The URL can be used to link to this page

APP00-02-01 o o STAFF ASSISTANT'S CHECK SHEET FOR APPLICATION FILES FILE NUMBER: ~\(\m(\\f\ \:-<\\0 0-!\Q,!' UG ft1P CJ() - OB- -0/ ~ ~ FILE NAME: TYPE OF APPLICATION: PERMIT PLAN NUMBER: DATE RECEIVED: d - ~~(Jt) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DOCUMENT DA TE COMPLETED N/A COMMENTS INCOMPLETENESS LETTER COMPLETENESS LETTER INSUFFICIENCY LETTER: SUFFICIENCY LETTER: ABUTTING PROP. STD. FLEX ONLY OWNERS LETTER DRC LETTER TO APPLICANT: DRC DATE: DRC COVER LETTER: DRC MEMBERS: (as soon as received send individual annlicationsl AHORNEY Leslie Dougall-Sidees ECO. DEV. Lou Hilton SOLID WASTE Jaames Maglio FIRE Randv Hinder ENGrNEERING (2) Mike Quillan Don Melone DEVELP. REVIEW Lisa Fierce Mark ParrY Scott Kurleman Rick Albee PARKS & REC. Debbie Richter EMAIL ENTIRE DRC AGENDA after deadline TO: CYNDI RALPH ASMAR CLERK o o RECOMMENDATION NOT FOR FLEX TO CDB (STAFF ST ANDARD REPORT) DEVELOPMENT STD. FLEX ONLY ORDER: APPLICANT LETTER: STD. FLEX ONLY APPROVAL/DENIAL FLEXIBLE APPLICA TlONS STOP HERE! STANDARD APPLICANT LEITER COB rvlEETING ST AFF REPORT DUE: DATE: AGEl\IUA COB: EMAIL AGENDA TO BRENDA MOSES PACKETS COB: 7 BOARD CITY ATTORNEY COB ATTORNEY 2 CLERK PLAN DIR. ASST PL. DIR. DEV. REV. MGR. DEVELOPMENT FLEXIBLE ORDER DEVELOPMENT. APPEALS ONLY APPROVAL/DENIAL FLEXIBLE & APPEALS LETTER TO APPLICANT: FLEXIBLE DEVELOP- MENT AND APPEALS TO CBD STOP HERE ! LEVEL 3S CONTINUE . , o MP oo~o~-() ( J o CITY OF CLEARW A TER APPLICATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PLANNlNG & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOUIH MYRTLE AVENUE, 2nd FLOOR PHONE (727) 562-4567 FAX (727) 562-4576 III , . ALL APPLICATIONS FOR APPEAL OF LEVEL 1 FLEXIBLE STANDARD APPROVALS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION BEING APPEALED. ALL OTHER APPLICATIONS FOR APPEAL MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE DECISION BEING APPEALED. APPELLANT AND AGENT INFORMATION: MAILING ADDRESS ArrErican InfoAqe, LLC 2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 230, Clearwater, Florida 33762 APELLANT NAME 727-556-0220 FAX NUMBER : 727-556-0417 PHONE NUMBER MAILING ADDRESS E. D. Armstrong III c/o Johnson, Blakely, 9p~pea;~"9{gF, Sm~~~l ~~fiH{~;ep~A~ 33756 AGENT NAME PHONE NUMBER 727-461-1818 FAX NUMBER : 727-441-8617 APPEAL INFORMATION: DECISION BEING APPEALED: IEcision denying the cell tower application for Gulf 1b Bay Boulevard, Clearwater, Florida DATE OF DECISION January 25, 2000 BASIS FOR APPEAL (Use additional sheets if necessary) See attached WITH YOUR APPLICATION PLEASE SUBMIT: A COPY OF THE DECISION BEING APPEALED; NAMES, ADDRESSES AND CURRICULUM VITAE OF ALL EXPERT WITNESSES THAT WILL PRESENT INFORMATION AT THE MEETING; COPY OF THE BASIS FOR THE APPEAL IN THE NATURE OF AN INITIAL BRIEF AND ANY EVIDENCE, INCLUDING TESTIMONY, AND AFFIDAVITS. THE BRIEF MUST AT A MINIMUM STATE ALL GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE LAW BEING APPEALED AND ANY FACTS NECESSARY FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF THOSE LAWS. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SVCS r Lt: Mvv I I, the undersigned, acknowledge that all representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINELLA.~ sw~ to and subscribed before me this ~-tL day of .e.h-;v4.-r'1 I A.D., 1=tt~ to me and/or by n)tfb-e:.Y" ~ k;; )) ;4..)ffS ,who is personally known he! f3reeltlced as O/l(tlktA/ J. IAl J iuvrvVJ Signature of property owner or representative Amber Williams for E. D. Armstrong III JOhnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel .l- o o The Clearwater Land Development Code states that application must be approved, unless an existing tower can accommodate new facilities. In this case, the testimony indicates that no existing tower can accommodate the additional facilities, but instead a brand new tower could be built to potentially address those needs. This is not an existing tower, as required under the Code. In addition, the evidence introduced at the hearing indicates there is a question as to the technological feasibility to have all of the required carriers utilize the new tower. The appeal is based upon the testimony introduced during the hearing, as evidenced by and directly created at all prior hearings. In addition, the Appellant will include the testimony of Land Use Planner, Robert Pergolizzi, AICP, his resume is attached. TO -:------.....~-.,.~--~ ~r,.,"'"". ~___.~...~~~~ 'J' 4418617." p'~ 132 "f :',".. '~., -I .(\ ,,-:... ." ,."," /",,;,"1'- ...\' t'i , ' ..1 !':'11-'" ,i',;~%-,,' ,; '~:r. ,'.f:'-'~ .:.';H ~ , ' ".- y-""~';i r ,~. <t';~' ......J_, ::\' ~;'st :- ....: ..~: .'1; .~',~ .' " ": '., ;Ij,; .' ;;.:.~ f~ .~} ~:.il~/;~ i. ,\.,,' _1: ~~~. I ,,-:: "1\~ . ;,,!" :',~ ;3.:~;. " A .~ ,,", " ROBERT C. PERGOUZZI. AICP VICE PRESIDENTtrRANSPORTATION ro_ I: i; 1=-'i' ;.;). I;', : ' I' i: .., I, I I " i Mr Pergolizzi bas conducted numt:rous transportation studies in Hillsborou~ ~inellas. P~o, Hen1ando: Collier, Sarasota, Lee. M~tee. Polk and Citrus Counties. These studies include site impact #Wyses, traffic engineering and traffic operationS studies, transportation analyses for DRl subinittals. ro~way capacity analyses and alternative corridor(alignment studies. He also prepares signal warrant stu~s and plans in accordance with MUTCD and MUTS procedures. Mr. Pcrgolizzi has also served as,a ~FtatiOn planner with the HilIsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization where he conducted n~ero1:1S studies and prepared reports to assess traffic impacts of amendments to the long-nmge transporta~~n plan. He is familiar with the latest ttansportation software including FSUTMS, Highway Capacity S~are (HCS), FDOT Capacity Software, SIGNAL94', SOAP, PASSER TRANSYT -7F and CINCH. ! ' I: I' ! : I. ! SUMMARY OF EXPEtuENCE :~ .(y I, I ,/ ". "/ ',; ,;. I I " I REL~V ANT EXPERIENCE Significant projects in which Mr; Pergolizzi played a key role include: leeT Center DR] Traffic Analysis - Pinellas County I !.; i I: i: ! i: I' I I I: i' I, ! : i; ! i i. I ; i, I ! : i: i' I: I: r. i' ; I : I I I 'j I I DR! Traffic: Studies Northwood DR! Traffic Analvsis Summerfield Crossing DR! Biannual Traffic Analysis Park Place DR! Traffic Analvsis: - Clearwater Salt SDrinf:S Run DR! Traffic Analysis - Pasco County '/ I Timber Pines South DR! Traffic: Analvsis - Pasco Countv Timber riDes DR! Exnshslon - Hernando County L vml Turner Road - HiHsboro~h Countv ! : , " I ,I , I : I 'i i' ,[ i i i Roadway Corridor Planning/Alternative Systems Studies CR 48 Extension - Citrus Coun~ I' Drew Street - Cle8rwater Belcher Road Extension - Pinella... County i' ! ; . . ,~ ;. '. ,/~:.. &~..,.;".~;. . :t~ ",. ..~ ;:':' ~1}1":~"" . .~ po: . .,', ~- ... .' - ~"","..,c':.' "02;?"04-=-;~~~ 'i;~~:'j0;;ti"'S~FROM ~;~~::::~.. D;;; '1;:~=eti~s ~~ ~.- -., ,"~~~ ill ~:. .....} \, 'li~ rr ..,.' ... - .'_ '. ~.""__ .iF. _. +t ..!t,;.. ."i' 1. . ~~... .. ~ ':<,:.:~/:.~,~:},~i~~:~;,~i,t.~,~.~'" . ;" ~,,:;,; ':,;,:' i. ;, { ,:.; .1" I-l~,~ 'L.1I ~ \ Keene Road (eR 1) Extension' - Pinellas COtm~ . ~I ';.'~'" "i-. -'. "~1' .. .... .,.. ""..,: ;':;' ... J :'v-....:...~i<. ~ '; CR 44/CR 486 Connector Road - Ci1rus County ~. ......... ~...-.-.;-.... ~~ ~ ~,,_...---:' - ,.. . 4418617 J:.l1!3 .0 ;. 1''- '.~; -!t- ;., i ,O'-I' . ~/, i I. .Ai Garden St~te Parkway Comprehensive Pl~ - New Jersev i I. i Atl~tic City"ExpresswavlR~ute 30 Connector - New Jerne", ';!. ~ City of Tarpon SDrin~s Traffic Circulation Element Update - Tarpon..Sprin~s Traffic: Operations Studies ..... .. '. i. MFa TransnortatiQn Plan Amendment S~dies - Preparation of numerous studies (Westsh~ Bo~evard; Sligh Avenue, Lakewood Drive, Lutz E/W Road, Park. Road Extension. Ehrlich Road ~~on) for . roadway plan amendments." .' . ! ! I Bell Shoals RoadIBrooker RQad Intersection ImDrovernents - Hillsborough CouTitv' ! i ! I i I I i i' I Bruce B. Downs Boulevard/Lake.Forest Drive Intersection Improvements - HilIsboroul!h qountV U.s. 301/Palm River Road Intersection Im1'1'ovements - Hillsborough County Bell Shoals Roa.dlRosemead Lane Intersection Improvements - Hillsborough County .' . i. : Starkey Road/126th AvenUe Si~a1 Warrant Analvsis - PineIlas County - Conducted a trafiiel~ignal warrant analysis in accordance with MUTeD procedures. Established optimal signal timings and coriducted arterial analysis using HeM procedures. . i . . I ! tDro~on Road C~mcurrencv Traffic Analvsis - PineUas County - Detailed traffic operations ~ysis of 1.2.- mile segment ofUlmenon Road between W. Roosevelt Boulevard and E. Roosevelt Boulerarcl ' Bayshore Boulevard ~oncurrencv Traffic Analysis - Dunedin i. I I. U.S. 19 Concurrencv Analvsis - Pinellas Count"{ - Prepared a traffic analysis to demonstrate ~g levels of service on U.S. 19 in northern Pinellas County. The work effort included HeM intersecti9DS and arterial. analysis and report preparation recommending intersection improvements. : Venetian Residential Development - Sarasota County WaI-MartlSam's Club - Traffic studies for rezoning and FOOT permits for numerous facili~es in ipinellas~ Hillsbot'Ough, Pasco, Manatee, SaIasot3., Lee and Collier Counties Morton Plant Hospital Master Plan - Clearwater Camt'us ; . PaIm Harbor Vrriversitv Hi~ School - Pinellas County T ,_... r F " ..:t".' .~, ./ )": '1"') 7'8: '" '" .:~" ~~' i 0'; 'L .,\'01 t1 '.t.- "'>.' :'1'''.' h", "if . .~. ," "~>' . '" y~ l.-t;" " 't ;" "-.,. ili 'Pe- ;} .~..J " ft. ]j,t .;~ i: ~~ ", .~ ~ I " . .'1 I I : I : I .1 I ! ! i I I I I I I : I i I i I I : i I I .1 I I I i I ! i I .1 I I . \ i I : ! ; i ! : i . 7' .-~ .,..-~ -"'-I!I'""~ '"'?l~~M"~.i,:~1 ,'., .~"T':a;:>""'~7~""~~~'"r'"~__E"_' . 02-04-200002:31PM. FROM' Fl;"-ida Desis,,"Consultnt,'S "';,.TO, '.' ..' .... ~5J i ,7'::1 '.il o' ',';;' "'.:..~.,. .'- '.".' ~,~ ,- .~. r _ __ . -,J.:'~'..... :. ... ~ -,. ',.",,' "".,,~:/..'..'A.:~f;" :."'.......;.,.,i: ,.'.>.:.;~...J.~ _"',,.," \.'~ '.~ -'.'7.'~.;'_",.:f\;~"" t "<1''l :>o:...~ ~ r-:: '//- r. _ , "'f . "';'} '_.. ,,<, v:':',- ~.' """;~.4\,:~j~ ;-::;,?, ':.;' .... <:',;y,/' l( ,;:, ~- X ~h:. ' ~ ';..;.; '"\J.t ~ \ ;;~'~>- ! y' ",_~P~ w' _ t :r eo ',.!:. ~::.lj :x McMullen Booth Elementarv School -'~~enas Countl; ;j ..~;t-~.:,~.~;~ .~ ''.'It'I ','T",!'l ,"" ....~'~f.. '~~~~~"'~.":"'..!'o:o-:"-"~' \' 441861 7';'1;.p .04 . '. .. " -,;.:;'.. "" .'.~ ... .. ,. - ,<~> ,..,--:,.... if' ,,' -, 1".: ,'f~' I,"' ~. .~ ~ .~' ,.-',~ ...",i":;~).,~~ .:~> .trl'::~:':', ,:,,~/ =y -, ,,' .~,.: ..,~.... :,,~.;~ '. ,'. '~, .. "- ::/ . Ai:, .;i "'~'" ." , .' . . -?~, t:~:;~;,"-._ if ...;: "~'\ .~, . i.'" .- r. -. - If?' 'Street ~iddle ScbooJ.- Pinelias Cmmtv- .,- .,' ~. !'.-;.~f.' , ' : i rl'~ h .f . i :, ., EDUCATION .;~. :- Mast~ of City and Regiopal Planning~ Rutgers University, 1987 . '. i' ,..' .. . Bachelor of Arts. Environmental and Urban Studies, Montclair St~te' Coli'ege, 1985 ' ";.i, .' ~"" . >>,L',' .' ,: . '" - -' -_.' .(', - ~.... Successful completion of 128 hours ofttaining conducted by the Federal Highway Adminis1::ri1tioI;l and the Florida Department ofT ransportation on Urban Systems Modeling, TraI;lSportation Planning and Site IXnpa.ct ~YSB ~- Graduate course work in Traffic Eng~eering, University of South.F1opda .:'< , \ "". .i vi I J . ! AWARDS , r;: :.. .j 1~90 Florida Institute of Transportation J?ngineers Past Presidents Award for Technical P~er submittal Unsl'V1slized Intersection Analvsis on Florida's Divided Arterials . . i i I I . ! MEMBERSHIP IN PROFESSIONAL ORGANTZA TIONS American Institute of Certified Planners Institute ofTnmsportation Engineers American Planning Association Tampa Bay FSUTMS Users Group I i .; " : , I . ; i i I :! i I I I ! '. j I : I ; j ,. , ~. " , J. " ~. ,( ;" ,t" ,'. ".:1.... or ~.~~. '", :.' , ~.;,'c",'I.~~./\' ;"'/-:' ,: ;':5,,:/, " . ....'~ TqTA~ P :1214', '~ ..; ~~. i\ /:t; .,::;;J;. ':o~'~~ ;'1,~;~. " Receipt No: 1199815215 0 0 Date: 2/10/2000 Line Items: Case No Tran Code Description Revenue Account No. Amount Due -FLEX STND Flexible Standard - 26,500.00 @ $0.01 010-341262 $265.00 Payments: Method Payer Bank No Acct Check No Amount Paid Check JOHNSON BLAKELY POPE BOKOR RUPPEL BURNS 13812 $265.00 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: $265.00 .. ( . FEB.l0'00 1 FEB.08'00 1 CU/VAR 265.00 MISe 100.00 TOTl 265.00 TOll 100.00 CHCK 265.00 CHCK 100.00 NQ1233 15:14 A NQ1125 14:56 A F\LE ArP-'(JJ .. Oz-o J OCT-13-2000 15:15 ~TY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE a 7275624021 P.01 t' FAX MESSAGE City of Clearwater, Florida Office of the City Attorney Phone Number (727) 562A010 Fax Number (727) 562-4021 TO: Cyndi Hardin and Mark Parry LOCA TION: Planning FAX NO.: 4576 FROM: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides. Assistant City Attorney DATE: October 13, 2000 TIME: NUMBER OF PAGES OF THIS MESSAGE (INCLUDING THIS PAGE): 3 MESSAGE: Attached for your information and file is a faxed copy of the Release of Claims between the City of Clearwater and American Infoage, L.L.C., dated September 27,2000. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLEARWATER OCT-13-2000 15:15 CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE "'wr -. -- ~.. . . ( ) . St;..lT"'~D lI~a' fr.....~ I\.AI5i.~. IIIU....O Q 7275624021 P.02 -l5' '.OZIDI F-'" RELfASIOF CLAIM' KNOW ALL MP BY TtESE PRESENTS. mat ,he ~tgnud does hereby agree that in 8~9el far prompt jnuance of deVIIOPmeJ\' OIUI'I and permit& regarding AppllcaliDn NO. VAR1998-f2008. FIEOObIe oev"l~ Order to construct .. 160 foot tall telecomrnunlcallan tower and nda18Q 1ad1l\1tS on the property Iocat8d gt 505 VlJVini8 Lane. and Aiel ot'denl tlnd permits being 1tub)eCt ~ '*'dItIotll1..7. a recommended by erN lla" In the Staff R.,~)l't dated July 2D. 1&89. wticn D8nefit " 1CI:e~ iO full comprom.. seulement iand s~an Of. and " soI& co~tkm foc, all Cl3iml. M dOeS finally telOa$e and diKharge all dana. c:~ P dem.nd& for damages of whelcver d~ that now extst. or may here after .ccrue. ba8ccI on actions or omlH~s Defore the date of th;t ReIeaH. againtt CITY Of cLEARWATER. Including iI5 ,~1eS _ agen\$, for d.mBg8S to the property ar rigt!h .pt ~CAN tNFOAGE, L.L.C., and the eoM8qwenc;M flowtng ~. 1$ I resul! of pcm-nit _~catlon No. VAR1999-F2008. its praeesllng by CITY and its ag&ftts and ernployMI. ;onlideration by thtt communi&y Development &oint. and ~uent actioM. .... for which the undfnlgned diims tho erN OF CleARWATER is 1egl(11 i.- In cSlIrMg8G, which legal nabilaly 8ftd damages .,. .puled and drJnied. anOi The undCftJQne4 8CldllionaHy ag~ that no further 8di8n or appeal will be filed by eithet per1y In P'wision of AdMinltitralive .....ringS case No. oo-oeee. ancs that Ult undersigned wUl \,t)nh\Mlh dl1miss wfth prejucSicO ~ lnfaalJ8, l.l.C, v. The CU- 9' Clearoter, case No. 8:DQ.CV.3Ge-T-23F. cumtntlv pendina in the United States DistriGt CGwrt for V10 Mlddll! Ci8l~ of fElo~ and. The unul1:igNd w."rel"ts, aha' no promise at' indur:em.m has been offer8d a~ .s h8t8in &et toM; 1"M tftls ReklaM if executed wi&t1o\lt reuance upon .ny statemenC or , ro.",ltCntatlgtt by lhe ,.rwn or peMt relee:led cat ChGIr rep,...,.th,el. ,"OflQtrnlng UW , . "'-, '/ --,- ~~T-.~~-2000 15: 16 CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE . () S,,.tT~OO 16:01 Fr..JOMSG( IUR.:! IIJZZ415111 <::) 7275624021 I-a, '.01103 F-". P.03 ,..,,.. and exteO'l of the damages and/or legaIlilbifJey tntrtfcre that U. undersigned is of rea" .. legally comp.tent and authoriied to 8XGQItI 1tA1 ReIHS8 and lICCfPtS tull ..ponsi~Ii\Y therefore. ~"Jh. Signed and ..._ 1",,27 1Ioy 01 JrtS . Florida. " 2000, at Q/~- ~ STATE OF FLOM)A COUNTY Of ,j~r,-';cJ1-a..:s 8EFORE ME thi$ J7..~day of Sl.pfc.mIJ-LV~ 2000, came M ,'/ (e V C!oo par 0" knawn to me to ~ the imtividUl1 Who exacutBd this ReJease and acknowledgCld U'IQt ~ fuJly IM'del"ltands ill colftnt& IiInd frae~ ~ same for the 'Ole~ ;on&~~#l8f8in~UPreued' f ~ ~ QAlL~ ~ MlcbAGCII't' ~ Pua~~C, FlOtida (f W MY~Zl t:n ~ ftI.-Ir./t./4.. A. G6..rtj;f . ;....... ...-.. (Print. lyJ:I.. or ~mp name 0' N 14. PeIIOnllly known ta m., or 1 ) ProdUced identiftcatlon TVpe of identiflC8tiOn praduced; My eommi'~ion ..te$: IYlWf ~~ I ~i a_6 r 10) ,[E (C [E ~ %7 [E f[-; lfuj lie I [ 3 2000 :~~ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CITY OF CLEARWATER TOTAL P. 03 S~~-01-2000 16:27 ~TY RTTORNEY'S OFFICE o 7275624021 P.01 STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS flEellWD SEP 0 1 ZOOO ~'rrO'RNEY , AMERI CAN INFOAGE, LLC, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) ) CITY OF CLEARWATER, ) .) Respondent. ) ) FU.' Case No. 00-0999 FINAL ORDER Administrative Law Judge (IIALJII) Daniel Manry conducted the administrative hearing in this case on June 29, 2000, in Clearwater, Florida. APPEARANCES For Petitioner: Darryl R. Richards, Esquire Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel and Burns, P.A. Post Office Box 1100 Tampa, Florida 33601 For Respondent: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, Esquire Assistant City Attorney Post Office Drawer 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE The issue in this case is whether the decision of the City of Clearwater Community Development Board (the "Board") to deny the application of Petitioner for flexible development approval to erect a telecommunications tower should be upheld pursuant to the City of Clearwater Land Development Code (the "Code"). (All section references are to the Code adopted on January 21, 1999, unless otherwise stated) . Fax # f"ax# SEP~01-2000 16:27 <::}Y ATTORNEY'S OFFICE o 7275624021 P.02 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT On January 25, 2000, the Board voted to deny Petitioner's application to erect a telecommunications tower and entered a written order on February 29, 2000. On February 8, 2000, Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Appeal. On March 1, 2000, Respondent referred the appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAR") to conduct an administrative hearing. At the hearing, the parties agreed to the admission of Joint Exhibit One. Joint Exhibit One includes the audio tapes, minutes, exhibits, and transcripts from the proceeding before the Board. Petitioner presented the testimony of two witnesses, including one by deposition, "and submitted 27 exhibits for admission in ev~dence. Respondent presented the testimony of two witnesses and submitted three exhibits for admission in evidence. The identity of the witnesses and exhibits, and any attendant rulings, are set forth in the Transcript of the hearing filed on July 14, 2000. Petitioner timely filed its Proposed Final Order ("PFO") on July 25, 2000. Respondent timely filed its PFO On JulY.24J 2000. Resp?ndent's objection to the admissibility of the deposition testimony of Mr. Joseph Feraca is sustained for the reasons stated in Respondent's written objection. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Petitioner is a Florida corporation engaged"in the business of building telecommunication towers for co-location of 2 SEP",-01-2000 15: 28 <::)Y RTTORNEY'S OFFICE o 7275524021 P.03 antennae to send and receive cellular telephone signals. Proper location of telecommunication towers is essential to efficient , and effective cellular telephone communications., There must be an available tower to pick up the signal as a user moves from a distant tower to the available tower. Without an available tower, the user would lose signal. 2. It is undisputed that three telephone carriers, identified in the record as GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo, need an available tower in the vicinity of Clearwater High School (the "high school"). Another telephone carrier, identified in'the record as AT&T, shares an existing tower at the high school with the pinellas County School Board (the IIschool boardll) . 3. No reasonable use can be made by GTE, Nextel, or PrimeCo of the existing tower 'at the high school without modification to the tower. The existing tower is not adequate in height and structural capacity to meet the requirements of GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo. 4. The school board and AT&T repeatedly rejected efforts by ----- -- GTE, Nextel, and Petitioner to discuss the possibilities of modification of the existing tower to accommodate co~location. In 1996, AT&T advised GTE that the school board was not ... .------ - interested in co-location activity. The school board repeated .-- -- - ~ --- - that position in a separate meetinq with GTE. .~ -- - -- 5. GTE and PrimeCo searched for over two years for an alternative structure, tower, or location that would provide reasonable use for their technical requirements. In 1997, GTE 3 SEP~01-2000 16:28 <::)Y ATTORNEY'S OFFICE o 7275624021 P.04 requested a permit from Respondent to build a new tower approximately two blocks from the existing tower at the high , school. Respondent contacted the superintendent.of the school board to encourage co-location. Respondent did not issue a permIt to GTE for a new tower. 6. Early in 1998, GTE and PrimeCo approached Petitioner to locate a site for construction of a new tower in the vicinity of the high school. . Over the next eight months, Petitioner searched for a suitable site for building a new tower. Petitioner found a site surrounded by commercial property and bordered by mature trees which are 20 to 40 feet tall. On October 13, 1998, Petitioner optioned the portion of the property on which Petitioner intended to build the tower, and Petitioner now owns the property. 7. On May 17, 1999, Petitioner filed its application for site plan approval. The application proposed the construction of a 160-foot wireless communications tower for co-location by GTE, Nextel, and Prime Co (the "proposed towertr). Petitioner sent a - notice of the proposed tower to Mr. Kevin Becker at AT&T. --' ~ 8. The staff for the Board conducted a technical review of the application. The staff recommended~~of the application subject to certain conditions. petitioner complied with each of those conditions. 