. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN MATHER: A11 right. Role call, please. THE CLERK: Mr. Mahoney? MR. MAHONEY: Yes. THE CLERK: Miss Carbano? MS. CARBANO: Yes. THE CLERK: Miss Monier? MS. MONIER: Yes. THE CLERK: Mr. Barrett? MR. BARRETT: Yes, with reservation. THE CLERK: Mr. Smith? MR. SMITH: Yes. THE CLERK: Mr. Svatik? MR. SVATIK: No. THE CLERK: Chairman Mather? AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIRMAN MATHER: Yes. THE CLERK: We have a six -to -one vote in favor. MR. CIARFELLA• Thank you very much. MR. SMITH: You presented a very nice case. Thank you. MR. CIARFELLA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN MATHER: All right. Moving right along. Don't come back with another tower. AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 50 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER) I, Amy J. Schreck, Registered Professional Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes. Dated this &Y= day of November, 2001. JvCk Amy U. Schreck, RPR AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 51 24 25 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 6 7 9 1 2 3 4 5 IN RE: 7.C. Quasi- Judicial Hearing Site Plan Review Atlantic Coast Communication Tower S.W. Corner of Park Place APPEARANCES: CITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Kelly Mather, Lisanne Monier, Charles Barrett, William Mahoney, Gene Vesia, Gene Rauth, Jean Carbano, October 4, 2001 Transcript of proceedings before the Sebastian Planning and Zoning Commission, held at City Hall, 1225 Main Street, Sebastian, Florida, cozurnencing at 7 :00 p.m., on the day and date above set forth. Jr., ORIGINAL AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 Chairman Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member Board Member 1 Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, Inc. EXHIBIT "C" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 APPEARANCES: On Behalf of the City: Mr. Tracy Hass On Behalf of the Applicant, Atlantic Coast: Mark Ciarfella Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida 1201 U.S. Highway One, Suite 230 West Palm Beach, Florida 33408 (561) 694 -9445 AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567- -2600 2 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 (Be it remembered that this is a partial transcript of the proceedings had in the above-styled cause which was taken before the Sebastian Planning and Zoning Commission commencing at 7 :00 p.m„ on the day set forth above, to wit:) M MR. STRINGER: All on these cell phone towers. When the last one came in, the only one that's come in since I've been here, it was my opinion that they do not meet the definition of utility and I'll tell you why. It says use of land which is customary which to the delivery of essential public services and then everything else after that from the way 1 read it is an example such as electricity and gas transmission systems. Note the limitation to transmission systems. Okay. Water distribution, colleCtion and disposal which is water lines to the house, sewage lines away from the house communications and similar services. All of these things the reason they are treated so liberally within the zoning code is that they are delivering essential services to each of the things that are out there in different zoning districts. Power lines have AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 --2600 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 to go into residential zones or else a house doesn't have electricity. The telephone lines which was your customary way of providing essential services being communication have to go in the old days into the neighborhood or else the essential services couldn't be delivered, and that's why you have the liberal treatment if you look through our code of what otherwise would be considered heavy industry, you know. It's allowed every where and that's why by necessity it has to go into there but if you know the limitations when it talks about goods an electricity transmission, if you look under conditional use analysis over here, it's talking transmission things. You know, things that go in there and come out. 1 don't think the real argument that you could put a coal fire electric generating plant in a PUD MH. So, you can't just say it's a utility. It's what ever. You have to look at the definition and so you're talking your customary ways of providing essential services. I don't think cell phone 175 -foot cell phone towers were anticipated as the customary method when you were coming up with "AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 --2600 4 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 zoning reps that allow this things into every zoning districts but putting that whole dispute aside, more importantly and more to the positive, this PUD when it came in had a partial concept plan which is really part of the zoning. It designated a number of tracts as future development and within the narrative said in the future these will be developed, we anticipate, commercial residential uses. To ever develop those parcels, they're going to have to first come in and amend the concept aspect of the PUD. They have no zoning on those parcels which you can do under PUD. You can reserve a tract for future development. So, there's no zoning on those parcels that would allow anything much less a utility. A utility has never been approved. Now while utilities are listed among the permitted uses on a PUP, you've got to remember 'PUDs there's no such thing as a blank check permitted use. Because the PUD concept itself has to go through virtually the equivalent of a conditional use look. All really means when it's listed as conditional use under PUD means once it goes through that it doesn't have to do it again. AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So this parcel I mean, the only use they have is future development. As I said, technically if they go to develop it now, that ain't future. So, it doesn't have the zoning in place. 