Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-08-2004 SpectraSite Communications, Inc. - Application for Sprint Communication Tower Co-locationBROWN, GARGANESE, WEISS & UAGRESTA, P.A. Attorneys at Law Usher L. Brown ' Jeffrey P. Buak° Offices in Orlando, Kissimmee, Debra S. Babb-Nutcher° abb- Cocoa & Viera Suzanne reStangane Joseph E. Blitch , G Anthony A, Garganese� John U. Bledenharn, Jr. John H. Ward' Victoria L. Cecil Jeffrey S. Weiss Lisa M. Fletcher Amy J. Goddard Katherine Latorre 'Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer Erin J. O'Leary "Board Certified City, County & Local Government Law J. W. Taylor Of Counsel October 8, 2004 VIA U.S. MAIL John Baker, Planning Coordinator City of Winter Springs 1126 East State Road 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 Re: SpectraSite Communications, Inc. -Application for Sprint Communication Tower Co -location Winter Springs - General Our File No.: 1193 Dear John: Please allow this correspondence to serve as a follow-up to our letter dated September 13, 2004, regarding the above -referenced matter. In that regard, we have received the documents requested from Seminole County regarding the cell tower site. We were pleased to learn the cell tower was approved by special exception on or about June 26, 2000, by the Seminole County Board of Adjustment. As such and in accordance with our legal opinion, no further special exception is required for the tower to be increased in height by the requested 20 feet and the placement of an additional array at the top of the antenna. Please see Section 30.1368(d) of the County Code. The applicant will, however, be required to obtain a special exception for the ancillary facilities — which they intend to place on the ground to service the array. As we previously opined, SpectraSite could avoid this requirement by providing for the co -location of the ancillary equipment with the existing Nextel equipment. However, we understand this may not be commercially or technically preferable. Based on the foregoing, SpectraSite should submit an application for special ion relating to the ancillary equipment. The special exception will need to be n -- ccv cant m0win on otrum, oul[e oou - PA Cox 28!3 - Orlando, Florida 32802-2873 Orlando (407) 425-9566 Fax (407) 425-9506 - Kissimmee (321) 402-0144 - Cocoa & Vlera (886) 425-9566 Website: www.odandolaw.net - Email: firm(Modandolaw.net w John Baker, Planning Coordinator City of Winter Springs October 8, 2004 Page 2 reviewed under the provisions of the County's Code, the County's land development regulations and may be approved in the usual course with reasonable conditions of approval such as landscaping and set -backs. We have enclosed for your file a copy of the documents received from Seminole County. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, Jeffrey P. uak Assistant City Attorney JPB/eah, Enclosure GADocslCity of Winter Springs lCorrespondenceMaker, JohnkSaksr__SpectraSlte_Ltrl0080A.wpd Mdssa Page i of 1 John Baker From: Jeff Buak 0buak@oriandolaw.net] Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 4:08 PM To: John Baker Subject: Re: SpectraSite Com. Tower Hi John, Our opinion was based upon two things. First the permit, dated June 27, 2000, only provides for the approval of a 156 foot monopole telecommunication tower, it does not mention any equipment facilities. Be that as it may, we assumed the original equipment facility was approved, even though not specifically listed on the permit nor on the application, as the same was provided for on the site plan. Assuming for the sake of argument that the special exception provided for the tower and original equipment facility, as well as three (3) other equipment facilities, the special exception expired after one (1) year if permits were not obtained. Second, the county code supports the proposition that the permit issued in 2000 did not contain a special exception for additional equipment facilities. The code specifically provides new equipment facilities will need a special exception unless they co -locate with existing facilities. The Code is trying to limit negative visual appearances by either limiting the number of facilities or alternatively allowing for a process whereby reasonable conditions can be implemented to protect against negative appearances. Please let us know if you have any questions. Jeff Buak ----- Original Message ----- From: John Baker To: jbuak@orlandolaw.net Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 3:43 PM Subject: SpectraSite Com. Tower Received the letter and associated documentation regarding the tower. It appears that the tower was approved with 2 future 10' x 20' equipment building pads for future co -location capability. If this were approved, please explain why we need to process a special exception? please advise thanks Confidentiality Note: This e-mail, and any attachment(s) to it, contains information intended only for the use of the individual(s) or entity named on the e-mail. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that reading it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately return it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank You. 10/12/2004 Sec. 30.1368. Co -location of communication tower antennas. (a) General policy relating to co -location. To minimize adverse visual impacts associated with the proliferation and clustering of communication towers, co -location of communication antennas by more than one (1) carrier on existing or new communication towers is encouraged. Additional communication antennas proposed on existing Communication Towers are permitted uses and may co -locate onto existing communication towers if they satisfy the requirements of this section and no special exception is required. (b) Procedure for administrative granting of special exceptions. If co -location requires utilization of real property for construction of ancillary facilities such as equipment rooms, which uses were not permitted under the applicable zoning code and which uses are expressly prohibited by prior special exceptions, then such ancillary facilities such as equipment rooms shall not be deemec-a permittedruse as a matter of right under this section unless and until a special exception is issued pursuant to the provisions of this subsection. (1) The Planning Manager, after consultation with the applicant, shall determine in conjunction with the Planning and Development Director, consistent with sound and generally accepted planning and land use principles, whether co -location of ancillary equipment, such as equipment room, in support of co -located communication antennae are appropriate and meet the criteria of this section. (2) Upon a determination that the co -location of ancillary facilities, including equipment rooms, are appropriate for a parcel, the Planning Manager shall cause a "Notice of Intent to Allow Co -Location of Communication Tower Ancillary Facilities, Including Equipment Rooms" to be published in a newspaper of general circulation. The Notice shall, at a minimum, state the address of the real property and the proposed use. The Notice shall further state that any person objecting to the use of the property as described must file a notice of objection with the Planning Division within fifteen (15) days of the publication. (3) Upon a determination that co -location of Communication Tower ancillary facilities (including equipment rooms) is not appropriate for the subject property, the applicant may appeal said decision the Board of County Commissioners by filing a notice of appeal with the Planning Division within fifteen (15) days of the rendering of the decision. The Planning Division shall schedule the appeal before the Board. The Board may approve or deny the co -location. (4) If the Planning Division receives no objections to the Notice, in his or her sole discretion, then the Planning Manager shall allow the co -location of Communication Tower ancillary structures (including equipment rooms) as proposed. (5) The Planning and Development Director shall issue a development order or denial development order consistent with the determination made under this section. (c) Type of construction. A communication tower which is modified or reconstructed to accommodate the co -location of an additional communication antenna shall be of the same tower type or a lesser impact tower type, as determined by the Planning Manager based upon the intent of sections 30.1362 through 30.1370 and sound and generally acceptable planning practices and principles, as the existing communication tower. (d) Height. An existing communication tower may be modified or rebuilt to a taller height, not to exceed twenty (20) feet over the tower's existing height, to accommodate the co -location of an additional communication antenna. Such a height increase may only occur one (1) time per communication tower and may be allowed for those sites, which obtained previous special exception approval. The additional height authorized herein shall not require an additional distance separation as described in Table 1, section 30.1364. The communication tower's pre -modification height shall be used to calculate such distance separations. (e) Site location. A communication tower which is being rebuilt to accommodate the co -location of an additional communication antenna may be moved on the site to an area located within fifty (50) feet of its existing location and may also be relocated, with the approval of the Planning Manager based upon sound planning and land use principles and upon a finding that such approval would be consistent with and further the intent of this Code, in the same manner on a site which received a previous special exception notwithstanding any condition of approval relating to the grant of the special exception. After a communication tower is rebuilt to accommodate co -location, only one (1) tower may remain on the site. A communication tower relocated on a site shall continue to be measured from the original tower location for purposes of calculating separation distances between communication towers. A communication tower which has been relocated on a site and which intrudes into the separation distances required with regard to property described in Table 1, section 30.1364, shall only be permitted when written consent as set forth in a recordable instrument is obtained from all property owners within the applicable separation distance. (f) Filing of a master plan. To enhance the County's ability to promote the co -location of communication towers, any communication company that owns or operates a communication tower in the County or intends to install a communication tower in the County shall file with the Planning Division a master plan indicating the site of all existing communication towers, any and all