9. The staff also recommended approval by the Development Review Committee (the "DRCrr). The DRC must review each application before it is submitted to the Board. The staff 4 SE~-01-2000 16:28 <::JY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE o 7275624021 P.05 report to the DRC stated that the existing tower at the high school.was the only other tower in the area and was in poor ~ condition. The report found that the tower cannot structurally hold more weight and cannot accept more antennae. 10. Before the Board reviewed the application, Nextel again contacted Mr. Becker at AT&T to discuss modification of the , ~isting tower for co-location of Nextel's antenna. Mr. Becker ... responded for AT&T with a terse e-mail that stated, IIThis is the ---- :>. THIRD TIME I~vp told NQxt~ . . tower is not availa~ for anyone." 11. The Board conducted five hearings to review the application by Petitioner. The hearings spanned six months. The Board conducted the first hearing on July 20, 1999, a second hearing on October 5, 1999, a third hearing on November ~6, 1999, a fourth hearing on December 14, 1999, and the last hearing on January 25, 2000. 12. The Board did not follow the staff recommendation at the first hearing. After hearing testimony and receiving other evidence, the Board continued the first hearing, in relevant. part, to "allow the City to do whatever it may want to do in terms of addressing that issue." The Board directed Petitioner to contact the school board concerning the condition of the tower and directed the City Planning Director to also contact the school board. 13. After the July hearing, Petitioner contacted the school ---i board concerning the existing tower. Neither the school board 5 _r SEP~01-2000 16:29 o <::}Y ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 7275624021 P.06 , nor AT&T had any plans for modification of the existing tower at the high school. The City Planner conducted an independent inquiry and determined that there is not much of. a desire on the part of the school board or AT&T to "create other opportunities at this time." 14. Petitioner and the City Planner reported their findings to the Board at the second hearing conducted on October 5, 1999. No one from the school board or AT&T appear~d at the hearing. 15. Petitioner presented an engineering study concerning the inadequacy of the existing tower at the high school. One Board member asked whether a new tower could be constructed at the high school to replace the existing tower. Petitioner and the Board's attorney stated that the Code encourages the use of existing towers. rather than new towers. The. Board continued the hearing over objection from Petitioner so that City representatives could contact school board representatives at a higher level and also allow consideration of a new tower at the high school. 16. After the October hearing, the City Manager contacted the superintendent of schools to discuss the tower at the high school. On November 10, 1999, the superintendent stated that he would meet with city representatives only if AT&T representatives were also present. The superintendent eventually met with the City Manager without the presence of an AT&T representative. The superintendent indicated a willingness to consider modification of the existing tower but no agreement was reached due to the. 6 SEP-01-2000 16:29 ~TY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE o 7275624021 P.07 absence of AT&T participation. Another Board member prevailed ~n ~ imes to make a decision without success. the 17. the third hearing on November 16, 1999. Representatives from GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo testified at the hearing. Modification to the existing tower at the high school would accommodate one of the three companies but not the other two. The proposed tower is the only tower that would accommodate all three companies. The proposed tower is necessary to provide effective and efficient service to the customers of GTE, Nextel, and primeCo. GTE has been at a competitive disadvantage since 1996. The Board voted to approve Petitioner's application. ~8. The Board conducted a fourth hearing on December 14, 1999. At'that hearing, the Board voted to reconsider Petitioner's application on the ground that the Board had received timely requests for reconsideration from an interested the position of the school board and AT&T concerning their party. The Board determined that Petitioner had misrepresented willingness to modify the existing tower at the high school. 19. The catalyst for the Board's reconsideration was a letter from Mr. Becker, dated September 16, 1999, stating that AT&T was willing to consider co-location. Mr. Becker sent a copy of the letter to the Board the day after the Board approved Petitioner's application. The letter stated that AT&T was very interested in considering co-location with other carriers but that the existing tower at the high school was inadequate for the 7 SEP.-01-2000 16:29 <::JY RTTORNEY'S OFFICE o 7275624021 P.08 purpose. The letter represented that AT&T'would be willing to discuss replacement of the tower with other carriers. Petitioner , had never seen the letter prior to the Board's approval and had no knowledge of the change in position by AT&T. 20. The Board conducted a final hearing of Petitioner's application on January 25, 2000. The Board considered the letter from Mr. Becker and a letter from legal counsel for AT&T. Both letters stated that the existing tower does not have the structural capacity to add additional wireless antennae. A staff member for the Board again concluded that the term "existing" meant a tower in existence at that time. Respondent's expert confirmed that the existing tower, without reconstruction, was not a reasonable alternative to the tower proposed by Petitioner. Mr. Becker testified that AT&T was not proposing to modify the existing tower to accommodate the proposed antennae needed by GTE, Nextel, and primeCo and that the existing tower was beyond reinforcement to accommodate additional loading. 21. The Board denied Petitioner's application. The Board found that the existing tower Itcan be modified to accommodate carriers and thus reasonable use may be made of the existing tower. " 22.' The evidence does not support a finding that the existing tower can be modified to accommodate GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo. To do so, the existing tower would need to be replaced rather than modified. Reasonable use of the existing tower cannot be accomplished by modification. 8 SEP.-01-2000 16:30 <::JY RTTORNEY'S OFFICE o 7275624021 P.09 23. Replacement of the existing tower with a new tower would not provide reasonable-use of the II existing" tower. As a , threshold matter, an interference study would be. necessary before a determination could be made that the replacement tower would accommodate all of the carriers. PrimeCO cannot commit to the replacement tower until the interference study is completed. In addition[ there are other problems. 24. AT&T proposes to place seven carriers on the replacement tower. That configurat.o uld not provide adequate coverage to each carrier. A would be required in ( the "short term." 25. AT&T's proposed location of each antenna on the replacement tower would reduce the amount of coverage that is . - available to each carrier on the tower proposed by Petitioner. Petitioner's proposal locates GTE at 155 feet to accommodate GTE's technical needs. AT&T would locate GTE no higher than 120 feet thereby substantially reducing the area served by GTE. If GTE is located at 120 feet, GTE would need to construct another ---">. tower a mile away in order to obtain the coverage achieved at 155 --lo feet in Petitioner's proposal. 26. The replacement tower proposed by AT&T imposes additional limitations on AT&T's competitors. It requires GTE to reduce the size of its antenna to four feet from the eight-foot -7 \l antenna in Petitioner's application. AT&T imposes a similar reduction on Nextel and requires Nextel to agree to a "compromising antennall to co-locate on the replacement tower. 9 5EP-01-2000 16:30 ~TY RTTORNEY'5 OFFICE o 7275624021 P.10 27. The continuances ordere~ by the Board delayed construction of the tower proposed by Petitioner. If Petitioner , had received approval of the application in July. 1999, Petitioner could have had its proposed tower in service by January 2000. The delay has placed GTE, Nextel, and Primeco at a competitive disadvantage. 28. As of the date of the administrative hearing, AT&T had not begun construction of the replacement tower. The school board has the right to approve any co-locat~on agreements for the replacement tower proposed by AT&T. AT&T has not submitted any co-location agreements for school board approval. 29. Board policy considers the timeliness of a replacement -- tower as one factor in determining whether the replacement tower is "feasible" or a "reasonable alternative" within the meaning of Section 3-2.001D.l. A replacement tower that would require more than one year to construct is neither feasible nor a reasonable alternative. 30. Neither the Board nor its staff enunciates any intelligible standards for adopting a one-year time limit or for applying a one-year time limit, including any standard for identifying the starting point of the one-year limit. For example, petitioner first applied for approval on May 17, ~999. The Board began the one-year period for determining feasibility of the AT&T replacement tower on September 10, 1999. Respondent failed to explicate why it started the one-year period on September la, 1999, rather than the date of application. 10 SEP-01-2000 16:31 <::)TY RTTORNEY'S OFFICE o 7275624021 P.ll 31. The limitations imposed by AT&T for co-location on the replacement tower and the continuances imposed by the Board, individually and severally, comprise a Illegitimate limiting -->-- factorl1 within the meaning of Section 3-2001.D.l.g. The """--- limitations and continuances have the effect of placing GTE, Nextel, and primeCo at a competitive disadvantage and also have the effect of discriminating against the three companies in violation of Section 3-2001A. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 32. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Section 4- 505. The parties were duly noticed for the hearing. 33. The burden of proof is on Petitioner. Section 4-505, in relevant part, provides: . C. The burden shall be upon the appellant to show that the decision of the community development board cannot be sustained by the evidence before the board and before the hearing officer, or that the decision of the board departs from the essential requirements of law. (emphasis supplied) 34. Section 4-S05C authorizes reversal of the decision of the Board if Petitioner shows either that the decision cannot be sustained by the evidence or that the decision departs from the essential requirements of law. Section 4-505 does not prescribe the evidentiary standard by which Petitioner must satisfy its burden of proof. 35. Petitioner satisfied both disjunctive requirements of -- the burden of proof prescribed in Section 4-505. Petitioner 11 ., SEP.-01-2000 16:31 <::JY RTTORNEY'S OFFICE o 7275624021 P.12 showed by clear and convincing evidence that the decision of the Board cannot be sustained by the evidence and that the decision ~ departs from the essential requirements of law. 36. Section 3-2001, in relevant part, provides: D. Telecommunications towers. l. Joint use of existing telecommunications towers . is required as an alternative to new tower construction whenever feasible. Therefore, anyone considering new tower construction, must first explore other options. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for a new tower, a determination must be made that no existing tower or other structure is available as a reasonable alternative. An applicant requesting a permit for a new tower shall submit evidence to the city that supports a conclusion that nO reasonable UBe can be made of any existing tower or structure. The evidence shall clearly establish one or more of the following conditions: (emphasis supplied) a. No existing tower or structure is located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's coverage requirements. b. Existing towers or structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements. c. Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed ~ntenna and related . equipment. d. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with or would be interfered with by other antennas if place on any existing.tower or structure. e. The fees, costs or contractual provisions required by the owner in order to share an existing tower or structure for a time period of 25 years, [sic] exceed the cost of developing a new tower. 12 5Ep'-01-2000 16:31 <::JY 8TTORNEY'5 OFFICE o 7275624021 P.13 f. It is not financially feasible to modify or replace an existing tower to accommodate the proposed antenna. g. The applicant demonstrates that there are other legitimate limiting factors that render existing towers and structures unsuitable. 37. The evidence clearly established the presence of one or more of the conditions that must be present for the approval of an application to construct a new tower. It is uncontroverted that the existing tower at the high school is not of sufficient height or structural strength, within the meaning of Section 3- 2001D.l.b and c., to accommodate co-location of an additional sufficient height location for the GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo antenna. Petitioner showed by clear and convincing evidence that the replacement tower proposed by AT&T would not provide antennae within the meaning of Section 3-2001D.l.b. 38. The evidence clearly established that there are other legitimate limiting factors that render the replacement tower proposed by AT&T unsuitable within the meaning of Section 3- 2001D.l.g. The seven antennae proposed by AT&T would not provide adequate coverage to ~ach carrier and would necessitate at least " one additional tower. The absence of an interference study prevents primeCo from committing to a replacement tower and may require primeCo to build another tower. AT&T's location of GTE no higher than 120 feet on the replacement tower and reduction of antenna size from eight to four feet would substantially reduce the area served by GTE and would require GTE to build a second tower within one mile of the replacement tower. Similar 13 SEp'-01-2000 16:32 <::JY RTTORNEY'S OFFICE o 7275624021 P.14 reductions to the antenna of Nextel would enhance Nextel's need for an additional tower. , 39. Petitioner showed by clear and convincing evidence that the decision of the Board departed from the essential requirements of law within the meaning of Section 4-505C. Section 3-2001, in relevant part, provides: A. Purpose and goals. The purpose of this division is to establish general standards for ~he siting of telecommunications towers and antennas. The goals are to encourage the use of existing structures as an alternative to new tower construction, to encourage the joint use of new towers, to encourage the design and construction of towers and antennas which minimize the adverse visual impacts, and to enhance the ability of providers of telecommunications services to furnish such services with the city quickly, effectively and efficiently. It is not the intent of the city to discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, or to prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 40. The evidence clearly established that the replacement tower proposed by AT&T would not enhance the ability of GTE, Nextel, and prirneCo to furnish services within .the city quickly, effectively, and efficiently within the meaning of Section 3- 2.00lA. Conversely, the evidence clearly established that the tower proposed by Petitioner would enhance the ability of those__________ / providers to furnish such services. 4l. For reasons stated in paragraph 38, the evidence clearly established that the replacement tower proposed by AT&T would encourage the construction of additional towers by GTE, Nextel, and ~rimeCoin violation of the goals prescribed in 14 ~P-01-2000 16:32 <::>TY RTTORNEY'S OFFICE o 7275624021 P.15 Section 3-2001A. Conversely, the evidence clearly established that the tower proposed by Petitioner would encourage the use of the proposed tower by reducing the need of GTE, Nextel, and primeCo for additional towers. 42. The evidence clearly established that the continuances ordered by the Board did not enhance the ability of GTE, Nextel, and primeCo to furnish services within the city quickly, effectively, and efficiently. The continuances delayed construction of the tower proposed by Petitioner. If Petitioner had received approval of the application in July 1999, Petitioner could have had its proposed tower in service by January 2000. The continuances ordered by the Board and the significant limitations imposed by AT&T for the replacement tower had the effect of placing GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo at a competitive disadvantage and also had the effect of discriminating among providers within the meaning of Section 3-2001A. The competitive disadvantage is underscored by the failure of the Board to ......--- explicate any intelligible standard for application of the one- . ----- year time limit for a~ailability of the replacement tower. ...... 43. The Code does not define the term lIexisting.1I The Code provides in Section 8-101N that words not defined ~n the Code "shall have the meaning indicated by common dictionary definition. 11 The replacement tower is not an existing tower because it does not have lIactual or real beingll and is not .--- IIpresent . . in a certain place. 11 The American Heritaqe Dictionary, Second College Edition, 475 (Houghton Mufflin Company 15 SEf-01-2000 16:33 <::fY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE o 7275624021 P.16 1982). The Board is bound by the express terms or its own ordinance. Carroll v. City of Miami Beach, 198 So. 2d 643, 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), rev. denied, 545 So. 2d 1366. (1989). 44. The Board's determination that a replacement tower is an "existing" tower departs from the essential requirements of law. When the Board defined an "existing" tower to mean a replacement tower, the Board construed the term "existing" in a ',- manner other than its common ordinary meaning; inserted ~ ~ additional terms not found in the express terms of the ordinancej --"' - and thereby departed from the ess~nr;~1 rpT'irements of la~ c----- Mandalstam v. City Commission of the city of South Miami, 539 So. 2d 1139, 1140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). Zoning laws are in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed in favor of a property owner such as Petitioner. rd. 45. The decision of the Board departed from the essential requirements of law by engaging in ~ parte communications in violation of Section 4-206D.3. Section 4-206D.3. provides: . Except as provided in this subsection, no member of the . . . board. . shall engage in any ex parte communications with any ~erson in regard to the substance of a. quasi-judicial matter which is to be considered by the board. (emphasis supplied) a. MeIDbers of the. . board may conduct personal investigations and site visits regard [sic] to a quasi-judicial pending [sic] before them provided that the existence of such investigation is disclosed at a public hearing and made a part of the record before final action on the matter. 16 Sqf-01-2000 16:33 <::JY RTTORNEY'S OFFICE o 7275624021 P.17 46. The Board went far beyond the personal investigation and site visit authorized in Section 4-206D.3.a. Board members engaged in ex parte communications with the supe+intendent of schools without allowing Petitioner to be present to cross- examine the evidence obtained by the Board. Such ex parte communications violated Section 4-206D.3., as well as fundamental notions of the due process right to cross-examine evidence that the trier of fact will consider in determining the substantial interests of Petitioner. FINAL ORDER Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that the decision of the Board is reversed, and the application of Petitioner is approved. DONE AND ORDERED this~day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. D~6 Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings. The' DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Divisio~of Administrative Hearings this 3~ay of August, 2000. 17 SEf-01-2000 16:33 <::JY RTTORNEY'S OFFICE o 7275624021 P.18 COPIES FURNISHED: ~ Darryl R. Richards, Esquire Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel and Burns, P.A. Post Office Box 1100 Tampa, Florida 33601 Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, Esquire Assistant city Attorney Post Office Drawer 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 Cynthia Goudeau, City Clerk city of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618 NOTICE'OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section ~20.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Agency Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. 