1 would recommend based on that alone whether, you know, you agree on the utility aspect or not, that alone, I think would be reason to move tonight to reconsider and schedule it for another hearing at your next meeting because there is no zoning in place to support that site plan. MR. RAUTH: Question on your statement. You said when these regs were written they did not envision certain things. MR. STRINGER: In theory of them going into all of the areas. I mean, we've updated it, yes. It's cell phones. MR. RIWTH: How then do they incorporate TV cable? Because when they first started the thing, there was no concept of TV cable. MR. STRINGER: Well, the concept is the transmission of these services into the neighborhood along and then, you know, it originates from a source and has to be brought into the neighborhood to deliver the service. AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 It's the only way you can serve the home. It's the only way you can serve the building. MR. RAUTH: How then would you argue the point that cell phones may be an essential service now in the day and time the times that we live in? MR. STRINGER: I think you would need to address it. Well, if you get into an argument that they're essential. MR. RAUTH: a phone somebody has in their home, It is essential. MR. STRINGER: Yeah, but it's not necessary to bring it into that neighborhood in order to deliver it to that neighborhood. You know, I think it would be allowed under if you look at the concept and the uses for our zoning, what our plan was when we did it over here is, it would be allowed under public service zoning. I mean, it fits that category. MR. RAUTH: Why is it then the argument based on height limitations okay residential or MR. STRINGER: Mostly because you're going to try to kill at the same time you wouldn't want there's other uses. You know, you don't AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 7 1.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 want something is this would this be more akin to an electric plant? Would it be more akin to it's almost a generating type of thing rather than what is necessary to take it into the home and see. The way this is described in the definitions, the real thing there is to cover the things that take it into the home. It's essential that it go into these districts in order to deliver these services. MR. RAUTH: will argue the transmission lines are necessary to bring it into the neighborhood. MR. STRINGER: Yes. MR. RAUTH: So that's why you see 100 -foot poles along residential subdivisions or gas transmission lines that have easements through residential subdivisions. MR. STRINGER: Yeah, because you can't jump from one you can't stop the line here and have it jump over to get over there. MR. MAHONEY: They say that a utility to have a direct domestic relationship? MR. STRINGER: Yes. The way it's written in here. I know that questiQn was raised is it 'AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 --2600 8 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 essential service and that's a that's one of them nice little arguments. But I don't think there's a lot of dispute that it's not a customary use of land related to delivering the essential service of communication. MR. BARRETT: Now would that hold up under appeal if it were to be refused? MR. STRINGER: I think that would hold up. MR. BARRETT: The value essential on the essential? MR. STRINGER: Customary use of land to provide an essential service, yeah. MR. BARRETT: Do you think that would hold up on an appeal? MR. STRINGER: Yeah. I don't think you could argue that cell phone towers are a customary use of land to provide the service of communication. I think lines, since the invention of the telegraph, have been the customary means of delivering those services. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Before that was simapore (phonetic) and before that was smoke. MR. STRINGER: Smoke, yes. CHAIRMAN MATHER: But you're now coming dip to the modern generation. There might be a AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 time when the lines become obsolete. Something that you could see to the modern step of technology that you're just taking the next step up. MR. STRINGER: Yeah. CHAIRMAN MATHER: And, therefore, it's the logical progression. MR. STRINGER: Well, when you get to the within the legal field, this says that's it's up not unusual to us because to accept expert testimony on something, you have to demonstrate that it's now accepted within the standard scientific community, you know, so they have those arguments. Well, is this now standard? Is this now so a Court would understand the discussion about that. One of the things I think if you look, market penetration, well, it's about 10 to 15 percent. CHAIRMAN MATHER: But it's