proposed communication tower sites and a statement describing the anticipated communication tower needs over the next ten (10) years; provided, however, that disclosure of marketing strategies, trade secrets, commercially privileged information or any other information that the provider deems would adversely effect his, her or its ability to compete is not required to be disclosed and the determination of the communication company shall be conclusive. The master plan shall be filed on or before January 1 of each year. The master plan is not binding. Its primary purpose is to serve as a mechanism of coordinating co -location of communication towers between persons and entities involved in that industry. (Ord. No. 96-5, § 33, 7-9-96; Ord. No. 00-13, § 54, 2-22-00; Ord. No. 02-53, § 1, 12-10- 02). CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 22, 2004 PAGE 7 OF 33 INFORMATIONAL 304. Public Works Department Advising The City Commission Of The Status Of Various Capital Improvement Projects. There was no discussion on this Agenda Item. "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE INFORMATIONAL AGENDA." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER McLEOD. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR MILLER: AYE COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE MOTION CARRIED. PUBLIC HEARINGS AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS 400. Community Development Department Presents To The City Commission A Request For A Special Exception To Allow An Additional Telecommunications Co -Locator To Place Ground Equipment (Associated With Co -Locating Additional Antennae On An Existing Telecommunications Tower) Within A 100' X 100' Lease Site, Pursuant To Chapter 30 Of The Seminole County Code. Ms. Sahlstrom introduced this Agenda Item and stated, "He did indicate that a Special Exception would be required for the equipment — the additional equipment and facilities that would be located on the ground. The equipment that will be located is actually shorter than the existing fence height. There is actually an error in your Staff Report where it says it's taller than the fence, but the fence is in fact eight feet (8 ) and the existing equipment and future equipment would be less than that. Staff believes that the primary issue is whether this new equipment would be adequately screened. We have been told that there will be no lighting of the Tower; that the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] will not require lighting and that the equipment does not generate any noise and it's not a microwave dish." CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 22, 2004 PAGE 8 OF 33 Ms. Sahlstrom further stated, "The City Arborist made some comments that were given to the Applicant at the - BOA [Board of Adjustment] Meeting. And the Applicant did indicate that he would comply with all the comments. In your packet of materials, you have both what was the initial submittal plus an additional two (2) sheets that were added at the back that show the change of adding more vegetation around that to screen it further. And the Applicant has indicated that they would irrigate this vegetation." Further discussion. Mr. Richard Shirah, Earth Com Services representing Spectra Site, 109 Thompson Cove, Saint Simons Island, Georgia: stated that "The work that we do; we work for a variety of carriers, in this case it's Sprint. One of the first things that they expect us to do when we go out looking for sites is to find something we can co -locate on. In this case this tower was well located for that, because it's fitting in between other sites in the area. So that's the reason this one was chosen. If you go very far away from this, then you defeat the purpose of being there because it's there - to fill in that - hole to provide the coverage for the area - what we would call the Radio Frequency Objective." Discussion. Mayor Bush opened the "Public Input "portion of the Agenda, Item. Ms. Robin Germillion, 1570 Wescott Loop, Winter Springs, Florida: spoke on this Tower being pleasing to the eye, and inquired as to how many additions there could be. Mr. Shirah stated, "When you go to a stealth type, what we call a close mount situation — what you're talking about - of course what's there already has the mounts on it." Mr. Shirah continued, "If you do the close mount, it limits the number of antennas you can use — but, what it does is then limits the capacity of that site, so a typical site you would want to get on there - in this case, they want six (6) antennas, which can be done with what you call `stiff arm mounts'." Next, Mr. Shirah noted, "As far as converting this to some kind of camouflage or stealth structure in the future, that's a very difficult thing to do. I have done quite a number of camouflage towers, pine trees, flag poles, whatever - they need to fit wherever they go - because most places where they have a camouflage tower - there will be a requirement that it be architecturally and aesthetically compatible. In regard to the ground equipment here, we are simply putting in a 14 x 16 pad - concrete pad, for a cabinet type facility. Our cabinet type ground equipment that will be below the level of the fence - as far as the top of that equipment. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 22, 2004 PAGE 9 OF 33 One of the issues that was raised in the BOA [Board of Adjustment] was the noise factor. Sprint — in this case, they are not putting a generator on site. The only time that they would need to do so would be in the case of an emergency and at that time, they have an inventory of portable generators they bring to the site." Furthermore, Mr. Shirah said, "Also, we talked about a drainage issue, and I think some of the neighbors were concerned about - due to the wetness of the area out there that it would cause a problem. We would put in the system so that it would strictly only water the plants that are there; and that was a requirement of your Arborist so we want to comply with that. The reason we did not bring that totally to a head was because we understand there could be potentially a problem with the salinity of the water out there. So, we didn't have quite enough time but we wanted to continue to move forward with this. And, so we need to get our hands on a Landscape Architect in Florida to do the homework that needs to be done to be sure we do this and do it right. In the event that the salinity is a problem, then we've got to find another source of water. And it's a decent distance away from visual observation out there. But what we want to do is regardless - is provide what we need to provide to insure the longevity of the plantings." Manager McLemore said, "My personal recommendation to you would be to Table this Item tonight; and have this gentleman bring in the - photo renderings of the different types of stealth type antennas that go on these posts so that you can see those. If he can't bring them, I have access to them before you make this decision." Manager McLemore further added, "You are trying to limit the obtrusiveness of the antennae that's on the pole itself to surrounding property owners and there are options for doing that and I think you ought to know what those are before you make a decision." Deputy Mayor Miller remarked, "If we go that route, I would also like to see some artist renditions of what - the extension would look like with the antennas- on it." Deputy Mayor Miller commented, "The other thing is, we have an airport just to the north of us - what is the height at which you have to have a beacon on the top?" Mr. Shirah said, "There is no absolute height. Generally speaking, at 200 feet is when we have to go to the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] to request them to verify that there is no determination of a safety hazard; 200 feet is the cut-off point. In this case, we've already done our homework on this, and there will not be any kind of problem with the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration]." Commissioner Blake said, "I do not have any information whatsoever regarding the County's Rural-3 Land Use designation, or the Agricultural-3 Zoning classification. What the requirements are; what is allowed; what is not allowed; what is required to have a Special Exception and Land Use issues of this sort are quite complex and take some time in order for us to comprehend what the rules are prior to making a decision. CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS MINUTES CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - NOVEMBER 22, 2004 PAGE 10 OF 33 What I would recommend, Mr. Manager, and I will make a Motion to this effect, is that your questions about information on different types of Towers, stealthiness of those Towers, issues of that sort; I think are good issues to look at, but before we even get there, I think this Commission needs to hold a Workshop looking at some information on what the County's Land Use rules are, since we are, at this point in time, required to apply their rules to this application. And to not render any decision on this Application until such time that the Commission understands exactly what the Zoning and Land Use requirements are for the County at that location." Mayor Bush closed the "Public Input" portion of the Agenda Item. "I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS APPLICATION AT THIS TIME, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WILL SCHEDULE A WORKSHOP - I THINK IT IS PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE STAFF SOME TIME TO GET ALL THAT TOGETHER, SO I WOULD LIKE TO SCHEDULE A WORKSHOP IN - FEBRUARY, TO REVIEW THE COUNTY'S ZONING AND LAND USE LAWS, SPECIFICALLY AS THEY PERTAIN TO THE PARCEL THAT THIS APPLICATION IS ON; AND AFTER THAT TIME, THEN WE WILL RESCHEDULE THE PUBLIC HEARING." COMMISSIONER BLAKE ADDED, "IT WILL HAVE TO BE RE -ADVERTISED AT THAT TIME AND WE WILL BRING IT UP AGAIN FOR PUBLIC HEARING, AFTER WE HAVE ALL THOSE FACTS, AND CAN REHEAR IT." MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BLAKE. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER McGINNIS. DISCUSSION. VOTE: COMMISSIONER McGINNIS: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: AYE COMMISSIONER McLEOD: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR MILLER: AYE MOTION CARRIED, PUBLIC HEARINGS 401. Community Development Department Requests The City Commission Hold A Public Hearing For Aesthetic Review Of The Barclav Woods Town House Units. Mr. John Reny, 641 North Maitland Avenue, Maitland, Florida: addressed the City Commission and stated, "I also brought in the draft of my HOA [Homeowner's Association] Covenants where I included the Items excluding screened covered porches on those units, and keeping the garage doors closed, and the other issues that I was asked to address." Discussion.