18 TOTRL P.18 <4' o LL >- t- u City Attorney's Office Interoffice Correspondence Sheet TO: Ralph Stone, Planning, Housing and Neighborhood Services Director Cyndi Hardin, Planning Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney (#it SUBJECT: American Infoage, LLC, DOAH 00-0999 FROM: DATE: March 27, 2000 Attached for your records is a photocopy of the Notice of Hearing scheduled for Thursday, June 29, 2000, at 9:00 a.m. at City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room. You have been listed as a witness in the above matter and your appearance at the Hearing is required. I would appreciate confirmation from you that you have received this memo. Should there be any problem regarding your attendance at the above hearing, please contact me at 4018. Your cooperation in this regard will be greatly appreciated. LDS/grh f(Y~~~~~~ ~! \~<\ ~II U U~8?nnn I, PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN1 SERVICES CITY OF CLEARWATER i o o STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS RECEIVED MAR 2 7 2000 CITY ATTOFINEY AMERICAN INFOAGE, LLC, Petitioner, vs. Case No. 00-0999 CITY OF CLEARWATER, Respondent. NOTICE OF HEARING A hearing will be held in this case at the City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater, Florida, on June 29, 2000, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as can be heard. Continuances will be granted only by order of the Administrative Law Judge for good cause shown. ISSUE: See Appeal of Denial of Flexible Development Application, City of Clearwater Case VAR1999-F2008/ APP.No.00-02-01. AUTHORITY: City of Clearwater Land Development Code. The parties shall arrange to have all witnesses and evidence pr~sent at the time and place of hearing. Subpoenas will be issued by the Administrative Law Judge upon request of the parties. All parties have the right to present oral argument and to cross-examine opposing witnesses. All pa~ties have the right to be represented by counselor other qualified representative, in accordance with Rule 28-106.106, Florida Administrative Code. Failure to appear at this hearing may be grounds for entry of an order of dismissal or recommended order of dismissal, as appropriate. The agency shall be responsible for making the necessary arrangements for a court reporter. March ~t, 2000 STON Law Judge ivision of dministrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www..doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Elijah Durham Armstrong, III, Esquire Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, P.A. Post Office Box 1368 Clearwater, Florida 33757-1368 Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, Esquire City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748 ROOM CONFIRMATION COPY: Betty Blunt City Hall 112 South Osceola Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33758-4748 (727) 562-4040 In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing a speciai accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the Judge's secretary no later than seven days prior to the hearing. The Judge's secretary may be contacted at the address or telephone numbers above, via 1-800-955-8771 (TDD), or 1-800-955-8770 (Voice) Florida Relay Service. ~ ~ o Q rf"l....c. tJ{ ,. o o BEFORE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD CITY OF CLEARWATER CASE NO. V AR1999-F2008, MILLER COOPER! AMERICAN INFOAGE, L.L.C., Applicant / ORDER This matter came before the City of Clearwater Community Development Board 011 the application of American Infoage, Inc.lMiller Cooper for flexible development approval to allow construction and use of a telecommunications tower on the property located at 50S Virginia Lane zoned Commercial. The proposed tower is 160 feet high and is to accommodate at least three telecommunications use1"5. The application was submitted on May 25, 1999, and was heard by the Board on July 20, 1999. The Board continued the case until September 21, 1999 in order to allow City staff to contact the Pinellas County School Board regarding exploration of co- location options at another nearby site on School Board property. The September meeting having been canceled due to weather conditions, the Board at its October 5, 1999 meeting again continued the case until November 16, 1999 and requested senior City staff to continue to corttact the School Board. At the November 16 meeting, discussion was had with legal counsel for the Board regarding requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for Board consideration of telecommunications tower zoning requests. Testimony was heard from the applicant and from City planning staff, and previous testimony was incorporated into the record. During Board discussion, members concurred that the applicant had met the standards set forth in the Code of Ordinances, for approval. The Board, upon motion duly seconded, U~/U~/L~UU ~L.~~ fLf~O~""-1fO rLt-fI, rH~c. UO . . .~ , . o o . voted 4 to 2 to approve the application with conditions 1 through 4 and 5 through 7 as recommended by staff and an additional condition that the applicant was to work with planning staff to develop a design which would screen the tower from view. Following the November 16, 1999 approval. the City received timely requests for reconsideration from neighboring property owners who met the definition of an interested party/substantially affected person under Code of Ordinances Section 4-206D.4.b. and were thus granted standing for that pUlpOse. The Board's Rules of Procedure, Article VI, Section 3, provide that reconsideration of a decision of the Board may be requested by the planning staff, applicant, or interested party at the next regularly scheduled meeting and shall be granted only upon a determination by the Board that its decision was based on a mistake, fraud, or misrepresentation. The requests for reconsideration alleged that the applicant had misrepresented AT&rs and the School Board's position regarding colocation at the School Board site. At its December 14, 1999 meeting, the Board, upon motion duly seconded, voted 4 to 3 to reconsider the application. The matter was duly noticed for hearing on January 19,2000. At the January 19, 2000 hearing, the Board heard from Cyndi Hardin, Assistant Planning Director. A letter was presented from counsel for AT&T stating that the company now stands willing to construct, at its expense, a replacement tower on the School Board site. Ms. Hardin represented that the School Board was in favor of allowing such construction. The Board accepted David Doulong as the City's expert witness in telecommunications. Mr. Doulong testified that the reconstructed tower could accommodate carriers as an alternative to the Virginia Lane site. Ms. Hardin stated that planning staff is of the opinion that a reasonable alternative to a new tower now exists on 2 U~/V~/~VVV ~L.~J fL,f...JVL,......JfU rL-MI' r- HI;II:. U::l . . o o " the School Board site, and as a result staff recommended denial of the application. Planning Director Ralph Stone stated that had staff known that the School Board site was an alternative, they would have originally recommended denial. The applicant, represented by E.D. Annstrong III, Esquire, requested that the record of the prior Board hearings be incorporated, and without objection this was done. He presented testimony from Robert Kersteen, Darryl Richards, and Miller Cooper. Mr. Kersteen opined that a second tower is necessary in order to accommodate the total of seven carriers. John Hubbard, Esquire, also addressed the Board on behalf of the applicant. Additional persons spoke in response to the Board's call for public input: Kevin Becker, AT&T Wireless Services representative; Jim Skaggs, Assistant School Board attorney [who stated that the School Board! AT&T contract allows modification and replacement of the existing towerJ; Bob Shields, radio design engineer for GTE Wireless; Darren Newsum, regional account manager for PrimcCo; and Aaron Tellier, director of Nextel Communications. Code of Ordinances Article 3, Division 20, establishes general standards for the siting of telecommunications towers and antennas. Section 3-2001D.1. provides as follows: Joint use of existin~ towers required as an alternative to new tower construction. Joint use of existing telecommunications towers or other existing building or structures is required as an alternative to new tower construction whenever feasible. Therefore, anyone considering new tower construction, must first explore other options. Prior to the issuance of any building pennit for a new tower, a detennination must be made that no existing tower or other structure is available as a reasonable alternative. An applicant requesting a pennit for a new tower shall submit evidence to the City that supports a conclusion that no reasonable use can be made of any 3 V_I 'IJ.,6. ~ .c..VV"",, I L. I ..."-'L-....." V ,.L,......... r.....u~ .J.tJ "~ . . o o " existing tower or structure. The evidence shall clearly establish one or more of the following conditions: a. No existing tower or structure is located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's coverage requirements. b. Existing towers or structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements. c. Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment. d. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with or would be interfered with by other antennas if placed on any existing tower or structure. e. The fees, costs or contractual provisions required by the owner in order to share an existing tower or structure for a time period of twenty-five (25) years, exceed the cost of developing a new tower. f. It is not fmancially feasible to modify or replace an existing tower to accommodate the proposed antenna. g. The applicant demonstrates that there are other legitimate limiting factors that render existing towers and structures unsuitable. The Board found that based upon the evidence presented, the applicant had not met the threshold criterion set forth in Section 3-2oo1D. of submitting evidence to the City that supports a conclusion that no reasonable use can be made of any existing tower or structure. The Board found that the School Board tower, the evidence now demonstrated, can be modified to accommodate carriers and thus reasonable use may be made of an existing tower. Therefore, the Board, upon motion duly seconded, voted 5 to 1 to DENY the application. The Board minutes of its January 19, 2000 meeting, as well as court reporter transcripts of Board consideration of the application at the meetings of July 20, 1999. 4 f 1-....., r~c:. J.J. '" . . o o . October 5, 1999, November 16, 1999, December 14, 1999, and January 19, 2000, are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The application, supporting materials, Staff Memoranda, exhibits, correspondence provided to the Board, and evidence of notification of surrounding property owners are found in the City Clerk's file and the City Planner's file and are incorporated herein by reference. Based upon the record evidence, it is therefore ORDERED that the application for flexible development approval in Case No. V AR1999-F2008 is hereby DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Clearwater, Florida this U'1ay of '{J ~'7r' 2000. RaIp(3~~, City afeJo_er Designee of City of Clearwater Community Development Board 5 . .. " o o ...........~l\/.-n p..: "". " ~ I . ~ ~_. .....J :.._' ..~ ~,-_.- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MlqDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ,... -n"'" ~MPA QIV!SION _ 7=-d.;3 fr; r C. c' :;. t. CASE NO. .OlJC-J/L=3t;~ - -,., U'1' II. 17 hi II' :...~ . ': ;. ;': . . ~..... . : ::. ; :'.,' ',>: I : ' ~ : [.,:\,i),\ "1;,;-1. .:'01 :hl;',:~~t\ . AMERICAN INFOAGE, LLC, Plaintiff, vs. THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, Defendant. I COMPLAINT SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF AND DAMAGES Plaintiff, AMERICAN INFOAGE, LLC ("American I nfoage") , a Florida limited liability company, by its undersigned counsel, files this action against the City of Clearwater ("City") and alleges the following: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(b) (the Federal Telecommunications Act) and 28 U.S.C. 1331. 2. Venue is proper in this court under the Federal Telecommunications Act and 28 U.S.C. 1331 because the proposed telecommunications tower, which is the subject of this action, is located on property within this district, the Defendant is a political subdivision of the state of Florida within this district and the acts described in this Complaint occurred within this district. 3. American Infoage is a limited liability company with its principal place of business in Florida. It is authorized by the Florida Secretary of State to do " ,. o o business within Florida. American Infoage has been and continues to be ~ adversely affected by the City's delays, actions and omissions. Without limiting the foregoing, American Infoage was adv~rsely affected by the City's failure to act within a reasonable period of time on American Infoage's application to construct personal wireless service facilities ("Application") and by the City's refusal to approve the Application without substantial evidence in the record to support its decision. 4. The City is a political subdivision of the state of Florida and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 5. In failing to act within a reasonable time on American Infoage's Application to construct personal wireless services facilities, the City erroneously and unlawfully failed to adhere to the requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B) ("Telecommunications Act"). 6. American Infoage is an entity adversely affected by the City's failure to act within a reasonable time as required by and in violation of 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B), by the City's failure to issue a written decision and by the City's refusal to approve the Application without substantial evidence to support its decision. APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCTION TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER 7. On May 17,1999, American Infoage filed an Application for Site Plan Approval for the construction of a 160-foot wireless communications tower. A copy of that application is attached as Exhibit A. The City's Community Development Code required American Infoage to file and obtain approval from the 2 J' ~ o o Community Development Board before constructing the proposed tower. ~ American Infoage acquired the property on which it proposed to construct the wireless communications tower and Jhat property is located within the geographical boundaries of the City. 8. The City's Community Development Code (lithe Code") contains specific development standards for telecommunications towers. A copy of the City's development standards for telecommunications towers is attached as Exhibit B. 9. American Infoage is In the business of constructing telecommunication towers to co-locate equipment for wireless service providers. Before filing the Application, American Infoage obtained commitments from GTE, Nextel and Primeco to lease space on the proposed tower. Each of those companies provides personal wireless service. GTE and Primeco entered into lease agreements with American Infoage to lease space on the proposed tower. Nextel entered into a letter of intent to lease space on the proposed tower. 10. After American Infoage filed the Application, the City's planning and development services administration reviewed the Application to determine if it complied with the Code. The staff concluded that it did and recommended approval of the Application. The staff recommended several conditions to the approval, all of which were acceptable to American Infoage. In reaching its ,recommendation of approval, the staff determined that the Application met all of the criteria for approval contained in the Code. 3 t. ~ o o 11. American Infoage had searched for an appropriate site on which to .. locate a telecommunications tower for approximately one year before filing the Application. To provide adequate service coverage, telecommunication towers must be constructed within specific geographical boundaries. GTE had been looking for an appropriate tower or structure on which to locate its facilities in the area of the proposed tower for approximately three years before American Infoage filed the Application. 12. Primeco and Nextel had also been looking for a suitable tower or structure on which to place their facilities in the pertinent geographical area for months before the Application. 13. In its Application, American Infoage proposed a 160-foot monopole wireless communications tower. It proposed to co-locate facilities for GTE, Primeco and Nextel on the tower. To accommodate the facilities of GTE, Nextel and Primeco, the proposed tower had to be at least 160 feet to allow for adequate spacing between the facilities of each of the providers. If the facilities of the providers are placed too closely together, they may not function properly. GOALS OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS 14. One of the goals of the City's development standards is to encourage the use of existing towers or structures as an alternative to new tower construction. American Infoage, GTE, Nextel and Primeco analyzed existing structures and towers in the pertinent geographical area to determine whether any were feasible for their use. They determined that there was no existing tower or structure that would meet their needs. There was an existing telecommunications 4 o o tower located at Clearwater High School and owned by the School Board of .. Pinellas County, Florida ("Clearwater High School Tower"). That tower was not of sufficient height to meet engineering req..uirements and it did not have sufficient structural strength to support the proposed co-location of the equipment for GTE, Primeco and Nextel. Accordingly, there was no existing structure or tower that could be used as an alternative to the proposed new telecommunications tower. 15. The City's development standards were also designed to encourage the joint use of new towers. American Infoage's Application furthered that goal by proposing the joint use of its new telecommunications tower by GTE, Primeco and Nextel. 16. Another goal of the City's development standards was to encourage the design and construction of towers and antennas that minimized adverse visual impacts. American Infoage agreed to all of the staff recommendations to minimize adverse visual impacts and consistently agreed to consider any proposals that would minimize adverse visual impacts. The Application of American Infoage, therefore, furthered the goal of the City's development standards to minimize adverse visual impacts created by telecommunications towers. 17. A final goal of the City's development standards was to enhance the ability of providers of telecommunications services to furnish services within the City quickly, effectively and efficiently. The Application of American Infoage unquestionably met that goal by providing a quick and efficient means for three service providers to furnish services within the City. Those service providers had been looking for a suitable structure or tower for years. 5 o '0 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS .. 18. The Community Development Board of the City of Clearwater is charged with considering applications foethe construction of telecommunications towers. The Code has specific standards for approval of construction of new telecommunications towers. The staff of the Community Development Board analyzed the Application before it was submitted to the Community Development Board for action. The staff considered each of the specific development standards pertaining to telecommunications towers identified in the Code. 19. Those standards require that "a determination must be made that no existing tower or other structure is available as a reasonable alternative." The development standards also require that an applicant requesting a permit for a new tower to submit evidence to the City that supports a conclusion that no reasonable use can be made of any existing tower or structure. To meet that requirement, the development standards only requires the applicant to submit evidence to establish one of the following conditions: a. No existing tower or structure is located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's coverage requirements. b. Existing towers or structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering req uirements. c. Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment. d. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with or would be interfered with by other antennas if placed on any existing tower or structure. 6 o o e. The f~es, costs or contractual provisions required by the owner in order to share an existing tower or structure for a time period of 25 years exceed the cost of developing a new. tower. f. It is not financially feasible to modify or replace an existing tower to accommodate the proposed antenna. g. The applicant demonstrates that there are other legitimate limiting factors that render existing towers and structures unsuitable. 20. The Community Development Board staff recommended approval of the Application but requested that American Infoage submit evidence supporting the "poor condition of the existing tower located on the Clearwater High School property." American Infoage complied with that request. It submitted undisputed, substantial evidence demonstrating that the Clearwater High School Tower was structurally insufficient to support the facilities required for co-location of GTE, Nextel and Primeco. 21. American Infoage also submitted undisputed, substantial evidence that the Clearwater High School tower was not tall enough for the co-location of GTE, Nextel, Primeco and the existing users on that tower. It was undisputed that the existing Clearwater High School Tower would not meet the needs of GTE, Nextel and Primeco. 