growing at a fast rate. MR. STRINGER: Yeah, it's growing. It's something that you'll get to, and that's why so many people are coming up with separate regulations. I agree with the need to come up "AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 10 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 with site specific and we need to deal with towers separately because they don't fit this traditional mode. MR. RAUTH: Trying to maintain the Applicant that it was for local service only and Mr. Svatik abused him of that notion because of this background knowledge. But had it been for just a local service which would doesn't sound you know plausible, would it have been allowed? Would you be able to make an argument that it should be there, that it could be there per the regulation? MR. STRINGER: No, because there is the ability to rezone this to zone a property within the vicinity. A public service it's public service isn't limited to just a public institution, you know. You could zone a property and then it would go through. Probably I think the best thing to remember, here usually if you say to yourself that doesn't make sense, the law generally though it takes a while to get there some times makes sense and it doesn't make sense that 175-foot tower would go into some where and never be reviewed. lAMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that the real chink in the armor here is it wasn't ever reviewed, it was supposed to be reviewed at the PUD level and so, in truth, no one has ever reviewed this with discretion, you know. It should have gone under discretionary review with the concept plan stage of the PUD which this one still needs to do. MR. MAHONEY: A long time ago then to PUD back in the early '80s. MR. STRINGER: Yeah, but they did do a narrative on that and they didn't mention putting in the utility on that. MR. BARRETT: So what is it you are recommending, Rich? That we go back and rescind what was done last meeting and revisit this whole thing? MR. STRINGER: I think you're going to have to revisit it. Since it was quasi judicial, it would just need to be rescheduled for the next time and you can't take action tonight other than to MR. BARRETT: I understand that. MR. STRINGER: reschedule. MR. BARRETT: Yes. CHAIRMAN MATHER: But the Staff will AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 reschedule. Right? MR. STRINGER: Yes. THE CLERK: Does the person that made the motion need to be here to MR. STRINGER: No, just somebody that voted for it and it was unanimous. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Does the board needs to do anything the Staff would bring it back. MR. STRINGER: Well, you've got to move to reconsider your vote the last time and somebody that voted for it has to make that motion. MR. MAHONEY: Do you think the Applicant would move forward and incur some expenses in the subsequent two weeks? MR. STRINGER: Well, tonight he's trying to put one in out in Fellsmere, so I don't think he has right now but MS. MONIER: What is Staff's position as far as rezoning land to public service? I mean, that's where it's all going to hinge on (End of cassette tape.) MR. STRINGER: That is one thing that has been missing at this point. I mean, the way I read the minutes, it's like you have to do it AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561)567 -2600 13 14 1 because it's a permitted use and there's no 2 discretion. Under the PUD or the rezoning, you 3 would look at compatibility issues with this. 4 MR. BARRETT: May I suggest that when this 5 thing comes up again that you're in attendance? M 6 MR. STRINGER: Yes. 7 MR. BARRETT: Thank you. 8 MR. MAHONEY: If you will give us an 9 opinion, that opinion would be utilized and 10 MR. STRINGER: Okay. 11 MR. BARRETT: It would help. 12 MR. STRINGER: Tracy and them did dig up 13 the narrative from the old PUD. And that spot 14 is designated future development. 15 So, if someone who voted for it would like to 16 reconsider, move to reconsider, then we can 17 reschedule the hearing next time in light of 18 the 19 MR. HASS: Everybody present voted for 20 that. 21 CHAIRMAN MATHER: We were talking about a 22 motion to reconsider tonight. 23 MR. STRINGER: Yes. 24 MR. BARRETT: Okay. I'll make that 25 motion. AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 MR. MAHONEY: I'll second. THE CLERK: Wait. Wait. What motion are you making now? Let's hear it. Come on. MR. BARRETT: Make a motion to reconsider the previous approval of the telecommunication M tower the 175 footer. 1 don't recall the exact parcel but it was UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Park Place. MR. BARRETT: No, it wasn't Park Place. It was Atlantic-something. Atlantic Coast 64th Avenue, Atlantic Coast Communication tower located in Park Place PUD. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The PUD but MR. BARRETT: It was it had another tag on it. Lake something. MR. HASS: Little Edges of Lake Dolores. MR. BARRETT: Thank you. Yeah, add that in there. THE CLERK: The Villages of Lake Dolores. MR. BARRETT: So that it's site specific. THE CLERK: Do we have a second? CHAIRMAN MATHER: Mr. Mahoney seconded. THE CLERK: Thank you. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Role call? THE CLERK: Vice Chairman Vesia? AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 MR. VESIA: Yes. THE CLERK: Ms. Monier? MS. MONIER: Yes. THE CLERK: Mr. Rauth? MR. RAUTH; Yes. THE CLERK: Mr. Barrett? MR. BARRETT: Yes. THE CLERK: Mr. Mahoney? MR. MAHONEY: Yes. THE CLERK: Miss Carbano? MS. CAR.BANO: Yes. THE CLERK: Chairman Mather? MR. MATHER: Yes. THE CLERK: Approved seven to zero to reconsider the previous motion. MR. STRINGER: And what I'll do, I'll go on my Microsoft Outlook on the calendar and just go ahead and peg every first and third Thursday so it pops up. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: On them crimson tide flags jumps up and hits you. MR. STRINGER: Yeah. They've seen a lot of flags so far this year, I'm afraid. CHAIRMAN MATHER: Anything else, Rich? MR. STRINGER: No. AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567 -2600 M 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567-2600 M 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER) I, Amy J. Schreck, Registered Professional Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the foregoing proceedings from a cassette and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my stenographic notes. Dated this day of November, 2001. (n, rfc Amy o. RPR AMY J. SCHRECK REPORTING (561) 567- -2600 18 Agenda Item 6.B. Public Hearing Recommendation to City Council Revised PUD Conceptual Plan Villages of Lake Delores/Park Place and Agenda Item 7.C. Quasi Judicial Public Hearing Reconsideration of Site Plan Approval Atlantic Coast Telecommunication Tower Villages Of Lake Delores/ Park Place PUD Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, Inc. Composite "A" City of Sebastian Planning Zoning Committee Thursday, December 6, 2001 Page 1. Staff Report for Atlantic Coast Tower's application for a 175 foot tower as presented to Planing Zoning Commission on September 20, 2001 7. Property Appraiser's Map of Area showing tower site 8. Letter from Atlantic Coast Tower providing Agent Authorization dated August 20, 2001 10. Letter from Walter Wulff& Associates, Aviation Consultants, to Atlantic Coast Tower dated August 9, 2001, with F.A.A. notifications dated August 24, 2001 attached 13. Letter from Atlantic Coast Tower acknowledging approval of Site Plan dated September 26, 2001 14. Letter to City regarding search for alternative tower sites dated October 17, 2001 15. Letter to City transmitting application for Conceptual Development Plan including Agent Authorization dated November 6, 2001 17. Excerpt from Planning Zoning Commission Minutes of November 15, 2001 recommending City Council adopt a six (6) month moratorium on accepting applications for new towers 20. Excerpt from Draft Minutes of November 28, 2001 City Council Meeting, initiating Ordinance for six (6) month moratorium on accepting applications for new towers 22. Letter from Atlantic Coast Tower to Terrence R. Moore, City Manager, regarding leasing of City parcels for a telecommunication tower dated November 27, 2001 23. Site Plan Review Application for Indian River County 300 foot tower and excerpt from Planning Zoning Commission Minutes of February 1, 1996 approving the tower 32. Staff Report for Crown Castle's 170 foot tower and excerpt from Planning Zoning Commission Minutes of October 19, 2000 approving the tower 40. Certified copy of Indian River County Ordinance No. 2001 -01 imposing six (6) month moratorium on acceptance of applications for new towers 43. Certified copy of Indian River County Ordinance No. 2001 -017 extending for additional six (6) months the moratorium on accepting applications for new towers 46. City of Sebastian Land Development Code for Mobile Home Planned Unit Developments (PUD -MH) Sec. 54- 2- 5.14(a)(4), permitted uses, public and private utilities 47. City of Sebastian current Land Development Code for definitions Sec. 54- 5- 22.3(b)(15) for "utilities, public and private" and how such term is interpreted for purposes of being a permitted use (within the PUD -M1 district) 51. Letter from Larry Fajardo, RF Engineer, Nextel Communications, setting forth need for tower dated December 6, 2001 Exhibit "B" Transcript of City of Sebastian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of September 20, 2001 Approving Site Plan for Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, Inc. Exhibit "C" Transcript of City of Sebastian Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of October 4, 2001 Adoption of Motion To Reconsider their prior action approving the Site Plan for Atlantic Coast Tower of Florida, Inc. Exhibit "D" Photographs of subject property and surrounding area labeled 1 through 7 FUND ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS BUDGET GENERAL Revenues 7,772,515 160,741 7,933,256 Expenditures 7,772,515 160,741 7,933,256 LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX Revenues 636,158 636,158 Expenditures 636,158 636,158 DISCRETIONARY SALES TAX Revenues 1,928,891 (40,000) 1,888,891 Expenditures 1,928,891 (40,000) 1,888,891 RIVERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT Revenues 124,024 Expenditures 74,553 198,577 124,024 74,553 198,577 RECREATION IMPACT FEE Revenues 202,370 Expenditures (4,710) 197,660 202,370 (4,710) 197,660 STORMWATER UTILITY FEE Revenues Expenditures 631,900 631,900 631,900 631,900 LAW ENFORCEMENT FORFEITURE Revenues 3,150 15,085 Expenditures 18,235 3,150 15,08S 18,235 DEBT SERVICE Revenues 64,724 Expenditures 64,724 64,724 64,724 GOLF COURSE Revenues 1,594,111 Expenses (33,746) 1,560,365 p 1,594,111 (33,746) 1,560,365 AIRPORT Revenues 180,026 (4,836) 175,190 Expenses 180,026 (4,836) 175,190 EXHIBIT "A" 3