22. American Infoage also proved by unrefuted, substantial evidence that it was not financially feasible to modify or replace the Clearwater High School Tower to accommodate the proposed co-location. The record evidence established that the cost to replace the Clearwater High School Tower was 7 .. o o between $300,000 and $500,000. The School Board, which owned the existing .. tower, did not provide any evidence to suggest that it was willing to pay for the construction of a new tower. The only users of the existing tower were AT&T and the School Board. AT&T has a long term lease for its place on the existing tower and had expressed no interest in allowing co-location on the Clearwater High School Tower. The undisputed record evidence, moreover, showed that a new tower within the City's guidelines would be insufficient to accommodate co-location for the School Board, AT&T, GTE, Nextel and Primeco. Modifying or replacing the existing tower, therefore, would not have accommodated the co-location of all of the providers who had a need for tower space. 23. AT&T provides services functionally equivalent to wireless services provided by GTE, Nextel and Primeco. Since AT&T has a long term lease on the only telecommunications tower in the pertinent geographic area, it now has a clear competitive advantage over GTE, Nextel and Primeco. UNREASONABLE DELAYS IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS 24. The Community Development Board scheduled a hearing on American Infoage's Application for July 20, 1999. At the July 20, 1999, meeting of the Community Development Board, American Infoage established that the existing tower would not accommodate the proposed co-location for GTE, Primeco and Nextel and that each of those companies did not have service in the immediate area. There was a need but no existing tower. As a result, GTE, Nextel and Primeco were at a competitive disadvantage with AT&T. American Infoage also confirmed that it complied with each of the development standards 8 I' o '0 required under the City's Community Development Code. A former employee of " AT&T also confirmed that negotiation over two and one-half years had yielded no progress in modifying the existing tower_to accommodate further co-location for GTE, Nextel or Primeco. At the hearing, the undisputed record evidence established that there were no existing towers in the geographic area with adequate structural strength or that were sufficiently high for the proposed co- location. 25. Under the City's Community Development Code, American Infoage was required to present clear evidence to meet only one of the specific development standards identified above. American Infoage presented undisputed, substantial evidence demonstrating compliance with at least three of those specific development standards. 26. Despite American Infoage's unrefuted compliance with the Code, the Board proposed and passed a motion to continue the hearing to a later date. During the continuance, the board staff and the city manager were instructed to discuss with the School Board the possibility of co-location on the Clearwater High School Tower or building a new tower on that site to accommodate co-location. The Community Development Board continued the hearing until October 5, 1999. 27. On October 5, 1999, American Infoage again appeared and brought witnesses to again establish that it met all of the development standards for telecommunications towers. American Infoage submitted letters from Pate Engineering establishing that the Clearwater High School Tower was overstressed and could not accommodate co-location. 9 o o 28. At that time, American Infoage made it very clear to the Community .. Development Board that its own development standards require that there be an "existing tower or structure" suitable to Qleet the service needs in the pertinent geographic area. The Board's attorney agreed with that interpretation. Nonetheless, the Board again continued the hearing on American Infoage's Application because no progress had been made with AT&T or the School Board concerning building a new tower at the Clearwater High School site. At that point, the Board was again ignoring the clear requirements of the Code. It was discriminating against American Infoage, GTE, Nextel and Primeco in favor of AT&T and the School Board. 29. On November 16, 1999, the Community Development Board held a third hearing on American Infoage's Application. The board's staff recommended a further continuance. The staff wanted more time because little progress had been made with the School Board and the Board entertained a motion to continue. After vigorous opposition by American Infoage, the Community Development Board finally agreed to take testimony and consider American Infoage's Application. At that hearing, representatives from Nextel, GTE and Primeco testified about their unsuccessful efforts to find an alternative location. They confirmed their need for space on a telecommunications tower in the pertinent geographic area. Each of the representatives confirmed without hesitation that the existing tower was not sufficient for the proposed co-location and that it was not financially feasible to modify the existing tower. They also confirmed that the existing tower was not high enough to accommodate all of the proposed users. 10 o o 30. After considering the evidence presented and the Code .. requirements, the Community Development Board approved American Infoage's Application by a vote of four to two. 31. After the hearing, two . citizens requested the Community Development Board to reconsider its decision based on a newspaper article in which it was reported that AT&T might support co-location at the Clearwater High School site. 32. At its December 14, 1999 meeting the Community Development Board considered a motion for reconsideration of the approval of the Application. The Community Development Code provides that the Community Development Board . may grant reconsideration or rehearing of a final decision upon a determination that the final decision was based upon mistake, fraud or misrepresentation. After hearing testimony and argument, the board voted four to three to grant reconsideration of American Infoage's Application for Site Plan Approval. There was no substantial evidence to support reconsideration of the approval. The Board did not issue a written order of reconsideration. 33. As expressed by the board members voting in favor of reconsideration, the basis for the reconsideration was that the final decision to approve American Infoage's Application for Site Plan Approval was based on a misrepresentation. There was absolutely no competent or substantial evidence presented at the hearing on December 14, 1999, to prove any misrepresentation by American Infoage or any other interested party present during the meeting at which the board approved the Application. Rather, the members voting in favor of 11 " l' '0 o reconsideration were desperately trying to find a way to cause the School Board of ~ Pinellas County to build a new telecommunications tower at the Clearwater High School site. 34. At the hearing on December 14, 1999, representatives of AT&T confirmed that the Clearwater High School tower could not structurally support the equipment required by the co-location of GTE, Nextel and Primeco proposed in American Infoage's Application. AT&T thus confirmed the unrefuted evidence offered by American Infoage that there was no existing tower or structure adequate to meet the needs of GTE, Primeco and Nextel. The board failed to understand that American Infoage complied with the City's development standards and that American Infoage was entitled to construct the proposed tower regardless of the speculation about constructing a new tower at the Clearwater High School site. AT&T had been talking to the School Board for approximately two years about the possibility of building a new tower. They had reached no resolution and little progress had been made. At the hearing, however, AT&T made it abundantly clear that the decision to construct a new tower belonged solely to the School Board of Pinellas County and not AT&T. COUNT I TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT, 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B) 38. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 32 of this Complaint. 39. At its regularly scheduled meeting on January 25, 2000, the City, through the Community Development Board denied American Infoage's 12 o o Application. That denial constitutes a final action under the Telecommunications .. Act. 40. The City's denial of American Infoage's Application for Site Plan Approval constitutes unreasonable discrimination among providers of functionally equivalent services in violation of 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I). The City's denial provides a huge competitive advantage to AT&T and unreasonably discriminates against GTE, Nextel, Primeco and American Infoage. The discrimination IS unreasonable. The City's actions violate 47 U.S.C.3332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I). 41. The City's denial of American Infoage's Application for Site Plan Approval prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services in violation of 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). The record evidence established that GTE, Nextel and Primeco have tried for years to establish service in the pertinent geographic area. They have been unsuccessful. The decision to deny American Infoage's Application has the effect of prohibiting GTE, Nextel and Primeco from providing personal wireless services in parts of Pinellas County. 42. The decision to deny American Infoage's Application also was not supported by substantial evidence contained in the written record in violation of 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). In fact, the substantial evidence contained in the record demonstrated unequivocally that the City should have approved American Infoage's Application for Site Plan Approval. American Infoage provided unrebutted, substantial evidence to meet the general and specific development standards for telecommunications towers contained in the City's Community Development Code. 13 " " o o 43. The City also violated the Telecommunications Act by failing to act ~ on American Infoage's Application within a reasonable period of time and by failing to provide a written denial supported by substantial evidence. 44. American Infoage has been. severely and adversely affected by the denial of its Application for Site Plan Approval. American Infoage will suffer irreparable harm if the denial is allowed to stand, including harm to its goodwill and future business earnings. 45. American Infoage has no adequate remedy at law. WHEREFORE, American Infoage requests this Court to grant mandatory injunctive relief or a mandamus order vacating the City's denial of American Infoage's Application for Site Plan Approval and directing the City to approve the Application for Site Plan Approval and to grant American Infoage all other appropriate relief, including attorney's fees and costs. Darryl~ardS Florida Bar #348929 Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, P.A. Post Office Box 1100 Tampa, FL 33601-1100 (813) 225-2500 (813) 223-7118 (fax) Attorneys for Plaintiff 41142.101836.13720v2 14 . v O APPLICATION FO~ ~1~ PLAN APPROVAL PLAi'TNING & DEVELOP!vfENT\-:rERVICES AD:MINISTRATION MUNICIPAL SERVICES BUILDING, 100 SOtrrH MYRTI..E AVEL'WE. 2" FLOOR PHONE (727)-562-=4567 FAX [727) 562-4576 This (arm must be submitted for all applic:llions for residential uses, accessory uses, nonresidential uses, fences, signs, vested rights, develltflment agreements, seawaUs, decks/marinas and other marlne s!llJctures and home occupations. APPUCANT. PROPERTY OWNER. AND AGENT INFORMA nON: :, A t'1'1 € If I C A JJ / 11/ ~ tJ ~ t5 ~, Ll. e . APPLICANT NAME MAILING ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER PROPERTY OWNERS AGENT NAME MAlLrNG ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER e;7~7 U~~e~rO.J /!LJ.)#~Bo) e('E'/tt'(W;:1Tel'{ F~ )i7' : (7~1) 551:,- (J~'..;)c':, FAXf':'UMBER: (7~7J :;S~-C)VI '/ : W/~'-IArn (LIst all owners) f e fla /le- I 6EO~G/L.4..r : "/I'n U..c.r:i~ .rn.' C1oo~t!:fliJ : Arn(ER/(:'~J.1 INFo,qt5l: LLC...-l.:;,'~A';qjj C!O~L/L.J...1, (!/J./tJy tJoPl 0..)0 . , ) " '" 0';" . ';;;J~I ULmel"r7"o~7-A',Ij",'-#,~~(), C!.t..el9-lfw..qT€~ Ft. -l~7' J (7.J 7,) S S" t ~ O~ ;,:l(::r,~, F~/fj~~8ER' :(7~ 7) ~~" - t)'-// ") PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION: LOCATION: STREET ADDREss: LEGA"L DESCRIPTION: PARCEL NUMBER: DiJG '~L.oCk E~sr:;;t=' k€cJJ€:~1( D ", Sour"" OF 6v/,~-TI:J- CAY. . . . .:" . . Sos- V J I{ G /1.)1/1 LA!- cu.cA R'W ATe Ie. G a 74J t./ S/OO ;::7:' Or, N ~so,er. t:::JF.. € / ~S ,c7'. O~ W . ;:: C:J f: N W '/"1 of N W Vl/ O~ .5"'W I/V (....e-SS' Rc:u~~. . . - . ._,' . . "._, ~q-15- /3- 0 OCJoo- 3J;flJ''stos"CJO PROPOSED USE AND SIZE: /(oOJ GJ/~€L€.ss COr71r"7')U;;...};/C,yTloI'lS ToL..l€K- (number of Qwelling units, hotel roo~s o(squ~re fOtliag~ ?'.jio,nresidential use) SIZE OF SITE: 100' X /</0 / ,'(;~ apo:~;:S-Q, F7:) .' '._'" .:. "~"'t DOEs THIS APFUCATION INVOLVE THE TRANSFER OF DEVEi..O;M~~RIGHT~'~' ~E-~' ~ NO L !. the undersigned, acknowledge that aU representations made in this application are true and accurate to the best of my j;/~ Signature of rk6pe~ ClVrT1er or represernative . FOR PLANNING OFFICE USE ONLY: L '-AND USE DISTRICT OF PARCEL; ZONING: . !ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF ADJACENT PARCELS: NORTH: :=UTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATlON OF ADJACS"IT PARCELS: NORTH: STATE OFFLORIDA, COUN1Y OF PINELLAS Sworn to and subscribed before me this /7 II-! day of ' fYJl1'1 ' - I A.D., 19 99 to me and/or by m/(.. CSI( "'. CcafJEIL- , who is personally known FN.::; p,Gdu"t::~ as- idelll;r.......L:u, .. n-l~"~~ ~ ~ No pubfic., :' " .... . _~ 'mY' c mmission expires: CYNTIDA DEN (f DO~INO '" , . - '- ~ ~ 'v, CllInn. E1Jlm lmaOQQ No. cc $2j~S FU R ~l@J'd' ,...u, SOUTrl:" . :. ST: HaooJ 'T". SOUTH: E.o.ST; WEST: EXHIBIT A ~ o CITY OF aOARW ATER AFFIDAVIT TO AUTHORIZE AGENT PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION MUNICIPAL SERVICES Bun.DING, 100 SOll'ni MYRn.E AVENUE, 2- FLOOR ~ PHONE (1'27)-562-4567 FAX am 562~6 to: .' STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF PINE1.l.AS WI LL./ArY1 ~€"oIf61l..ftS Harle t,;~(J'<GI(.AS (JIlama off lIlIllrcperly cv.nsrs) .:. 1. That (J amlwe are) the owner{s) and record title holdE{r{~)' of the following described property: ADDRESS OR CENERAl LOCATION: SO S VI At; J N I'; ; LA JJ € <!t€ 11~ w'A TE'/!', FL :..3 3 7~ t./ 2_ That this property constitutes the property for which a request far a: /&"0' /€L€C(]r/'JrnU~/C;47J~,.I.i Toi.Je~ , '-.-/ (Nacure oflllqu=ol) . . 3. That the undersigned (hasJhave).appointed and (does/dd) appoint A frJ5~ Ie! A ~ ,,; '. - .... ......- . as (n!ellnllir) ascnl(:s) illllXeCUla any peliIlona or Olner dO<;ument=l.'"nc~:Sllry la atflOCt -:UTc1l p.nmon; . . 1'71/"~"'~ n'1..(!(;)oJPEtf" 15,:/.;:;4 CJaL~~r-J:5 a...AI-4:3Y 41(i'~J.v") 4. That this affidavit has been exe~ted to in~uce the City. of Clearwater, Florida to consider and act on the above described property; . 5. . Th~tt/we), the undersigned auth~ritYI.~e~~bY certify _t~~t~t1e foregoing is true and r;orrecL /~'f'i'~-"r~ heLJi4~ STATE OF FLORIDA, COUNTY OF PINEllAS .' SIG~lEJ (F'rcper:y O~r) / a /' . . Swam-to and subscribed before me this j 7 iH day of /1:. . I . IYJA Y. . A.D., 19 99 to' me ana/or c;-~ 12 ,{J1...d (<?" 'tlJ../J byGJ.l~u~"" 6" Hol't: 6cCJ~r=; Ul't$ . who is personally SlGN '(Proper./Cwnct) () known f:l.a'i prgdcteoo ~ j-:~r::tiflg:niCl:l. SIGNE.D (PrcpClIty CWnClf) SICONf:D (Prcp~1l'f 0Vmef') ~~fh. . N Pl.lb~g,'- I _~ My ~mIB:llcn e:.:pit~: ACYNTHIA DENISE DOMINO . lIoI;IIY P1Jbiic. 5/111 al Flcxil!l Wy CQrIn. fl~ lmt.lQJO H4. Cl: !13m ~ '""" ~ltld Yat..... ~r H=oal n3-6121 "--J o o PERSONS HAVING A CONTRACTUAL INTEREST .~ :t Owners (Sellers): William. & Hope::G~orgilas :' . . Agent (Buyers): American Infoage, LLC (M~ller M. Cooper, Cindy Domino, & Bra~ C~llins). .'~, .. .. ...... . . . "... ,;,; '-.-/' -....J J .> '- .: '-'0 ~ .-. ~ : o . ; t-::' " ; LEGAL~DE'~CRIPTIQN ''--.../ -, . __ 0; \ ., . .'; .... ,..- ...;. ~ . . .- ;. ..... . . , ~ . ._. , .' ~.... '~ ~:.;;. :~'..o Address: 505 Virginia Lane, cleaiWaf.~r,: FL 337;6~ Parcel In #29-15-13-00000-320-05{jO~ ~ -;....~: ~. .:;:r: ~ I _.... ~: ~#i~: .., _.~:., Lot Size: 100' X 140' (14,000 sq.-ft.);: Legal Description: Begin at the Northwest comer.ofthe Southwest quarter of Section 13 , Township 29 SQU~' Rahge 15 Eas~'Pinellas -County, Florida, and run thence South 89*22'54" East;,;al~:mg the.q$rter section line, 328.55 feet: thence SouthO*00'38" East, 159.J'eet for a pamt of beginning; thence South 0*00'38" EastlOO.OO feet; the~~e .south 89,:22'54" East, 164.44 feet; thence North 0*03'28" West, 100"00Jeet; thence;North 89*22'54" We'St, , 164.35.feet to the beginning, less thdW est 25 fe~E~9f said lot which is reserved for use as a public highwaY;;, . _ ~:~~: . i ~. ~.. , .. ',: ~! : . \;::... "-./ ;, .-' . ,..' '. . t. . ./- .: . r , " , . '. . :...~.;; ,j ; :::: .. ~ . Fa.' . . ''''.. " "----" '-4 o o ~~ "~ - ,. ARTICLE 3: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Division 20. Telecommunication Towers The distance shall be measured from the base of the '[Ower to the residential property . line. iiL . u. From historic districts and listed sttucrures. Towers shall be set back a minimwn of five hundred (500) feet from any National Register historic district and from any individual strUcmre listed in the National Register of Historic Places. From property lines. rowers shall be set back from property lines in accordance with the requirements set fonh in the zoning district regulations. . ,.... c. Calor and finish. Except for painting or marking required by the FAA, towers and supporting snuctures shall be a neutral, nan-glare color or finish. so as to reduce yisual obnusiveness. d. . F encing. Towers shall be' enClosed by a six (6) foot high security. masonry or wood fence. . e. < Landscaping/Screening~ The. perimeter of the tower site shall be . , buffered .with Shrubs selected an.d. placed to screen the base of the , tower.and, to the.extent possibl~:;:with trees selected and placed to minimize the venical scale of the .tower. A minimum often (10) feet of landscape buffer shall be pro.vided around the outside of the required fencing. ' :The landscaping design requires approval of a landscaping 'plan by the Community Development Coordinator as a Level One Approval in.accordani:ewith the provisions of Anicle 4 Division 3 of this Development Code. I, . f. . Illumination. Towers shall not be anificially lighted except as required by the:F M.At time :oLconsrruction ora tower, in cases where there are residential uses. located within a disUUlce which is thre~ hWldre"d percent '(300%) of~the height of the tower from the . tower, dual mode lighting shall ,be,requested from the FAA. . :- ; ,:1':';: g. Appurtenances. Appurtenant buildings and StrUctures shall conform to the standards set forth in the zoning district regulations. Such buildings and strUctures shall be 'screened from adjacent propenies and pubIicsrreets. -At a.tower site, design of the buildings and related structures shall, when. practible;. use materials, colors, texrures, screening, and landscaping that will blend them into the natural sening and surrounding. buildings~to minimize the visual impact. . , h. Design. To the exy:nt practicabl~, the tower shall be designed to blend into the surrpunding environment in order to protect the aesthetics of the neighborhood where the tower is proposed. em. OF Cl.EARWATER LAND DEVELOPMENT REGUU nONS . AS ADOPTED . .". t.' " JANUARY:!l,1999 PAGE 3-125 . ,..: . o () ~~ a~ ~ ARTICLE 3: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Division 20. Telecommunication Towers 1. Waivers: The design Standards identified above: may be reduced or waived if such reduction or waiver would better satisfy the intent of this Division and such modification or waiver is reviewed and decided by the Community Development Board in concert with the .: . . application for a Leyel Two Approval. .., . : . 4. Advertising prohibited; required signage and security. No tower shall be used for advertising of any type, and the placement of signs, other than warning s@l~ and small inler mat . on plaeecards with emergency and owner information, is prohibited. All towers' must be reasonably posted, in accordance with the City of Clearwater sign ordinance, and secured to protect against trespass. 5. Insiauation and mauiienance standards. .Owners shall install and maintain toWer~, telecommunications facilities,: wires, cables, fixtures and other equipment in compliance with the requirements of the National Electric Safety' Code and all FCC, state and local regulations, including adopted building codes. Priono the issuance ofa certificate of occupancy for a tower, the applicant shall provide..an engineering certification that the proposed struCture'meets such regulatory; standards, including adopted building code . standards for wind velocitY. All towers shall achieve and maintain compliance with current radio frequenCy eniissions standards promulgated by the FCC. . . _ ::. : '. I' . " 6. 'Removal of abandoned antennas and toWers. Any telecommunication tower that does not sUPP'~n aij ~perating antenna for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months shall be considered abandoned and shall be removed or reactivated upon wrinennotification by the City within sixty (60) days of said notification. .Failure to do so shall constitute a violation of this Development Code. E. Compliance with other codes and safety standards. Telecommunication towers and antennas shall comply with all applicable regulations and safety standards of the F ederal Aviation Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and any ocher agency with'regulatory authority. . CITY OF CLURWATE.R LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AS ADOPTEI? .. JANUARY 21, 1999 PAca:3-1ZG v ~ o C.,.- Il'l/'b II SJI -Il._or.. "- CITY OF o .""11,, t..~t~LOF 71ft'...... \~~ 1)".."....,~j~),;'-_ ,~, ""I ~~"-~':. ~~" \ I '::. ~.. ...~~'" , ," . .. .. ~ ~)... . " "'~. -= - '51:011I ..~';. === ~OIII ':....-'::.,_ ,n;;:, -:.T..(\ ",_ .'"" r-...''\' ~If.'..,...... ~'Vttt .........)lTE~"... 'II'" CLEARWATER POST OFFICE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 , CI1Y HAu, 112 SOUTH OSCEOLA AVENUE, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562.4010 FA,X (727) 562.4021 CI1Y ATIOR.'EY'S OFFICE March 1, 2000 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 814578622695 '-,-'nll-r I~' [,~~U r' - -, , J ,...-.:.-.....;;;2-_L I I f -' I i I; '. I i {' , I l I L _ j MAR 0 2 2000 ; 1-' . ?Lk,.:--~~._-_. . , ''', J, a...- _.. __ -, ..-.-- James W. York, Deputy Chief Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Re: Appeal of Denial of Flexible Development Application, American InfoAge, LLC (Case No. VAR1999-F2008/App. No. 00-02-01) Dear Judge York: Enclosed are two copies of the following file documents, together with a verbatim cassette recording of the proceedings regarding the above-referenced case before the Community Development Board, whose decision is being appealed by American InfoAge, LLC: 1. Application for Administrative Appeal dated February 8, 2000, by American InfoAge, LLC, Appellant 2. Public hearing notice dated January 25, 2000 3. Flexible development application, supporting materials, correspondence, and map, staff report for January 25, 2000, meeting 4. Code of Ordinances Section 3-2001, Telecommunications Towers and Antennas 5. Resume of David Doulong 6. Memoranda and correspondence in Planning Department file regarding School Board site FILE O:-:E CI1Y. O:-:E FUTURE. BRL-\I\). AU1\GST, MAYOR-Cml~lISS[01\ER ED HOOPER, VICE t.l~YOR-CO.\I.\lISS[01\ER ED HART, CO~I.\lISSIO"'ER . * BOB CL\RK, COMMISSIONER A Pf OD ,02--0 { J.B. JOH1\S01\, COMMISSIONER "EQUAl. E:'IPLOYMENT A"O AFFIR.\~TNE ACTION EMPLOYER" "--.,J .~ '---.-J - . -.-.- -.. .--..,--. o .._....n.o COMPREHENSIVE TOWER MARKETING LIsT - LoCAL CAR.1UERS 5/13/99 Revision 12/28/98 . / Aerial Communications/APT Mike Brown (Real Estate and Co-Location) 6902 Cypress Park Drive Tampa, FL 33634 Voice: (813) 243-3222 Cell: (813) 263-0864- Main #: (813) 243-3200 Fax: (813) 243-1906 / Airtouch Paging (paging) Mark Bolich 12500 Roosevelt Boulevard North St. PetersbUrg, FL 33716 Voice: (727) 573-7800 XS082 Fax: (727)573-0329 viT&T Kevin Becker, Site Acquisition / Co-Location Manager 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, 11th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Cell: (727) 460-9911 Office: (813)222-5557 ./BellSouth Mobility, Inc. Mike Monagle 3012 US Hwy 301 North Suite 1000 Tampa, FL 33619 Office: (813)740-9183 Fax: (813)630-931~ /Be1lSouth Mobility Inc. Laren Whiddon Corporate Office 12477 Telecom Drive Tampa, FL 33637 (813) -631-2500 Fax: (813)631-2710 12/28/98 .' -;.:. :! 12/28/98 . " o \....J '--" \...-I j' .' 2 o ,. -'.', . ,..... 1'1 VI ..."" I ,",:,WiooI 12/28/98 12./28/98 '" 1/4/99 " o " ~nisite Grace VISta 3450 Buschwood Park Drive, Suite 250 Tampa, FL 33618 Voice: (813) 932-9809 Fax: (813) 915-3660 ~ l' ~nisite Mr. Dana Dulabone" (RF Engineer) 3450 Buschwood Park Drive, Suite 2.50"" .". Tampa, FL 33618 Voice: (813) 932-9809 Fax: (813) 915-3660 ~mStar Communications, Inc. Tom Rivers (City Operations Manager) 400 North Tampa, Suite 1400 Tampa, FL 33602 Voice: (813) 387-981.3 Fax: (813) 387-9900 -....J '-.../ o - . -~, '': . 5 . ...-- .. ..... ..... 12/28/98 1/4/99 - :.. ,:... Q ,', 0 MAtiJNG LIST - NOTIFICATION TO CARRIERS TOWERSlTE , 505 VIRGINAl LANE, CLEARWATER, FL '-..J .. Aerial Communications/APT Mike Brown (Real Estate and Co-Location) 6902 Cypress Park Drive Tampa, FL 33634 Voice: (813) 243-3222 Cell: (813) 263-0864 Main iff: (813) 243-3200 Fax: (813) 243-1906 AirtouCh Paging (Paging) Mark Bolich 12500 Roosevelt Boulevard North' St. Petersburg, FL 33716 Voice: (727) 573-7800 XS082 Fax: (727) .573-0329 '", ,. '-. :. ; .: -r ~ :;:~ ...;. I~ .', :'.!;,-.- '-..-/ AT&T Kevin Becker, Site Acquisition / Co~ Location Manager 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, 11th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 ' Cell: (727) 460-9911 cttfice: (813)222-5557 ,- ~ : .;, BellSouth Mobility, Inc. Mike Monagle 3012 US Hwy 301 North Suite 1000 Tampa, FL 33619 Office: (813)740-9183 Fax: (813)630-9319 BellSouth Mobility Inc. Laren Whiddon Corporate Office 12477 Telecom Drive Tampa, FL 33637 (813) 631-2500 Fax; (813)631-2710 ,', '-.-/ ,-. i_ o .J GTE WIreless Products & Services Bob Hardee ., 5303 Commerce Park Boulevard FNTW Tampa, FL 33610 Voice: (813) 282-6454 Fax: Cell: MobileComm (a Bell South Company) Joe Ku.ms 4801 East Colonial Drive Orlando, FL 32803 Voice: (407) 895-2050 Fax: (407) 896-5474 PageMart WIreless, Inc. (Paging) Dennis Kerlick 3333 Lee Parkway, Suite 100 Dallas, Texas 75219 Voice: (800) 864-5809 Voice: (214) 765-3779 Fax: (214) 765-4907 ...........". :0 ~ ' .') iL. . ;'..:"' . '-, Ausley-Harvell (Site Acquisition for PageNet) Dan Ausley 1114 Thomasville Road SuiteW Tallahassee, FL 32303 Office: (850)561-10 PageNet (Paging) Gary Meritt . 4010 Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33670 Voice: (813) 87.3-7200 Fax: (813) 876-3710 Powertel Ine. Patrick Boyles One Concourse Parhvay, Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30328 Voice: (770) 522-3403 Fax: (770)522-3419 '-.-/ 2 .1 . .- ,- o .0 '-...-J Sprint PCS Arliss Elliot . ..., . 5301 West Cy];lress Street Tampa, FL 33607 Voice: (813) 639-2010 . -' ~ Fax: (813) 639-2050 .-...... Colleen Baxter: (813) 639-2013 . . TCG/AT&T Local Services " ..' . < "~." - - Michael Cardillo 6015 Benjamin Road, Suite 306 :. '; -",".. - , Tampa, FL 33634 . . Voice: (813) 806-0194 Pager. (800) 759-8888 Orlando #: (407) 563-0004 . . TSR WIreless . .' Dennis Logering . -. ", 5301 West Cypress, Suite laO-A Tampa, FL 33607 ';',' Voice: (813) 288-9497 t,'. .. Fax: (813) 289-3966 : , ".- " ~ Unisite . '" Grace VISta 3450 Buschwood Park Drive, Suite 250 J .. Tampa, FL 33618 ........ Voice: (813) 932-9809 Fax: (813) 915-3660 Unisite Mr. Dana Dulabone (RF Engineer) 3450 Buschwood Park Drive, Suite 250 Tampa, FL 33618 Voice: (813) 932-9809 Fax: (813) 915-3660 WmStar Comm.unications, Inc. Tom Rivers (City Operations .i'danager) 400 North Tampa, Suite 1400 Tampa, FL 33602 Voice: (813) 387-9813 Fax: (813) 387-9900 '-..../ 3 .i - ~. o ...-....0 .- .-....., ..:;U. '. J . Americanlnfoag~, LLC . . ~ .: ~.. -: .:'.-~~:~,~. 272.7 U1me:rtan Road, Suite'.230, ClearWater;:FL33762 . (727)556-{)220 1-800-278-4399 FaX (7?1)556-Q417 email: nationalrlata@)tnind8prin~;~m '. .....:;.:..6 .. ' t,,--.Z, I . . . . - .-.~. " , ~ ;:.~.. .' .' Prime Tower spac~~i:Available! ". ;-. .' '. :::. l; -:".?':: ~.. .... -.,-. . . ..:- '-.J .. ~ ~ ." .- . . . . Virginia Larie':~ GuJ!~To- Bay {Vicinity of Keene Road 8f;GUlf-~o::Bay (US Hwy 60) Cle~ater;Florida.33764 . .; '.: l .,: . .4 . . t ~ _. . . . ',r . - ~: !, ;;-,~ \j , . . :'.. . . '" I N27 57' 36.96",/ W8245 40.56" Tower Type: 'Monopole Tower Height: :16'0' Elevation: 55'~~~~: ~ Call 1-800-278-4399 today to reserve your height! , . -, o -J .. '. . . , . .'.. .. ,', ,:.,.. . ':', .'. :'0:~~I~l~'~~{~[I~t1~:~:'-'~~!:';' <::."0~~';i.:j :. . .~.::. .. :........,' ... . . ::-.. .. .~. . . ~ '.. . . .. ", . '::!. . ',. " ;""',,'. .' . ..~. . . '.f ,1' . '. - '.'. . .:.::... . .... ---...J.' . .' ,: . '. . ., .... ..:,:,,::,:...\~,:~..~.:. .:;.::::.... ......:.: ..... - . .... '" : ::'" .~.~.:~ ::: ':. :', .'~. ' .~ -. ..;. < ':.~'.~ ..,....... . . .0, . . _: " .:: .... :-' : .-. :,,', : ,.~.. : . . . o. .. ;, .. . " . .': . . ',.. ',' . . .... I . .:",: ;..::: ':.: ! ~ . . . :.:., ;;':'0 . 0':." . '~'. .. - HIGH POINT BRANCH ClEARWATER. Fl or; dll , ; ':'337629998 05125/1999 :: ~'SO.0)275-an7 01:27:51 PM Salas Receipt Product ' :Sale Unft Oesc~ption'Qti Prics f1 na 1 Price , ' f':;:;: :=';':;;~<}~ MARIETTA GA 30060, ' Fi T'3t-Cl ass ':~' . Restrl cted Oe llitery Return Receipt':.:" Cartif1 ed" : '~~('" I; . Issue PVI: :~ :~.:[i i!i): ATLANTA riA 3032B ;~, First-Class ::: Customer Postage:' Riiturn Racai pt .: Certified . ;~ : ..' .:-~7:'" . ;;' Is~u:~ ' PVI: .'" ~. -' t:. . TAMPA fL 3363lf' . '... firSt-Class ~ '.,;:::':> .Customer Postage :;., Return Race; pt .'" . Ce rti-fi ad -'" ..'~: S~ :,.... . ,- IssuS' PVI: j .. ....... . -,,,10.. '.;, _~~\. SAINT PETERSBURG FL 33716 Hrst-Classf."u. Ctirtomsr Postage:,~:, Return Recai pt' . Certified . ,. . : :';,:/..;..' .Issue,; PVI: '; r --"l'" .. TA~PA FL 33637 Fi rst-Cl ass Customer Postas8 Return Receipt C8rt1f1ed , . ., . IiiJ~: PVI: TANPA Fl :33619 Fi rst-Class . _ Customer Postage.. Return Receipt Certi fied Issue PVI: . . TAMPA-FL 33602 , , fjrst~C'dSS , Customer Postage Return Receipt Ctlrti fi ad .- ' Issue PVI: , . ORLANDO f.L 32903 first-Class 0 Customer Po~t~ge Return Receipt Certified Issue PV!: $0.33 n.7S 1.25 1.4Q $5.73 $0.33 -$0.33 $1.25 $1.40 $2.65 $0.33 -10.33 1.25 1.40 S2.65 $0.33 -$0.33 $1.25 $1.40 $2.65 $0.33 -$0,33 $1.25 $1.40 $2.65 $0.33 -$0.33 $1.25 $1. 40 $2.65 $0.33 -$0,33 $1.25 $1. 40 $2.65 $0.33 -SO.33 51.25 $1. 40 $2.55 . " (.- . . i ' . '. . ...~. ," '. '. , " .:... . . . ;'::S:~!~~;y~~: . . i.:...~~;;!:t~{?r L '. .:,... . ~. ":: . ". ::,' ',.:: .' l.'...:, :''';''''.',,:, . . f- ;~:'. /.:':.:'0 . :, .. <' If. -T ~ ~. . - . ; . ,", . '. .... -..f..... ,'- . . ~ . . ..., ':': ~.'. . . , . . , I . 1 .' . . r '.' "- .' '" '. ' . ' .' , I ' , ," .' .. .' , . I':' .0, '0' :. ':::: . ,'.... ,; 0 CustoMar,::)$taga - Return.-\ ipt Carti f.l ad , -.... Issue PVI: .. - , DALLAS;',TX 75219 ~ Fi r:rt-Cl'ass ~ Customer Postase Return Rac;elpt C4rt'tf,ied ~~. :.~:S.~:": Issue PVI: ' , " , '. '. .... TALLAHASSEE F.L 32303 '. '. fl rst-Cl'!l53 . . .. U ," Cust6a1er, Postase RaturnRecalpt C~rtj fj ad '. . -' -. . . " .. . 00. -." ." ....-:. ':'~":I:.~:. ;::.i ~ : ;.:2;~~;!;1i,;~.:\~~~~rt~'~~':~r:':"'; .;',': 'C":Y'~;'~::~~i.:;,O;f~i.~~ ,:.- . , .= :. . . ; . , .'.' . .. . ':"0 . .:. '0" .1' . .".. '. :- 0" .. " . " ' . .::;.... . ,", ,o- f 1':- ': .< :. . , , J. :. '. - . . .' . . ..:. ":;::'~ ..,:.~~' .:~: ..' "'.- "0" . _ ~;. : . .' .: ", . . . . "- .:....- : .~~...:.',~,~:.~:...... .;.::>'.:.~. ..~'~:",,":~~~':.:,: :...:~ . ", . .... . . .... ,0, .' . , " ..0,':,.. . "..... . .' ..... ,,:. . \....J Issue PVI: ~ . ''-.:.;..:;1."' TAMP A,' fL',::JJ607 fi rSt-Crass CustoDier Postase Return:, Raca i pt Certi fi ed . ... ~. . ISS1.l6 PVI: ; '..:..;..... . TAMPA FC 33634 fir.it-Class Customer Postage Ret.urn, Receipt Cilrt1f1ed "/", Issue PVI: '. ...\>~. TAMPA; tl;~33607 first-Class Custo~er Postage Ketum~Kacalpt Certified ,; Issue PVI: TAMPA Fl,33618 Fi rst-crass CUS~Qmer Postage Retum.Receipt Carti fi ed .... . ....: I$SU8 PVI: TAMPA: fL' 33602 first-Class Custolllsr Postase RetumRecsipt Cart1'fi ad Issue PVI; TAMPA fL 33618 First-Class CUstomer Postage Return Receipt Certified Issue PVI: TAMPA FL'33607 fi rst-Cl ass Customer Postage Return Receipt Certi fied Issue PI/I: Total: -$0.33 $1.25 $1.40 $2.65 $0.33 -$0.33 $1.25 $1.40 $2.5.5 $0.33 -$0.33 $1.25 $1.40 $2.65 $0.33 -$0.33 $1.25 $1.40 $2.65 $.0.33 -SO.33 $1.25 51.40 $2.65 $0.33 -$0.33 $1.25 $1.40 $2.65 $0.33 -$0.33 $1.25 $1.40 $2.65 $0.33 -$0.33 $1.25 $1. 40 $2.~5 $0.33 -$0.33 51.25 $1.40 $2.55 $0.33 -$0.33 $1.25 $1.40 $2.65 S50.78 . . "0 . i f.{t~.1T~};~ . '. . ., " "'t'/' ...;.......: r;=.,:,.!\ iZ(~~: ~;~ ~ ~~:'f4~:" '. ....... [~~.; - '<-:i.",:.:"-. . ..... '-." 0.... .:.... . "oJ' 00'... 1 . . ", f. '. . " /, -' :; . t. .:. 11 ... :1' . ;. t. f - 'r . . , .\ :i " : f . 1." ~ I- '<'. ". ! ' . l~ :.'~. ~:::.; . .:.. . ':i :-'. '. ., ~.'. . i: . . :' .' , i : \ ; }. , ! f . L , I I I i J . .. , . . . :--..:........... PS Form 3800, ADril199S - ~ ..0 <xl - o . o c::> - ...... . ~ PS Form 3800, April 1995 [ ~ ~ ~ a ~ l? ~ ;!' .:< ~ ~ ;r .. .. - - - ...., c:> _ . . ~ g ~ o ....- ':" ~. U'i:$ OO'OS S?;"l$ co'os OO'OS 0;'1$ 99:! poY!U!lO S Q6~d tZ'OS Z09EE 1:3: "BdtIIi:1~ 00171# '-edn:rn~I; '.N oat s.IaAnI ~o~ :U+J,V ':)UI 'SUo!:).'B:)!tffimmoJ'~:).STI1..M. Hew paw~a::> JOI ld!a~al::t a:lll\Jes Imsod sn L 'it '[ E L 2 "2h. Z _._~-,._._- ... .' '1 S' ~ S: a. 0. e. 2. ~ l? ~ ~ .:< -< ;:' "'T1 '" " co ~ w >.C: c n ~ ~.+::- ......., _ :0 UJ g, ~ S VI ,...;...... ~ a lil"o::l . .-" (') "J ~ 'g 5:'i:l ... ~~ ~ l!!- ;;' -:l tlJ t:i ,-... c...... -'!!:. ;:>~ c.....l . en "0 en co ..., cn "'I.,. ...,. \!! r- lo=:f (j .~ _' . . - ;: ~ r ::r'. g. ,g &f ::: w ~o . .j.;.. n ca w ~.. CD 0\0 Cii':. . ~ ...... 0. ..... c. _. 00 ~ :':~'~i~: [ u'> ,~ ~ ..,,- ~ - - C> Q <=> 0 Q <:> = 0 . . -- t-I Q t..l ~ N VI o ....- \.,:1 .. - - p 0 g g g ~ ~ ~.'" ~ :%2 ~ N [~ 8 s ~g ~ .r: g ;:>oJ-> ~ t1 ~ 'O"!!: ru .., "':j Q' g '.@'::f- r o..~o- ru -,'.en ""l g ~ W-o tr...C/,l._ WP-tH.tnl,.1 lJ.l 0'1 (';l :~::::: ~ o tn 0:...... :l tr. 0'0"':" ':;: -.J ~..._. en _": CD :- ::: ~:.:. 0.. ~ crQ ::. , .S: ...... l>> o - o I > I:-' [):I ..D ~ - - Q Cool ..... -- &:> N n.J ru ~ lJJ I::-' l):2 C> -0----------. ,. -- ...,- ---- ---... ""J ~.~<:n......... en J .. '\. 6' ~ ,.,\ 3 I' :':ull~ 1Il9;\~Od C.3 t-r . c:::I 06'7' \'::~\l: ~ 'iye6t~""'3nv.lO.I. 0 o ~I \ ~\ 1'rll\1 T.:"?::r E=' ,." =WV.9<~'1'i1l:Q > OO'~ "'::~~~=l:l-g, , ~ alBO ~ WOll,M ::: Sl: 'n Cl1 6\J!"'OllS ldp~ Wtl~1:I ~ r---. OO'OS OO'O! OO:! A.iMJoa pB'O!J~ ~:l.<Ja^!fOa [E;:llXiS ao:! pa~ 'U s ofislsod 1119f:i 1:1 IJdWJl 819SE 1d "edtII"e~ OfZ# 'dA!lIT JiIed pOOMlpsng O~Vt: ~uoq~'[Ila mma :u::uy ~:qS!'lln IJeW pam~ao JO~ ld!a~a~ , e:J!^-IBg J'SlSOd sn " . . ..".: 9irr El.2 "2" Z ... _..~.-.-~_.- - .. '.: . . .. ~--=....~....._:....'--. >i ~ ; PS Form 3800. April 1995 ~ ..t:.. ~ ~ :Dc ~ f ~ ." ttl 0 ." 0 = ...... .....00 ~UJ g ;;: 1:2. ..... i .... o? ~C')~ 3' ~ 0. E!!. s.. '10 .. .. ? tD Q ~ .e~ ~ 8. c ;:' e ~ g, (l; co I---! 0 l:l:I ~ - ;r .:< ~. '< ~ -~ ;z1 roo 0- .;c ""ll;l JI c>> t:i w C".l s:: co W 0 (j) (") ~ 0'Ir:=~ ;;, -.J ...... ~. ~ 0 to .- ~ - CD <: c. c.. :g u - - - - - - - :;t: ~ ~ c::o .... ~ .::> ..... &:> W 0 , ~ ~ -0 ~ c::o 0 c "" 0 Cl::l <;:> Q Q 0 f ~ ? a.. ~ cr i3 ~ ~ ~ ;;' ~.. '" .;c ." '" co ......;O\>~:tJc StlJ 8:= o~ en Vl::l CJo~ ~ tDS':~~~ Cil .... . -3 'S. r;; ~ 2, 5::. ~ o~ w~ S ~""ll;l W e, C'P r C") 0..::: (jo~ w~ttlg= ..p.. 0 a-r' ~~r.nc ~oS~J w 0.= o en 0'1 I;IJ :Il ~ s: .0. a o g, Ci .:< .... c>> .. -m - - ... ... .. . -0 .::> 00 c;:J - .- - Q Q <;:;> - - - Q - Q . . . Cl .,.. c..I Q Q ..... t1l -, .1 \1 i : ~~';' .- j- j :1 . .t f .I. i. "= r. '{ . i , , i ~ . .~ '~.~ '1 ::i - !:'" ..., ... - = . Q o .\.. .1 .j ./ .1 ,I - "-J , ..., co - o . o Q - .- , ..... CJ1 - - " ..... <.II - Cl <=. <=::> ::::> ~ "'" ~ ... o 2- ai -< .., .. .. - o 1::> Q llb-Z$ oo.as SZ'l$ OO'OS ()(J , O~ 0;" ~ .sg .. o. e.. ~ ~ -< ~ .. - Q " g .g> o ~ o ~ .,- o -< "TI ell co - o " g .-.0.. Q;I,I AJaAl)ilG pGC!Jls;j'tj 99::1 N9A1IQa !l:?90s 03;! peg!Uao s . . 9001S0d b llSL Xl 'SVllva 6IZSLx~~~a 001# cA1:1M:l.rnd:~a'I EEEE ~O!P~)! SIOOaQ :UUV 'our 'ssalal!& ~W~~'BcI new pa!JIlJ8:) .JO! Jd!8:J8H e~!^-Ias relsOd sn 96'[ EL2 h2h Z ..,. ~:, C'l !! ;a ell Q. ~ '" '-.]......>> ." p:l........... c ::DC d - ........ ~ Ct:l CD en . N :. -".~ ,-- ~ .:> -l tl) ~'~.('1) n 0 '" p;:;-...,8 '-<:: !:!. !!l - r- tl) .......:~ I '0 l!!. ru =- en .... ll) ~ ... en SCl1 0, ,~ .... _~ - en ('1) ~ ','" ~ 0 c tn('1) P '''''"--..., 0" ru tT1...oi :.:l'~ <: ~.. _, ...., tIJ' s:: ('Il.... "'" ..., ~ < :en '__ \, J lJJ r- r-c __';10--04 ...-- m - ,(';l ... t..IlJ,J -<-< ::. ~ ~ ~ Ctl :~._ = t..I W :;:d :.~. CD o c... ':: . c.. \.oJ';" :is: :::t: ~, .~ - - , - <;> "'-,,":1,",: . ~ ~ Q. ." .. '" >- en :cc ...."0 CD en 5" :::, n ~ ::: CD!!. - -.Ill ~ "S:. c;:; :::-: () - ~ tIJ CZl 0 - tn -di t:d Q a. I ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ :p n ....l.J.J '< ~ lJ,J "'0 -.....J ~_ 0\0- o en o. ......:lcn~ (I:l q ('1) ('1) ....... o CD c.. ~ m Q l o -------- lib' ~$ 0(1"0$ SZ'I$ OO'O~ OO'OS ;'U r-'-. Q;l;:l Ne~9a p;tl!ll591:l Q:l::! NllA!1Qa ~eds 99,1 pa~!\leo S e6elStld o 19EOl91d~~&~.L .PAIS: 'l.IBcI aOlaUlllIOJ SOES . ~apIBH qog :nuy ssaIal!& H.LD IJeW paH!lJ8:> JOJ ~d!a088 . e::l!/JaS felSOd sn ..... " 1[02 EL2 h2h Z ; '. . --..-----0-- '''-'.__.''''':''~'. .. . .#I_~ ~-'" --:______J ._:'-::_.__..-.:..~~._.._'_:......:--1_,,:-.:;'~_._~--- : i ,', I:-' -lJ Ln " , - ...., . .... CD - ~ <=> Q - ..... , .... "'" ::i N ru n.J --.J L.LJ !:-' ....c l:.J - ...., . .... c:c - <:> o <=> - - . ~ .... en ..., ~ o !!!.. fi -< ." ~ ~ ~ ~ i c. co ~ '" LIt > >- :tl c S;:t~nl~ ::3Onoo t!'J .. ('-. - ,..,. ~~: ~C'n . ~ G' < - r-< -~. ~ lAS~ (") W 0 \..loI al ~~g a ~tl:lX'" - .......~ m < Co ~ s: ,; m o - co o c::> - - - <=> . . . ... to.! <;> <o.l ...... - C> . <=> <:::> ........ - "'Ij t'"-4 CI> -0 '" D. ~ ~ :C' co -< ." ~ ~ R t .... co co ." o sr '" .. o~>~:oc ""1CXl~Ol'tl('J -- 0 t:3 c:r' (') ;,; 8 ........ t::.:(tl~ c.. t:r:l ...... 0 t:j"= o. 0 O-g - n Q 0 -< ~~~gg~ ~ 0~"'C1 VJ:::8:jCD ~ -. rn ~ co~ :::: 8u ""1 ~ CD Co ",--... - Q o c;::l - <=> . to <=> - .- . ..... .:> ;;::' - <:> t..J w ..... ,'. 116"l$ " . OO"OS ~'U OO'Oi OO'O~ , ':, i i J i ! . . : I O;'U rr.:"Oi o "'tl rn ~ " . Scl:'fl ~ ""------mo JO WlSlld c%l /:'$., ~i'~la6~~~J.OJ. ~ , ,...:.\ 0 ,::. ~ ~'?rPItQ- " :> ,.:;, , " _ ~!l:::. .~ ',~lIdO~~~ ::: . '/1ll&/Jml.~~wnI91:l :g ,.' tll.. ":I il^PO FlP~Sd~ 88.:J ,{JllA!llI('] JeP9dg ~.:J PayJU9:J s e6e1llCd ~ glEOS VB ~trRIlV OO~# '4BIDflBd asmo::moJ ano sauCos: ){:J!-tJ.BcI:UllV '::TIIJ: 'rQ:J.IaMod: I!ew pa!l!llao JOJ IC!CJ::1a!::f .~ 9:l!Nas (mSOd sn :'. . . ~ . :.. . . .; ': .; . "". _. ,.- E6,[ EL2 h211 ~..... >.~ " ~ tv -'~ :rJC g, ~..... S .,p.. S '::: en rn ;:; - =--"0 -....J.. UJn~ ~ ':i ::J:o: -....J -'0 enUl ;r ;;.~ ~ ~ - t::' .a-g, .. .." '"Ij ~ "'"t............ en r- ~ ..... ('P ::r' _ ~ '-J C1l~. ~ 0 -. ~ l.l.J 8 ~'~ "" ~ t>J l.l.J _ . <::; 0 (") ~ 0\ ::l - 0"' en w :::.~ :1 -....J U c... -. -. ""l t:l.. ..,.. ::: . 0:;::: m ::3"""-la. ~ :i: n :!!. PS Form 3800, April1S95 !f Ii ~ t P&:Il ~ 0 g Co. !?. ~ ~ if -< .;c =' ~ CD <II - ~ -0 c:o - - CI _ . 8 bl PS Form 3800, April 1995 - I'.J . .... oa - Q . Q Q - .... . "" ColI ~ ~ > to :Dc ::1 ::-:: :::: ~ en to ;:::l ,.....::: ....... n "'tl "'0 UJ ctJ g JD c: ~ 0 -. eI Cf.) ~ c: 'C rn Iorj ~ E? :: lD r:I:en :70* w:E ~~""'tal ~~ g~ ~ \OO~~::;; ---' ce. q ("D' ~ ~: :... c. .:= s: p llS -Eo9- - - o 0 8 g - ...- . -.. Q - ~ t>J ..... ;; !(J ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ J ~ i' <II <II ~ Ol-. [ ;;' ... "" ~ co CD .(I) - <;) , o Q - .... . -.. 10 - ~ o o - ? w "" z ....1... -" :.;; ~ ~ i ~ ~ - o o o o ~ SL'Z:~ ao"at " . .0': '. .. .. to. '; :. ..... \ilD2 EL2 h2h Z .. .-. - --.. ,- .:.......---- , . '. .' _......"!.~~.- , .. .ru --.J W ~ ~ > >-..1C a 0 S g lV'... "'d IV.. E.;' ('7 ? n~oS'c. ~~ ~o::~ ~o-ten30s. \.;J ~ td'S .,!il U..l rn"1 (") O\I-dOcctJ l.l.J t'>:l ~ ;::. a .,p..:!..en- ~ ~Ci' '-' o. Co ;t f;; ~ -----= :. . n ." CD 0 [€; E- '" ro ... <II -n co <II ::l:l en ~. i 6- 0 ... l!!.. ~ ~ ~ -< .;c ." ~ IS <II N . .1:'.: J ' t1J : ~ ~ <n . nJ CJ . ru " - ~ ..a oa - o . CI Q - - - _ 0 Cl . . . ...., Cl 0 C.I1 Q = - - :- Q ..... Q W ?d ~ N t:n~>> r+ IV ...... -':DC .....,U'lO'::1mcn '\oJ 0 -' 0 n ~ s.o~cctJ!!? (1 ~ (") -'" ~ g,= E ~g~ 0" 0 * '"t:l o~ EUlto~~g gQ ~ 0 S' C") en _ ell l;:j - -. (1Q .., ~.....(") = I..~::T' :: w~ ~ U..l -< c: c> ::: 0.. ~ ~ ~ 0'1 Z Ea, ti 0 ~ ... "" o ~ ro CD n CD ~ '" "" ." '" CD en "0 co g, e!- o I}, ~ -< ." ~ ::l co S. Sl. Z. o !:. ~ -< ." ~ ...t: IlJ ru ~ w ru o lLJ I;/t - /oJ -0 ca - .- . ...., '" - o o Q - ..- . ~ o Q . Cl I;;) - Q . Q <;J -_. _. .r _ .....1......."-... " o o ., /'" -, -1 - . . I' -M en ~ a:: r- :s ~ r- ...1 CJ 0 c CJ 0 0 c p. c rl c c M .,., '" 'q' 'q' C'\ 8 + I ~ ci . " ..., '" . ~ . + . 11"\ . . .. {it + ~ .. . . '~ . ~. .. .. ~ . ~ . E! 0\ 2 . ~ G: . ~ .', ? .. '" .. ~ "" . ;,; '" ", '-. f= .. J . ~ " _..:....... e: . " ", "'.- ....., .- i . ," -, " .' m .. g - , to .. .. " : ............: ~ . "" .' ... . ::1 :..Il : - .. ~ ..,. . , ... ,;, .. ~,ru , ' '" <0 .. " . : . ~ ,:J. .. l:3'~ c-: . L::;" . 8j-U1 - I .. . :1;;::0 . .. : ~I'~ " .. , .. .. .. .,. . : . ,', .::. I . '1"1.1 " " ", . ~"'=' + m .. "'." .. I ,. .. , , ~ . .. .. . .' I:C . 3 . , . t.lJ , c-: . .. "E 2 I:l . ~ . t.lJ rn .. .J ':0 ~ .. ... .. 0 :> a; g .. ,-1 """ .. ~ " - :.. . - -a -= . .. Ifl m .. a:! -~ , '" . t.lJ " ~;. .. >= " (~ u .. j 0 ~ c:J . '2 .... . ...J M . " .. ", ~ N "" " ~~ ; w '" . :>- ...- N n .. " W-lO~ . ~I . u ,; .. c.::J::l.....cc . ..J ':;: : ~rn.gr:; . o , - .... u t:J . ~ .. w' e:: 00-,- . t'- ~ LL.~~~ .. ..... .. t;j G .. <:s' 0 <{ a E 2<=':::::: . :~~ 0 0:; ~ _ZLUQ " .... u.. 2e~~ .... . al , ~ E " .. ~i 0 :ii <c::~'? "0 c ::;:; .~ :-: 0 .... ... ~ 0 < :<a U~<l:tg ::::: u I --JLUI.O ~ 0 0; ~:, ~ s: !:C--- c ~ W ... w-u;:; U ":::l ;.:t lJ 2;:; ..... ,,'" o . ::: co ..... :: u ..... < ~ ...... 0 U .> < N >- U .. ~ .... ~' u D 0 ::l U ":l "":l ,q c: '- -'d ~ ;,.' 0 u 0 '" -3 u .~~ >- C\ 0 W ~ ~ J ~L:. en D --0 U"\ ~ <5 :J Oc:: ;; OJ ~ ~ ">l __w G >-0 0 ~ . ., < - <::: w .. ,~ 0..0 :! . ,;w ):L ~ .---.. I "-. ...... ~~ ~~ Division 20. Section 3-2001. . A. c. D. ~ o o ARTICLE:3 ~EVELOPMENT STANDARDS Division'20;' . Telecommunication Towers T elec~uimuniC3tion' T o:Wers.- ~ Telecommunic:ltion Towers and Antennas~ Purpose and goals. The purpose of this Divisionis.to establish general stmldards for the siting of telecommunications towers and antennas. Tne goals are to encourage the use of. existing structures as an alternative to new tower construction, to encourage the joint use of new towers, to encourage the design and construction of towers and antennas whichminimii:e the adversevisuaI impacts, and to enhance the ability of providers of telecommunications services to furnish such services within !he City quickly, effectively and .efficiently., ,It is not the intent of the City to discriminate among providers ..of functionally equivalent services, or to prohibit or have. the e:ffec~ of prohibiting..the pr~v~sion of personal wireless services. B. . . . .. ,".. . Applicability. T decommunicauons lowers and antennas installed and maintained in accordance with. this Division are exempt from :me height limitations for buildings and strucrures set forth elsewhere j~bhis Developzn.ent Code. . The requirements set Jonh in this Division s.haQ govern the height of towers and antennas. The installation of an antenna on a building which is nonconfcnning'in terms of the height limitations of this Di~ion shall not be deemed:to constinite.the expansion of a non conforming use. The installation of aii antenna on an existing-tower which is nonconforming in terms of the provisions of this DiviSion shall Dot be deemed to Division shall nor be deemed to constitute !he expansion:cif a nonconfoririing use. Amateur radio antennas operated by a federally li~ensedaIi1ateur radio station operator are exempt from the provisions of this Division. Home satellite dish antennas which are one meter or less in diameter and similar receive-only'antennas are considered a residential accessory ~e, and are ex~~pt from. me re~uir~m~~IS of tfis.. Division. :: :..;.. . ~ . :.: . . .Antennas. ".Ante~as are'an accessory tiSe in all zOning districts. Antennas may be installed on e~isting strUcrures,such. as buildings;:or other freestanding structures, provid~d. th~ installation adds no more ,than twenty (20) feet to the height of the structure and the antenna~" and supporting electrical and mechanical equipmenl are neutral in color and identical ,to. :or closely: compatible with the color of the supponing .s:trucrure so as to make:ilie ~tenna:> ~O::n.d related equipment as visually unobtrUSiv~'as possible. Where possible, antennas should be architecturally screened or integrated into architectural elements. All antenna installations shall require a permit from the Ciry. No lighting shall:be permined,except as may be required by the Federal Aviation Administration., . .:: , . Telecommunication Towers. . ;' . .~,'. ~ L Joint use of existing lOWerS required:a:s'an alternative to new tower construction. Joint use of existing telecormnunications towers or other existing buildings or stI'U,ctures is required as an alternative to new tower construction. whenever feasible. ,Therefore;' anyone considering new tower conStruction, must first explore other options. Prior to the issuance of any .~. -, . . . -:' .., ~ ern' OF CUARWATEn LAND DEVELOPMf:NT REGULA nONS AS ADOPTED JANUARY 21. 1999 PAGE3-121 EXHIBIT B ~ .',~.... ~ . "lO. . ; ~,.~ . : ;;-~.~. - ., o o ~~rwater -~ .~ ," i ~ . ARTICLE 3: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Division 20. Telecommunication Towers building permit for a new tower, a determination must be made that no existing tower or other structure is available as a reasonable alternative. An applicant requesting a permit for a new"to~er shall submit evidence 'to the City that suppons acondusion that no reasonable use can be made of any existiDg tower or strUCture. The eviden~ shall clearly establish one or more of the following conditions: . a. No existing triwer' or:structurC is located within the geographic area required to Irieenhe a'pplicant:~.coverage requirements. . .., . ~.. ;-;;:..-; . b. Existing towers or structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering rcquir~ents. c. Existing'tower5 orsirucrurcs do n.othave sufficiemstrUctural strength to suppOl1 Lhe.applic~t's propo~~d antenna and related equipment. d. The applicant's. proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with or would be interfered with by other antennas if placed on any exiSting 'tower OLStiuCrure. . .....'- .' e: The fees, costs odcontractual 'P~ovisions required by the owner in order to share an "existing tower .or strucrure for a time period of twenty-five (25) years;' exceea:'Ilie cost of developing a new tower. ", ".. f. It is notfinancialW'feasible IO.1f1odify or replace an existing lOwer to accommodate'the proposed anteIina :. : ..' :.; ':.=.,. :. ~.! . g. The applic:ant" de~on~trates th~fthere are other legitimate limiting .factors that render;~sting to~et:;,~d structures unsuitable. ... ....-... . 2. Permitted Use Modifications or Rc;p!acement of Towers and Utiliry Structures 'to Accommodafe Co-Io.cati~~_~by Level One Approval (Flexible Standard). :. "" . .:;".. . a. . Modification or "Replacement .;6f Existing Telecommunications Towers. An existing telecommumcations 'tower may be modified or replaced to accorri.ri1odate me co-location of antennas as a permitted use, as follows: .~; . - . 1. T elec:omniunications lowers which, when modified or replaced, .~ will conform. to the requirements of this Development Code, may be modified or relocated on the same zoning lot. . n. Telec:ommiliu~tions 'tow~ which, when modified or replaced, :Will :.not conform tot he requirements of this : .. .' ~" . .., : ....- _. . CITY OF CLEARWATER LAND DEVELOPMENT REGUlA noNS AS ADOPTED ..... JANUARY 21. 1999 PAGE3-1:n ~ .:-;. "~' . ,. . ." , ~: ... : '. o o ;~ u~ .. \ . ARTICLE 3: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Division 20. Telecommunication Towers Development-Code, may be increased in height, up to forry feet above the originally approved height and/or relocated on the same zoning 101, one time, within 75 feet ofrhe existing location without regard. to setbacks or height related limitations~ . IU. After a telecommunicarlo'ns toWer is replaced., as provided herein, the existing. telecommunications tower shall be removed within 90 days;:::::' IV. The modified or replaced~ telecommunications tower shall be either of the same type as the existing telecommunications tower or a monopole. :..: , .' b. Modification or ~l~emen~ p(Existing Utility Snuctures Other than Telecommunications Towers'/:An existing utility structure, such . , : ' as light pales" po~r poles,. c;j~Cal transmission towers; and the like, may be modified, or replace~, to accommodate both its prior function, and to ser:vic:e the pla.eeirient of antennas as follows: ' 1. , ~.. ",-. .. Such ~~,~ whi~~~;hen modified or replaced, will conform to,:.the,:,height and ,placement requirements of this Development Code for the primary structure so modified or replaced, may be modifi~ or relocated on rhe same zoning Jot within th~;.r~_quirements ',~tthis Development Code Such s~ctUre~ which; wh~ii modified or replaced will not conform to the height' an,d. placement requirements of the 'Development Code for.~the:primary structure may be: ii. .' .:,;..,. (1.) (2.) Increased in height,: one time, if a'dis~~e gi-cater; than 100% of the height of the modified stIUctufe:from any single-family residential structure, up to 50% of the height of the existing 'structure or a totaVof] 40 feet, whichever is less; or .. . . : . '.~. ~., . .. ..-.. (3.) if a, distance less ,than 100% of the height of the modified' structure ,from any single-family residential structure, up to- 2.5%, of the height of rhe existing structure or a total of 140 feet, whichever is less; and/or i' '.' - __ " I~t.~ (4.) Relocated on the same zoning lot, one time, within 50 feet, .of the existing, location, with administrative review and without conformance with any other . . ~.'" . .. ..;.. ~... CITY OF CLEARWi\TER LAND DEVEl.OPMENT REGULA nONS AS ADOPTED JANtJAR\':!l, ] 999 PAGE.3-123 ! !....; I :_. _ ~ .. " ~.!~ . '. o o ~~rwater ~~ . '.. '. ARTICLE 3: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Division 20. Telecommunication Towers " setback, separation or height related requirements contained herein. (5.) The modified or relocated structUre shall comply with all applicable' FCC and F J\A regulations and applicable building codes. , , 3. joint use of new towers required. Joint- use of any new telecommunications tower is required whenever feasible. .In order to promote joint use of new towers, prior to the, issuance of a building permit for a new tower, the applicant shall demonstrate:a commin:nent to joint use as follows: . a. Solicitation of additional users:' The applicant requesting the permit shall submit evidence to the~Ciry demonstrating that a genuine effon has been made to~solicit additional users for the px:oposed new tower. Evidence ofthiseffon shall include, at minimum, copies of notices ' sent by registered mail, re~.~~eipt requested, to all other providers " of cellular and personal communication services in Pinellas County, Florida.. advising:ofthe intent to: construct a new lOWer. identifying the location,inviting the joimuse and sharing costs, and requesting a wrine~ responS~.within fifte~~{15).days. '. . b. " Agreement to aIlow'futUre joint,"use. The applicant shall sign an , instrument, which, shall be maintained by the City, agreeing to encourage and promote the joirituse of tel~communications towers within the City and, to that extent, committing thanhere shall be no unreasonable act or omission:thai'would have the effect of excluding, obstructing or delaying the joint use of any tower where fair and JUSt cOII;1pensati,on: is offered for such use. 4. Design Standards. ~. ; :: . ~ I:-!.: : .:,.~.. '; ~ a. Height. Single uSer towers are:allowed a maximum height of one hundred and twenty (l20} feet.', Towers designed for joint use may be greater in heiglit;':provided the additional height is constructed coincident with the actual use. ":Furthermore, existing conforming towers may be increased in height to accommodate additional users with a Level One' ApprovaL : i'owers designed for two users are allowed a maximum heightoLone hundred and forry (140) feet. Towers designed for three (3) orinore'users are allowed a maximum height of one hundred and sixry.(16D) feet. . '" b. Setbacks. 1. From residenti~ uses. Towers shall be set back from existing residential uses a distaitce equal to the height of the tower. em' OF CLEARWATER LAND DEVELOPMENT RECUl..A TJONS AS ADOPTED .. JANUARY 21, 1999 p AG, .3-124 .. L ~ , " o o James W. York, Deputy Chief Judge Division of Administrative Hearings March 1, 2000. Page Two 7. Citizen correspondence received by Planning Department 8. Staff Report for July 20, 1999 meeting 9. Order of Community Development Board denying approval of subject application with attached Minutes of January 25, 2000 Community Development Board meeting and attached original transcripts prepared by D & D Reporting Services, Inc. of portions of the Community Development Board meetings of July 20, 1999, October 5, 1999, November 16, 1999, December 14, 1999, and January 25, 2000. 10. Audio tapes 1, 2, and 3 of January 25, 2000 Community Development Board meeting. For the convenience of the parties and witnesses please schedule the hearing in Clearwater. You may contact Betty Blount in the City Manager's Office at 562-4040 to schedule city commission chambers or the large conference room; or you may contact this office at the above number regarding other available hearing locations. Very truly yours, ~~~~ Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney LDS:grh Enclosures . Copies to: E.D. Armstrong, III, Esquire, Attorney for American InfoAge, LLC City Clerk Ralph Stone, Planning Director FR01 : . - ... o FAX NO. ~OV. 04 2000 12:05AM P1 435 Douglas Avenue, Suite 1505-F Altamonte Springs. FL 32714 Office Main: (407) 772.3172 Fax: (407) 772-3177 Fax To: ;< a I ,Jh S I-orte I Fax: /~7- Sb;)-V57C:. @7- 77;)- 3l7b ;!.tP ;000- /oo/?- From: ??rfJ1c1a tf"r9'I'e/~,/ /1fCl/K SchUM Pages: %' 3 Date: /113/00 cc: o Urgent Itl For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply CJ Please Recycle I had f" 7" '/IeI' y" /-e tlff VitiS rill clocvlfwd tuil/11 Vh packary tJ! Cfj;,t'Y79S I dr&/INd ~ yeskrda..y a't- YOfJr fAt-ice. p/-eas-e tid! /lltJ Vlu-111-e ( SA 0 (/ /cI fotJ If Cl Ye t2 Hf' 9 tie sit MY ;7 /u s.e fa // //far/:. a.t- l/O 7- ;;;;/ -10 d 7 7LL filE &OP1 p~~ FRC1 ~(~f o FRX NO. "re) 0 C) ",-- I ()() I /) ~Nov. 04 2000 12:05RM P2 ... ~ f' Federal Aviation Administration Southern Region, ASO-5~O P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 ISSUED DATE: 05/19/00 KEVIN C. BECKER (TA 20) AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES 501 E. KENNEDY BLVD., SUITE 1100 TAMPA, FL 33602 ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** AERONAUTICAL STUDY No: OO-ASO-2752-0E The Federal Aviation Administration has completed an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.. Section 44718 and, if applicable, Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Description: ~W ANTENNA TOWER. 870-895 MHZ/100 WATTS. Location: Latitude: Longitude: Heights: CLEARWATER FL 27-57-30.70 NAD 83 082-45-31.90 165 feet above ground level CAGL) 220 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is (are) met: Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However,' if marking and/or lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed and maintained in accordance with FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1K. This determination expires on 11/19/01 unless: (a) extended, revised or terminated by the issuing office or Cb} the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction or on the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED TO THIS OFFICE AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoins includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency (ies) changes in coordinates, heights, frequencyCies) or use will void this determination. Any future construction description which and power. . Any of greater power or alteration, .~!i~;O~~--32~~:J~1 r ;.., ,l~,' - r. ~... '- ,-r~'JC ! C I (( ,- CLo ~ r I I I FRC'1 : - ~ e FAX NO. ~OV. 04 2000 12:06AM P3 I" including increase in heights, power, or the addition of other :. transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does. include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airs~ace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibllities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communication~ Commission if the structure ~s subject to their licensing authority. If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at 7104-3 5-5588. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, pIe reterz.:onautical Study Number OO-ASO-2752-0E. ~ ........ Armando Castro (DNE) Specialist, Airspace Branch rn ~ (P I I' ~lU~~ ~ ~;:J -!' I :1' 1-' - - -- . I PLA' ' ----- .--~ l'-jU''! It:l-.::'';:j:;> 1cj~:1-- ~3we'/" ^DMINISTllAl'lON BUILDING WI FOIlTth SUn! S. W ~~). Bo:c 29.. 2 lUgD. fl. 1)779-2942 (727) ~'l313 F" X (727) 588-6202 S,hool Bond of ril'lell:u CoUIlCY. Florida ChairmiJn ur llrn)min Viet Chairman Max R. Gl:mx:r, Ph.D. N~ncy N. llo~ock ]3nc G3!lucci SIl53n Lac\'ftl~ Lind~ S. ~ner ThomasC. Todd Superl1ltendenr J. Howilrd Hinr~ley. Ed.D. Pind(~ICollnc.v Sclu)ols II ~n cqual"pporcuniCy inslitutionfor ,durlltion and clllploymrnf. P .12fl (!~.~~I- (-1 a P1NELLAS COUNTY SCHOOLS g0<7''ln'''l~ dtc.~ c?lwQ.'lJ. CWCnllLt RECEIVED November 10, 1999 NOY 1 5 1999 Mr. Michael J. Roberto City Manager City of Clearwater 112 South Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Dear Mr. Roberto: I've received your letter of November 2, 1999 and request for confirmation referencing a meeting with both your representative and American Infoage. Our position is, by contract, we share a mutual usage on the tower with AT&T on our Arcturas property which is adjacent to Clearwater High School. This contract dictates any co-locating, removal or adding of any equipment has to be consensual by both AT&T and the School Board. Secondly, we have just bid a brand-new communications system that will impact the space on the existing tower. Therefore) we are only agreeable to a meeting if AT&T representatives are also present and involved in the discussion and final outcome of the use, removal or co-locating on this tower. SinccrCI:p ~rd Hinesley, Ed.D. Superintendent o~ Schools ~ :oi /?~" .....U~. ~<~~. /J" (t Primcd on Rccycled PGPCl' TOTAL P. 01 o 11(0 W \O~O S-kJ.I ~linsky, Paula From: Sent: To: Subject: Hardin, Cyndi Sunday, November 07, 1999 11 :18 AM Chaplinsky, Paula RE: Cell Tower at Clearwater High School "--'--- - Yes, Mike and I met with Dr. Hinesley and he agreed to work with the City and tower developer to try to co-locate on school site. The Community Development Board to hear this case is Nov. 16-first item on agenda. Let me know if you need further info. Amy has the letter that Roberto sent to Hinesley. Thanks. -----Original MeSSage----. "- C\.. ~ ~d 0 From: Chaplinsky, Paula ~ Sent: Friday, November 05, 19994:51 PM To: Hardin, Cyndi Subject: Cell Tower at Clearwater High School Didn't you meet with Mike and Howard Hinsley? Ralph mentioned you were meeting regarding this issue. Let me know the status.. .just tracking!!! Paula Chaplinsky City of Clearwater Planning & Development Services Administration Staff Assistant III (727) 562-4582 e-mail: pchaplin@c1earwater-f1.com 1 . :. "', ~: :;.'" ',' ~'::.:~:'..... ..~::~>./~.~:.l> :~ :.:;,~:':'~ ". .>'~::: .:;{~~~:~~~::;t :'~:'.?X:.iE:Y .' o 0 CITY OF CLEARWATER ... ..-. POST OffiCE Box 4748, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33758-4748 CflY HALL, 112 SOUTH OSCEOLA AVENUE, CU'.ARWATER. FLORIDA 33756 TELEPHONE (727) 562-4040 FAX (727) 562-4052 CITY M~AGER November 2, 1999 J. Howard Hinesley, EclD. Superintendent of Pinellas County Schools Post Office Box 2942 Largo, Florida 33779-2942 Dear Dr. Hinesley: Thank you for meeting with me last Friday to discuss our mutual concerns regarding cellular transmissions. As we discussed., the existing cellular toWer on the Clearwater High School property serves the School Board and AT & T. American Infoage has submitted an application to the City of Oearwater to build a new tower to be located at 505 Vuginia Lane, south of Gulf to Bay Boulevard and just east of Keene Road. Due to the proximity of the existing tower on the school site and the proposed new site, it seems prudent to evaluate wherher the existing site at the high school can accommodate the potential new cellular users. We agreed in our meeting that ~e School Board and the City would work together with American Infoage to attempt to develop a solution to this issue through co-location of several cellular users on the school site. I would appreciate receiving a confirmation from you regarding this so thar the City of Clearwater can begin a discussion with American Infoage. Thank you again for your willingness to work with the City of Clearwater in developing a solution acceptable to all involved. . C- Michael J. Roberto City Manager o ~(C~~~~ D\i NOV 5 III I PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' CrN OF CLEARWATER ONE CITY. ONE FUTURE. BRIAN J. AUN("~~T. MAYOR-COMMISSIONER Eo HOOPER, VIe! ~YOR.COMMISSI(1I'1ER Eo 1iART, COMMlssrONEk e BOB CWI\, CaMMISSIOl'lelC J.B. JOHNSON, Jk., COMMI.~SIONEk TOTAL P.02 o &9J -\o..uQ.r\ . o Asmar, John From: Stone, Ralph Sent: Thursday, September 23,19996:16 PM To: Wilson, Denise A. Cc: Hardin, Cyndi; Asmar, John Subject: various stuff denise-would you please print out and give to mike; thanks mike-i will be out of the office tomorrow and next week; i have several things you have asked and wanted to let you know where they are: 1. the six month review for the new code will get to the city commission in february; <]. i briefed john asmar and cyndi on the status of the cell tower application on Virginia Lane; the Comm. Dev. Board meeting has been rescheduled for Oct. 5; if you/john can get w school board ./ before then we will leave as a public hearing; if not we can defer, but should let the board, . applicant and neigh's know next week if we are deferring; this is your call; please let cyndi hardin now and she will take care of; Gi; 3. cyndi is checking to see if we issue painting permits for structures like th red Schmooze; if not we are in an after the fact code situation which is not a happy; we may wa t to fold this into the code update; cyndi will advise you on this 4. we have modified our notification process to exempt rights of way so that people accross the street from applicants meet the definition of "contiguous" 5. we are issuing the decision on the jet ski application tomorrow; we are denying it due to compatibility issues with the residential area and other factors set out in the approval criteria in the code 6. tim johnson called reo the historic bayview application and i told him where we are reo the traffic concerns, compatibility w the neigh. and the speciman trees; he may call i think that covers the outstanding things you had questions on; cyndi's the boss next week ~,Icp.q p " ~; . ~~ )\" . . oJ ~~ ~ ~" / ~~?~v!( tI.f, j' ~ _,,~ ~ ~~~\7 ~t, ,J"~l \~~~, Ot. \) ; / ~ 'v' 01) ~ /' f ~v J' C;,? y "f ~ // ~~ ~ ~,~ // .'" ~y J ~.~. ~ ":,1.0 ~ J ,-;i! o o September 10, 1999 Memo To: Community Development Board Me~be~ Fr: Ralph Stone, Planning Directo~ft--Q Re: Clearwater High School Cell Tower Discussion with the School Board At the direction of the Community Development Board, subsequent to the deferral on the request of American InfoAge for a cell tower at 505 Virginia Lane, the Planning staff contacted the Pinellas County School Board to discuss the status of the cell tower located at Clearwater High School. The Planning Director met with Mr. Jim Miller, Director of Real Estate for the School Board at their office on September 1, 1999. Mr. Miller indicated that the School Board was aware of the application near the high school and understood the alternative to co-locate additional vendors on the school board site rather than add an additional tower nearby. He contacted the school board attorney, who referred him to Mr. John Feraca, Chief of the Pinellas County Campus Police Department, who had been actively involved with the cell tower issue at Clearwater High and had been involved in discussions with AT&T, who is the vendor at the high school. At the same time, Mr. Miller Cooper representing American InfoAge had also contacted Mr. Feraca regarding the status of the Clearwater High tower. Mr. Feraca provided a letter to Mr. Cooper, dated August 18, 1999 which indicated that the School Board had assumed ownership of all towers and monopoles on School Board property and that the School Board had no plans for any modifications on any of the School Board towers or monopoles. During the week of September 6, 1999 the Planning staff followed up with a call to Mr. Jim Miller at the School Board to confirm the information in the letter from Mr. Feraca. Mr. Miller indicated that he would contact Mr. Feraca and confirm the information contained in his correspondence. The staff indicated to Mr. Miller that we needed some indication of whether any improvement to the Clearwater High School towere would be made in the near term, one year, so that the Community Development Board could make a decision regarding the Virginia Lane application. The staff indicated that if any improvements were longer than one year out, the improvements would not be timely enough to change the staff recommendation to approve the application. The staff also requested that Mr. Miller or the most appropriate member of the School Board staff be present at the Community Development Board meeting to discuss the School Board's position on the Clearwater High tower. Mr. Miller indicated that he would attempt to provide representation at the meeting. As of this date the staff has received no other correspondence from the School Board. , o o /" However, based on the information contained in Mr. Feraca's letter it appears that the Clearwater High School tower is not an option at this time. Recommendation Based on this information, the staff recommendation regarding the application continues to be for approval of the application subject to the conditions outlined in the statTreport. Cc: Jim Miller, Real Estate Director, Pinellas County School Board WALTER POWNALL SERVICE CENTER lllll S. Belc her Road Largo. Fl 33n3 (727) 541-)526 School Board or Pinellas County. Florida Chaimun Lee Benjamin Vice Chairman ~1ax R. Gessner. Ph.D. Nancy N. Bostock Jane GallUCCI Susan Latvala Linda S. Lerner Thomas C. Todd Superintendent J. How.1l'li Hinesley. Ed.D. o o . .-. ~ PlNEllAS COUNTY SCHOOLS August 18, 1999 gO<Jt.VlJJ"~ .::Eudin.9 cflwad rwinnL't Mr. Miller M. Cooper American InfoAge, LLC 2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 230 Clearwater, FL 33762 Dear Mr. Cooper: The School Board of Pinellas County has assumed ownership of all towers and monopoles on our property from AT&T. Currently we have no plans for any modifications on any of our towers or monopoles. In the past, AT&T expressed an interest on the Arcturas tower site of removing the structure but apparently lost interest as they have not pursued and countered our offer. AT&T had proposed a shorter monopole from the current 150 foot tower, which would have affected the Board communication if we chose to use it. Pinel/as County Schools is an equal opportunity institution for education and emp/oymenL / ------ Jo eph leraca, Chief Pinellas County Schools Campus Police Department cc: John Bowen, School Board Attorney Printed on Recycled Paper 4t o o CDB Meeting Date: Julv 20. 1999 Agenda Item: II. B CITY OF CLEARWATER PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVlCES ADMINISTRATION ST AFF REPORT BACKGROUND INFORMATION: APPLICANT: William and Hope Georgilas REPRESENTATIVE: American Infoage. LLC. LOCATION: 505 Virginia Lane REQUEST: Flexible development approval to construct a 160 foot tall telecommunication tower and three concrete pads on which to place the equipment. PLANS REVIEWED: Site plan prepared by National Data & Communications dated 6/18/99 SITE INFORMATION: PROPERTY SIZE: 13.900 square feet PROPERTY USE: Current Use: Proposed Use: Office Office and communication tower PLAN CATEGORY: Commercial General ZONING DISTRICT: Commercial District ADJACENT LAND USES: Adjacent land uses are commercial. STAFF ANALYSIS American Infoage provides towers to the communication industry for the collocation of antennas. American lnfoage is requesting flexible development approval to construct a 160 foot tall tower capable of supporting at least three antennas. The existing office building will remain on the site and continue to be used as an office. The tower will go to the east of the building. There are no standards (setbacks. lot \\idth, etc.) in the Commercial District for communication towers. There are, however. three criteria for telecommunication towers in the Commercial District. Page 1 - o o CRlTERL.\ FOR TELECOMMUNICATION TOWERS (Section 2-704 L): I. No telecommunication tower is located on Cleanuter Beach. The telecommunication tower is located one hundred feet south of Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and \\ill not be located on Cleaxwater Beach. 2. If the telecommunication tower is located within a scenic corridor designated by the City of Cleanuter or a scenic noncommercial corridor designated by the Pinellas Planning Council, the applicant must demonstrate compliance witb tbe design criteria in those designations. The telecommunication tower is not located \\ithin a scenic corridor designated by the City of Clearwater. 3. The design and construction of tbe telecommunication tower complies witb tbe standards in Article 3 Di\ision 20: I. Joint use of existing towers required as an alternative to new tower construction. Joint use of existing telecommunications towers or otber existing buildings or structures is required as an alternative to new tower construction wbene\'er feasible. Therefore, anyone considering new tower construction, must first explore other options. Prior to tbe issuance of any building permit for a new tower, a determination must be made tbat no existing tower or other structure is nail able as a reasonable alternative. An applicant requesting a permit for a new tower shall submit evidence to tbe City that supports a conclusion that no reasonable use can be made of any existing tower or structure. The e\idence shall clearly establish one or more of the following conditions: a. No existing tower or structure is located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's coverage requirements. b. Existing towers or structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements. c. Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed antenna and related equipment. d. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with or would be interfered witb by other antennas if placed on an)' existing tower or structure. e. The fees, costs or contractual pro\isions required b)' the owner in order to share an existing tower or structure for a time period of twenty-five (25) years, exceed tbe cost of developing a new tower. f. It is not financially feasible to modify or replace an existing tower to accommodate the proposed antenna. g. The applicant demonstrates that there are otber legitimate limiting factors that render existing towers and structures unsuitable. Page 2 .., o o The applicant has stated that the proposed tower must be located in this geographic area in order to cover a specific range of broadcasting. The only other tower in this area is located on the Clearwater High School property and is owned by the Pinellas County School Board and leased to AT&T. This tower is in poor condition and neither the School Board nor AT&T has plans to improve it. The applicant has stated that the existing tower cannot structurally hold any more weight and therefore cannot accept any more antennas. The applicant, however. has not submitted evidence from either the School Board or from AT&T to support these conclusions. Staff recommends that a condition of approval be that prior to the issuance of a development order. the applicant must submit evidence supporting the poor condition of the existing tower located on the Clearwater High School property. 2. Joint use of new towers required. Joint use of any new telecommunications tower is required whene\'er feasible. In order to promote joint use of new towers, prior to the issuance of a building permit for a new tower, the applicant shall demonstrate a commitment to joint use as follows: a. Solicitation of additional users. The applicant requesting the permit shall submit e\idence to the City demonstrating that a genuine effort bas been made to solicit additional users for the proposed new tower. E\idence of tbis effort shall include, at minimum, copies of notices sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, to all other pro\iders of cellular and personal communication senices in Pinellas Count)., Florida, ad\ising of the intent to construct a new tower, identifying tbe location, imiting the joint use and sbaring costs, and requesting a written response within fifteen (15) days. The applicant has submitted proof that he has complied with these requirements. The letter, the list of users that the letter was sent to and the copies of notices sent by registered mail are attached to the application. b. Agreement to allow future joint use. Tbe applicant shall sign an instrument, whicb shall be maintained b)' the City, agreeing to encourage and promote tbe joint use of telecommunications towers within tbe City and, to that extent, committing that tbere sball be no unreasonable act or omission tbat would have the effect of excluding, obstructing or dela)'ing the joint use of an)' tower where fair and just compensation is offered for sucb use, The applicant has signed an agreement and submitted it with the application agreeing to encourage joint use of the tower. The applicant. American Infoage. is exclusively in the business of suppl};ng towers for collocation. 3. Design Standards. a. Height. Single user towers are allowed a maximum beigbt of one hundred and twent). (120) feet. Towers designed for joint use may be greater in height pro\ided tbe additional height is constructed coincident with the actual use. Furthermore, existing conforming towers may be increased in height to accommodate additional users with a Le\'el One Approval. Towers designed for two users are allowed a maximum height of one hundred and forty (140) feet. Towers designed for three (3) or more users are allowed a maximum height of one hundred and sixty (160) feet. Page 3 o o Community De\'elopment Coordinator a! a Level One Approval in accordance with the pro\;sions of Article" Dilision J of tbis De\'elopment Code. The applicant has not shO\m 10 feet of landscaping around the tower fence. However. there is ample room to locate the tower closer 10 the existing building in order the comply \\ith this requirement. The applicant has indicated on the site plan that the tower site will be surrounded by perimeter planting in compliance \\ith the City's regulations. The applicant is prO\.;ding the required buffer along Virginia Street in addition to the buffer requirements for communication lowers, Staff recommends as a condition of approval that the applicant submit a re\;sed site plan sho\\;ng the tower five feet closer to the existing building and a landscape plan showing the required buffer around the tower fencing as well as the number and types of plant species prior to the issuance of a development order. f. llIumination. Towers shall not be artificially lighted except as required b)' the FAA. At time of construction of a tower, in cases where there are residential uses located within a distance wbich is three hundred percent (300%) of the height of the tower from the tower, dual mode lighting shall be requested from the FAA. The tower is not required to be illuminated by the FAA and the applicant has not proposed to illuminate the tower. g. Appurtenances. Appurtenant buildings and structures shall conform to the standards set fortb in the zoning district regulations. Sucb buildings and structures shall be screened from adjacent properties and public streets. At a tower site, design of tbe buildings and related structures sball, wben practicable, use materials, colors, textures, screening, and landscaping tbat will blend them into tbe natural setting and surrounding buildings to minimize the \;sual impact. No appurtenant buildings are proposed at this time, The applicant has proposed slabs on which the users w;1I place their buildings and equipment. The slabs are screened from adjacent properties and streets by proposed landscaping. Staff recommends that a condition of approval be that all tower users place building and equipment only on the approved slabs. h. Design. To the eItent practicable, the tower shall be designed to blend into the surrounding en\;ronment in order to protect the aesthetics of tbe neigbborhood where tbe tower is proposed. The proposed tower is located in the interior of the property and is not visible from any street. The property on which the tower will be located is more than one hundred feel from Gulf-to-Bay Boulevard and will be landscaped to reduce any adverse impact of the tower on the appearance of the surrounding commercial properties, i. Waivers. The design standards identified above may be reduced or waived if such reduction or waiver would better satisfy the intent of this Dh;sion and such modification or wai\'er is re\;ewed and decided b)' the Community Development Board in concert with the application for a Level Two Approval. The applicant has not requested any waivers of the design standards. Page 5 o () ... Advertising prohibited; required signage and security. No tower shall be used for ad\'ertising of any type, and the placement of signs, other than warning signs and small in/or mat on placards with emergency and owner information, is prohibited. All towers must be reasonably posted, in accordance witb tbe City of Clearwater sign . ordinance, and secured to protect against trespass. The applicant is not proposing any advertising. 5. Installation and maintenance standards. Owners sball install and maintain towers, telecommunications facilities, wires, cables, fixtures and otber equipment in compliance with the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code and all FCC, state and local regulations, including adopted building codes. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a tower, the applicant shall pro\ide an engineering certification that the proposed structure meets such regulatory standards, including adopted building code standards for wind \'elocity. All towers shall achieve and maintain compliance with current radio frequency emissions standards promulgated by the FCC. The applicant \\ill comply \lith these requirements prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 6. Removal of abandoned antennas and towers. Any telecommunication tower that does not support an operating antenna for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months shall be considered abandoned and shall be removed or reactivated upon written notification b~' the City within sixty (60) days of said notification. Failure to do so shall constitute a \iolation of this Development Code. I . . Not applicable since no tower currently exists on the site. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the application and the site plan. staff recommends approval of the request submitted by American Infoage to construct a telecommunications tower at 505 Virginia Lane \\ith the following conditions: L Approval shall be initially for a tower 100 feet in height unless the applicant submits signed contracts to the Planning Department from three users during the effective period of the development approval as specified in Section -l~07 of the Community Development Code. If the applicant submits signed contracts from three users. the approval shall be for a l60-foot communication tower. 2. The applicant shall submit contracts with three users prior to the issuance of a building permit for a 160 foot tall tower. 3. The applicant shall submit a color sample of the tower indicating that the color is nonreflective prior to the issuance of a building permit. .... The tower users shall place their buildings and equipment only on the approved slabs indicated on the site plan. Page 6 o o 5. A landscape plan indicating plant species and numbers and location of plants shall be approyed by the staff prior to the issuance of a development order. 6. Prior to the issuance of a development order. the applicant shall submit evidence supporting the poor condition of the existing tower located on the Clearwater High School property. 7. Prior to the issuance of a development order, the applicant shall submit a revised site plan locating the tower five feet closer to the existing building and indicating a 10 foot buffer around the required tower fencing. Prepared by Antonia Gerli, Development Review Manager Assistant Planning Director Approval Planning Director Approval Attachments: Location Map Zoning Map Aerial Photo Photo of tower similar to the proposed tower Application Page 7 Asmar, John o o From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dougall-Sides, Leslie Tuesday, June 22,19993:22 PM Kronschnabl, Jeff Hedrick, Rick; Asmar, John; Akin, Pam RE: The City adopted a Telecom Ordinance governing placement of the towers after extensive work with the industry (actually took one and a half to two years of discussions/drafts) last fall. It was then wrapped into the LDC revisions. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides that local governments may regulate the placement of such towers but may not "zone them out" or restrict their location such that this has the effect of curtailing phone service. The technical problem is that we do not have an RF engineer on staff to testify on this issue so it is difficult to respond to companies' allegations that they must have a tower in a particlar location. The planning staff as of last year had looked at the zoning districts and come up with the current configuration of zoning districts in which towers are allowed. New planning staff may wish to revisit this issue. Any amendments are likely to involve discussion with and possibly opposition by the telecom companies. The bottom line is we are somewhat constrained by federal law in what we can do with placement of these towers. From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kronschnabl, Jeff Tuesday, June 22, 19992:46 PM Baier, Richard; Hedrick, Rick Garriott, Kevin; Slone, Ralph; Hardin, Cyndi; Dougall-Sides, Leslie RE: We saw this one coming and brought it up via Lorenzo for discussion with Legal. As I recall there were some TeleCommunications regulations that allowed them the access to do this. Lorenzo ran with this and never got back to me on the results. I will check internally and see if there is any other info I can find. Jeff From: Hedrick, Rick Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 19992:11 PM To: Kronschnabl, Jeff; Baier, Richard Subject: FW: Do either or both of you know the answer to John's question. It seems to me that there was some discussion around this issue a little over a year ago. Rick -----Original Message----- From: Asmar, John Sent: Thursday, June 17, 19994:23 PM To: Roberto, Michael; Hedrick, Rick; Akin, Pam Subject: Recently, we have seen an increase in applications regarding cell towers. Has the city discussed any regulations regarding the enforcement of these? Is there a concern? Please advise Planning and Development Services I Page 1 o o Central Permitting Department 100 So. Myrtle Ave., 2nd Floor Clearwater, FL 34616 CITY OF CLEARWATER Fax ~~ To: Grace Galiano From: ANTONIA GERLI, SENIOR PLANNER Gunster, Yoakley, Valdes-Fauli & Stewart, PA Fax: 561 655-5677 Pages: 1 (Including this page) Phone: 813 650-0759 Date: December 29, 1998 Re: Communication Tower CC: Lorenzo Aghemo o Urgent 0 For Review 0 Please Comment 0 Please Reply ,.. , . Message: The communication tower about which you are inquiring is not located in the City of Clearwater's jurisdiction. It is located in unincorporated Pinellas County. The County Planner Department can be reached at 464-4751 and is located at 14 S. Fort Harrison Avenue, Clearwater, FL 33756. o GUNSTER YOAKLEY VALDES F o ~OOl 12/28/98 nON 13: 07 FAX 561 655 .5677 " f GUNSTER, YOAKLEY, VALDES.FAULI & STEWART, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW PHILLIPS POINT, SUITE 500 EAST 777 SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401-6194 P.O. BOX 4587 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33402-4587 OTHER QF'FICES IN: TO: FIRM: CITY, STATE: FAX#: .PHONE #; December 28, 1998 -- --_____ Zoning Department '\ City of Clearwater Clearwater, Florida (813) 562-4576 (813) 562-4567 TELEPHONE (561) 655-1980MIAMI, FL (:)05) 376.6000 TELECOPY (561) 655-5677FT. LAUDERDALE, FL ((54) 462.2000 PALM BEACH, FL (561) $66-1 i8D STUART, FL (561) 288-1980 TALLAHASSEE, FL (850)222-6660 VEROBEACH,FL(561)234-1040 r::? "ThY (/ '751 \ 't~q '3C{D I 2- . N <; ff ;-/UUUtM- FAX TRANSMITTAL FORM DATE: FROM: Grace Galiano ORIGINAL FOLLOWS: yes NO. OF PAGES TRANSMITTEC (INCLUDING HilS COVER PAGEl.............. 7 PleASE CALlIMMED!ATEL Y IF ALL PAGES ARE NOT RECEIVEO MESSAGE: JubutCA~ ps. ~/Ve ~ ~re-- 391366.1 -. 'f~~!~lID CENToRAFLcr~~~~~~ 1 C\TY 12/28/98 MON 13:07 FAX 561 655 5677 @. o GUNSTER YOAKLEY VALDES F o [4]002 CbUNSTER, YOAKlEY, VALDES-FAULl & STEWART, l'.A. ATTCRNUYS AT lAIV December 24, 1998 Via FAX and U.S. Mail City of Clearwater Planning and Development 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 Attention: Mr. Lorenzo Aghemo, Planning Director Re: Conununication Zoning Letter Dear Mr"Aghemo: v We-have a client that is in the process of ptU"Chasing an interest in the existing commw1ication tower in the City of Clearwater. I have attached a legal description for your reference. As part of the process they are requesting a letter from your Department relating to certain zoning and land use issues. I have attached the fonn letter we Ileed from your office. Ifthere is a charge fol' your service please contact me and I will forward a check to cover your expenses. Thank you very much for your help in this matter. Sinc,ely, JJr.tf ~ flj (!U-r-tU Grace Galtano Project Planner GGieb Encls. ~lE@J[JWlEJID , DEe i8 1998 rJPJ, CENTRAL CITY OF cfeEARMITTING RWATER 391C89,7/Lut~n PhlllJp'i I'oinl 777 South j:;JagIH Drive. Suite 500 Enst . West Palm llf.\ch. FL 3.HOl (56L) b55-1980 Fmc (56:) 655-5677 l~mail: cljellts~rvkes@gunslcr.'l)11l hltr:(lwww.gtil;~ll.T.com FORT Ul"ORTIf.)Ali: . MIAMi. PM.M BEACH' SjlJAIlT . TAllAHA~;;El1 . Vf:R.l) BEACH. wnST p.<\LM llt:Al:J-( 12/28/98 MON 13:07 FAX ~61 655 5677 GUNSTER YOAKLEY VALDES F ~003 SCHEDULE A l.oleAJ S; I~ ; , FILE NO. POUCY NUMBER DATE OF POUCY AMOUNT OF INSURANCS I JUly 25, 1997 7123795 0-:2125-125779 1$33,135.00 1. Name of Insured: NATIONAL DATA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. , A FLORIDA CORPORATION 2. The estate or interest in the land which is covered by this Policy is: FEE SIMPLE 3. Title to the estate or interest in the land is vested in the Insured. 4. The land referred to in this policy is described as follows: Lot 2, Block "A", HENRYVILLE SlJBDIVISION, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 41, ?age 51, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. 1~~~!~1ID CENTRAL PERMITTING CITY OF CLEARWATER For Company reference Purposes Only According to insured representation or vesting instrument(s), the street address of the property is: Street Name: VACANT- WEST RENA DRIVE City/State/Zip: CLEARWATER, FL County: Pinellas Pin/Tax #: 06/30/16/38232/001/0020 The Company does not represent or insure the above address is accurate STEWART TITLE Rc~. 00012 Rey. 11-91 GUARA:'-lIT COMPANY - o GUNSTER YOAKLEY VALDES F o [lJ 004 12/28/98 lION 13:08 FAX 561 655 5677 ~' " \""-\ a ~Itj tl! tlcn 'I ~'!::: · tilt tit ~llt t~~ ';t t l'l t t CIO ...'~ o! C? r::: i i ~ c:> C C c li C 0 !Ie c C? Q 0 <:I C Q ,.. o inlc Uti c~""'" ~coo '':''occcoooo.!..C'> Q .... loa ." en ~ D ............ c.a N W -' W N IN'" .. ... ... NNW n ~...1Il ~ ~ ~!ggg j!"I!-'~!D !"?P'I?~~r"~~~" _ ~ ~~ :-,:.;.:. N"".... oil> I .. ... oil> /II ...... <II <II .... N ~ W W'" "... ..... ~ ~ i ~m:;~ S' 'if': ~ ~.~ lD IE' 5' ;4 ~ I ~ f w ~ \g!. ~ ~ I~ ~ ~!t ~ g ~ !!! ~ (') ....:,' 0 2: i 1j' (II =I ':},. '" a I: 1::1 .. 0 _;;I, - 4/1 ,.."T1 "'I'" N _ v .. . CD .N..... :::l -:;:; 1_ I '6. "C:I .. ~ lQ ~ (g (\ .... 0 " n III g m' ~ "T'l ,[;:;;:;'" en rr 0 \; to)' &. !. ! 5' ~ !. =. I :II' iii' III :::..: .......... ! ~ s' i :'::::::::i ~ } !I! ...... ~ ~ c;; 1~ ~' \~ ~ ! I i .~~::::: 8. ~ ~ ~::: ~!3! ,,,,. " ~ 113 I '< I iii i N tfI i . ~ ~ - IllS i il Q I ~ II> I ::...." 0 ::r 1"1 .. :.:,;::,;:;,::;,;::,;: 8. I 5...,:...::!. I I ,,0 ..." ..... tIl I ~ "'" " '- :::.:.:::.,', ~ ~~'.':'"'' C .... ....1... .,. w "'1'1" ,;;; .". "'I~ ~ ... ... Jo ... ... C) ... ... ell ... ilIP .. ... 'i' ~ (I' ~ 1;:. ~ ~::!l"'l ';:! j... ~ l:l f: ::: <4 ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ :l: g ... . 1;1 ="':Ii: C ... C&l Q VI ~ ... "'.... ... 8... ~ Q ... a.. (,I '" lI; .,,,, ,".. i~ ~ ~ ~::1:1i ,~ '1 Q ;; : ~ ; ~ tr S ~ ~ !l11~ ~ i ~ ;' ~ ~ :; ~ ~ 15r it It ~ lit II~ ';';':':ia CoO :l:li i 21f It II ... II> :: lD ~ ~ 315:!1If:l! '::X:::;;:i:; II' :"": '!:';II . to en - i' ::...: ~ :: ~ fJ) ~ g go ;;g ::II r: Il it.6 '11 ~ if 1 III :Ii ~ ~.E ..'0'1.... .....' j a ::!: ~ 2;w;.:, nI g- i' "l; ,:!. is" s:; ~ (Jl B il fa. ~ ;l lco g ir =l -I i !!I. ~ ....1;. ,.:,:,;.:. .r;;. co .-. I Q. ..... lli a: 1I 0 llIi -- ~ OJ ..... ' Q, cn ~ ii :1:1 jl" Ii' Gl li"" ~ ..... 'r;'.' :: :iq~ '" .:2; III .. " :1. I ::I r {tJ>. ::.~:.: \;II l! '" ~ ,.. 'I > n ~ ...;Il :a iI -I i ,:;:::,:;: :1.0::: .. '.i/iJ' "l; 0 'X' n (II l:l ill' . .::1 .. '" b-:: )10 Q R' - oC -' ... I:l. m III Z )10 /ll')Io .::...,;. ... 'I: :;~:: m:''': g D it !" '. ',' ":11:11 .. :Iii: cm.;1 l' ;:j '!:' g ~ a: g ~ < 3 ....: ';.::::::::: .;: ~ ;:~:; f = :~, Cl ~ .. ~ :.:~'; ~ 1- Ii ~ t ~ If = ill ! lD F [ ~ ~ 'il ::t .e- l' JlI13 i ~ :::::::;;:. ::: ll!l ,~ ~ r.t::. .. .!l! :~ a. .,., :1:1 :r "' ;-. t!1 .. r l il I II' 3 /if -I '" co - ...... . . .:0.::' '.:~':!l <II n OR :.'!:I:.:.; ~ I ,.. 0 '" 1'" :'.~: ~ I" '!:' t::. :II .. n .. '2 ;!l ;t -I .. i!! ~ - ~ ;::;::::,: ':n: i ::~r '1 i' ~::: !; f ~ ::9:; ~ ; I~ .,., ;'~: ~ ~ '" t i!! ~ .g ~ i :" ~ ! ~ ~ ::: i!! ~ a.:::;::::';'Q,; ~;q.. ~ it :.0. elI!l I'" ~. !!. ~ 9 I"!I ,.. :.m: .... l' I a. .0 (,I F ." 'TI :0 r- - I':C 11 ,. '" .. Ii a :::,::::. ;..::C;~:'.' ~ .,.,,, n i '_'. '< W JI> '.PA' ol &,.. ~ ~ '" n ~"11." r- ~ Col ;j -l' '" ~ w .., l: 0;(- :~: ~ ~ :;;. p. il ~ ;:~: (") " Il' '&i:: 'l:I I r- of ... r- r tI I'" :;: 3 ~ ill r- ~ r- .. " . ." :Ill" ,.. Jfl: g-. 'S" II W . ... (,I .... '" .. I N I"': ~ III i r- :~:' ;0 w -: a j!! ::(1):: I' ..;!! .... :,. :;: f! ~ I:;: ~ t: V' '" ill t:: ~ I .. ~ ::::::::.: ~ ~ I "'.' ~ ~. ~ :':::: ,.. fl ~ ;; i : ~ ~ ; ~, ;.~:.:;......,:, ;. ,.. ~ ~I en ~ ~ ':,':':: ~ I .;, I I ~ ::::;:::.;.....,.,. ~ :-. I ,}) -:;:;::? " ''''ii ...... n 0 f 'CI/- \@, ~ :> 'If f J':r- 8~ ~ II.~ :l> ~ I~ 8 ~ )> I~,II~C;' ~ I~ ",In > I~ ~iUi! 5: <ll:lO '0".. ..... 1.1 ..... ~ -.:.!O ~ ... ..... ~. 'Il z z 't:. .. :l ..... .."" 1---:: . ~~ : ...... >i \ i \ :" \ : ..." ..... I x ~ (') \ ~ (') (') ,:;:':::; :> (') II (') () x I C1 () 0 x > I x 0 (') I;'; x )( X !:ll ! .., ... i i I I i ~ '.:::...." t--~ I I I. (") ~ ~ i .... ~ ~ -..I 16;' ::... ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~ '-l '!! \ I I '... ~ - ~ "I~ ~ I~ ~ if e: ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ lIS ii - ~ ;:;:;:;;:: R ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ I~ .. ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i 10- ~.. ~ ~ i ......,..!e ~ [ ~ '-l ::~:~i:~. i l>> CI> ~ ~ ~ I'" I~ ~ !!l i ~ ~ "" ~ I ~ ..... ..... SO) ~ ...... .."" is..... ..,... ~ iJ , F' ~ q E; ~ru I I ~ I ~ ~ .... .., ~ ~ i ~ I~ i ~ !t_ i ~ ~ It II~ i;;::::i i i i~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ il~ ~ ~'~ ~ ! ~ \1 ! ::.;.:.:. .' : ~ g I 2 ~. ~ IS ;;" "!'12 "18 g 18 8 ~ ~ ~ - ~ 8 III ~ s l~ '8 3 :::\';:'. IIe-'" ~ ~ 15 ~ ~ i I'" a ,g ::::.:::::: 8 l;l 8 8 i8 8 8 - :: \181~ 8 ~ Q ~ ~ 8 ~:-::.:.:. ','. GO N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ is :}} I ~ i ~ '~ :::;:: '. - I o t;l i C 0 ':Y:;: I .::.::,:, :'. - -I-! I .:.:.:.::. I I 'I' \ \ 1: ::::::. := GO I I.... :::;:::.:: I . I /I> ,\ ; :;:;~.;:;:.~ ~ ~ I ... ~.... ~ ~ g ~ !: ~ i~ I I~ I~ I~ I~ I 181~ IE I~ ~ :..:::::11:01-. UJ ~ ~ }:@ ~ ~ '!:'. ~ ~ ~.~ I.~ II ii I I I~ I~ I'~ I' .~.~.~ ~ ~ .::.:.::: .~: ~ c '8 8' :::::~:: '8 8" .~.. 8' '8 8' 8' 1::18' I ~~ '8 18"8 i8"'8'8 0 .. ::::::;::: .~.. ~ -- _ __ ~_ :.'..,.'.0 . I I' 0 ::::::::;::. , ...... I 1 I 111m III I, I II I ,Prij \ c;::", ~,\ '\l,~...\ ~,~~~ ~ S' Ill. Cl .s:-O;1'l. '6,.... a8Cl g,l,h~ 'l!~:l ~~c ~o~ g !" ~ C!)o: Zw l=~ -~ :!o: 0:<( ww a...J ..,jU <(u. ((0 .->- Z.- w_ OO ""; o GUNSTER YOAKLEY VALDES F o [g] 005 12/28/98 MON 13:09 FAX 561 655 567; 390550 [Letterhead of Governmental Authority] Date: ,199_ SBA Towers, Inc. One Town Center Road Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Re; Real property located at 13596 West Rena Drive, Clearwater, FL and legally described in Exhibit "AU attached hereto (the "Property") and the cooununication tower(s) located thereon (the "Tower") Ladies and Gentlemen: We understand that SBA Towers, Inc. intends to purchase/take an assignment of a ground lease of the Property and purchase the To\\rer and will be relying on the information contained in this letter in connection therewith. The following is provided for your infonnation: 1. The zoning classification of the Property is . A copy of that portion of the official zoning map showing the classification of the Property is attached. 2. The comprehensive plan designation for the Property is . A copy of that portion of the comprehensive plan map showing the Property is attached ("Plan"). 3. The zoning of the Property is in conformance with the comprehensive plan designation, in conformance with Chapter 163.3194, Florida Statutes. 4. The Property and Tower, as developed, conform with all use and development restrictions contained in the Plan and the Zoning Code, including, without limitation, parking regulations, set back requirements, height restrictions and landscaping requirements. 5. The Property and Tower as developed are allowed as a pennitied use as a matter of right without variances or special use approvals in the zoning and land USe plan districts referred to in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above and no portion of the Property constitutes a non-conforming use therein. o GUNSTER YOAKLEY VALDES F o [gJ006 12/28/98 MON 13:10 FAX 561 655 5677 7. The Property and Tower are in confonnance with all applicable building1 zoning, land use classification, platting and subdivision regulations and no notices of violations of any of the foregoing have been issued by this governmental entity in connection with the Property for Tower. 8. The Property and Tower satisfy the applicable concurrency requirements of Rule 9J-5.005 of the Florida Administrative Code. 9. If all or any portion of the Property or Tower are partially or completely destroyed, the Property and Tower may be rebuilt to its current size and configuration without any special exceptions, exemptions and the like. 10. The Property is not a Development of Regional Impact C1DRI") and is not part of a larger development which constitutes a DR!. Very truly yours, [Name, Title] 12/28/98 MON 13:10 FAX 561 655 5677 GUNSTERYOAKLEY VALDES F [4]007 o o J Exhibit "A" Legal Description of Real Property [THIS EXIllBIT MUST BE ATTACHED PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THIS LETTER TO THE GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY.) w ALTER POWNALL SER VICE CENTER lllll S. Bdeher Ro~d Lugo. Fl 3+643 \813) ~4l-3~26 F."X (813) 547-7222 School Board or Pinel1u County. Florida Ch~lrman ...ndrea M Th~eker V,ee-Chalrman COrinne Freeman Lee ~npmln Luelle 0 Casey S.lrbara J Crockett ;U;.1n La[v~la LInda 5 Lerner ~uperlntendent I Howard HlOes:ey. Ed 0 'as Counly xhoo/s is .... _-Iual opportunity ,n'l.IlUllOnfor educaClon .Jnd employmenl. o Q ( '-I t o PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOLS . qO<a'U10t ~ dt..n/inj o'/urau! CWbvut September 6, 1996 GTE Mobilnet A TTN: Mr. Robert Hardee 5303 Commerce Park Boulevard Tampa, FL 33610 FAX: 282-6470 Re: Clearwater High School - Communication Tower Dear Mr. Hardee: I am in receipt of your request to collocate cellular antennas on the communication tower located on the Clearwater High School site. Per our phone conversation, the School District has agreements with two communication companies; AT&T Wireless and GTE Mobilnet, for the installation and operation of communication towers and equipment on School Board sites. We entered into these agreements to meet the communication needs of the School District. Our communication needs have been met, however, we must protect the integrity of our existing system and maintain capacity for future system modifications. The District will not allow an~ more communication towers to be constructed on our sites until they are necessary to meet future communication needs of the District. The School District has previously turned down similar requests from other cellular communication companies to use our existing towers. The District does not desire to sublet any of the existing communication towers, therefore, the District staff is not recommending your request for the collocation of ce!lulM service on the existing: AT&T wireless communication tower at Clearwater High School. If you have further questions, do not hesitate to call me at 547-7286, ~'ncereIY' Mt1 '[ m MilI~ctor Real Property Management cc: J. Howard Hinesley, Ed.D_. Superintendent of Schools John Bowen, School Board Attorney Bill Williamson, Area I Superintendent Walter Miller, Associate Superintendent, Institutional Services Tony Rivas, Director, Facilities JM:li com\Itr\GTE Mobilnet Clwtr High lower Pn "led 0" Recycled PoJper o o - - AT&T "=' - ATc!!. T Wireless ServIces SUlle 1100 SO 1 E Kennedy Blvd Tampa. FL 33602 813 222.5567 FAX 813 221-6850 September 5, 1996 Mr. Robert Hardee GTE Mobilnet of Tampa, Inc. 5303 Commerce Park Blvd. Tampa, Fl. 33610 Re: Bayview Site Arcturas Ave. Clearwater, Fl. Dear Bob: " Please be advised that the Pinellas County School Board (Mr. James Miller) infonned me thallhey were not interested in any co-location acti..ity at the aforementioned site. I strongly suggest that you might contact him personally. If I can assist you in the future please contact me. Cordially, Re~~~ Site Acquisition Manager ro. t:6B Recycled Paper lAW1'Ol'I CnILr..s OOVERl'IOR - r~ DEPARTMENT O\JTRANSPOKTATION __ 605 Suwannee Street. ThUahassee. Florida 32.J99.0450 mol'lAS r. BARRY. Jr. - ~ SECRETARY - Mr. John D. Richter, Senior Planner City of Clearwater . P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, FL 33756 @~ow~ rn June 12,1998 JUN 16 1998 CITY OF CLEARWATER Dear Mr. Richter: I have received your letter of June 9, 1998, requesting conveyance of an interest in, or permission to use the property located at 1400 Young Ave. which is owned by the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT). Included with the request was a copy of the resolution adopted on June 4, 1998, by the City Commission of the City of Clearwater. As you and I have previously discussed, there are two issues to be addressed--1) request to have FOOT convey an interest in its real property to the City of Clearwater. This is a property management issue to be addressed by the appropriate FOOT District Office; and 2) request for permission to place additional antennas on an existing tower located on FOOT property. This is a policy issue for the FOOT Wireless Communication Task Force. Regarding the first issue, because FOOT is a decentralized agency the determination of whether to convey an interest in its real property must be made by the District in which the property is located. The Young Ave. property is located within the geographic boundaries of District 7 which is headquartered in Tampa. I have forwarded the request and resolution to Ms. Susan Rosetti, District 7 Property Management Administrator. Regarding the second issue, I have forwarded the request and resolution to Mr. Mike Akridge of the FOOT Wireless Communication Task Force. Idi Iy, J ./ "/1. (J" I ~L ~ . WI. /- Paula S. Warmath Deputy State RIW Manager Property Management c: Mike Akridge Susan Rosetti (i) RECYCLED PAPER .~."<i!tJ. , . ~ o Clearwater City Commission OWorksession Item I: Agenda Cover Memorandum Final Agenda Item I Meeting Date: SUBJECT IRECOMMENDA TION: Pass Resolution No. 98-21 requesting that the Florida Department of Transportation convey the title of property at 1400 Young Ave. to the City of Clearwater, or otherwise grant permission to the City to allow placement of addit"ional antennas on the existing tower on said property. l&I and that the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. SUMMARY: . City staff desires to allow placement of additional antennas on the City-owned tower located at 1400 Young Ave., Clearwater. In particular, City staff desires to allow BellSouth Mobility, Inc., to locate antennas on the tower in order to avoid construction of a new 120 foot high tower proposed on the north side of Belleair Rd., approximately 200 feet west of Highland Ave. . The land upon which the City-owned tower is located is leased from the Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT). . Placement of additional antennas on the City-owned tower requires either a lease amendment or conveying title of the property to the City. . In order for the FOOT to consider amending the lease or conveying title of the land, the FOOT requires that the City Commission pass a resolution requesting same. Reviewed by: legal Info Srvc nla Budget Public Works nla Purchasing nla DCM/ACM Risk Mgmt nla Other nla Costs Total Current FY Funding Source: CI OP Other Attachments Resolution No. 98-21 Submitted by: City Manager o None A ro rlatlon Code: Printed on recycled paper 2/98 Rev. . o ....- ... RESOLUTION i I t No. 98-21 A RESOLUTION OF TIIE CITY COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, REQUESTING TIIE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO CONVEY TITLE OF TIIEPROPERTY LOCATED AT 1400 YOUNG AVE., CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, TO TIIE CITY OF CLEARWATER, OR OTIIERWISE GRANT PERMISSION TO TIIE CITY TO ALLOW PLACEMENT OF ADDmONAL ANTENNAS ON TIIE EXISTING TOWER LOCATED ON SAID PROPERTY. WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater is in receipt of an application to construct a 120 foot high telecommunications tower for BellSouth Mobility, Inc., on property located on the north side of Belleair Rd., approximately 200 feet west of Highland Ave.; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 1997, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater passed Resolution No. 97-08 encouraging the joint use of existing telecommunications towers as an alternative to new tower construction; and WHEREAS, section 40.003 of the City of Clearwater land development code states that the zoning regulations are intended to protect the character of the City and minimize conflicts among the uses of land; and WHEREAS, the City Commission finds that joint use of towers it is in the public interest by protecting the character of the City and minimizing conflicts among the uses of land; and WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater owns an existing telecommunications tower located at 1400 Young Ave., Clearwater, Florida; and WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires to allow the placement of additional antennas on the existing tower at 1400 Young Ave. and, in so doing, eliminate the need for construction of a new tower by BellSouth Mobility, Inc., on Belleair Rd.; and WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater leases the land at 1400 Young Ave. upon which the tower is located from the State of Florida Department of Transportation. NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. The City of Clearwater requests that the State of Florida Department of Transportation convey title of the property at 1400 Young Ave., Clearwater, Florida, to the City of Clearwater, or otherwise grant permission to the City to allow placement of additional antennas on the existing tower located on said property. Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this _ day of ,1998. Rita Garvey, Mayor-COmmissioner Approved as to fonn and legal sufficiency: Attest: Leslie Dougall-Sides, Assistant City Attorney Cynthia Goudeau, City Clerk t' - , . .----~ o CITY OF CLEARWATER 0 VARIANCE STAFF REPORT CASE # VR 98-39 TO: Development Code Adjustment Board FROM: John D. Richter, Senior Planner HEARING DATE: June 11, 1998 AGENDA ITEM #: B1 PROPERTY DATA: Property address: 1496 Belleair Rd. Loc'ation: North side of Belleair Rd., west of Highland Ave. Legal description: M-&B 33.05, Section 23-29-15 Zoning: General Commercial (CG) ,Area: 0.38 acre Existing/proposed use: V~cant/telecommunications tower North - offices East - office and car wash South - offices West - retail (vacant) Owner: Scott and Ruth Hale Representative: Jane Kelly and Ralph Jones PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A 120 foot high monopole ~elecommunications tower is proposed. The tower will be constructed 60 feet from the north property line and 50 feet from the east property line. An 8 foot high fence is proposed around the base of the tower, including the related equipment building. The tower will be used by BellSouth Mobility, Inc., to provide personal communication systems service to its customers. VARIANCES REQUESTED: . The tower is required to be positioned back from all property lines a distance equal to one- half its height. A 60 foot setback is required. A variance of 10 feet is requested to allow the tower 50 feet from the east side property line. . The maximum height in this zone is 50 feet. A variance of 70 feet is requested to allow a 1 20 foot high tower. . The maximum allowable fence height is 6 feet. A variance of 2' feet is requested to allow an 8 foot high fence enclosure around the tower. 1111'1111'~~I~II~~I~~mf~~i~illlll@ ,.li'.II~;~~M~.~~.~~.~~?~g;~ .. " .... ....... ..-. :(PROPO:S:ED::: ::::::VARJANCe::r:: ~.:I~~m~m~~.~!:ill' ......................................... ::::::::R~gQ~~T:::::=: ......................................... ............................-...........-...-...-.-.. .. .. - . .. d'.' .. ......................................... .. ..-.-.. --, ......................................... ......................................... .-.-.................-.-..........-......-.....-....- . . S id e s etba c k ( east ) 60 feet I 42 24 ( 1 2 ) 5 0 feet 1 0 feet H e i g ht of str uctu re 5 0 feet / 40 42 6 ( 6 ) 1 20 feet 70 feet ( mo no po Ie to we r) Fe n ce h e i g ht 6 feet / 42 . 2 6 ( d ) 8 feet 2 feet COMPLIANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL: According to code section 45.24, the application and evidence presented must clearly support all of the following conclusions in order for a variance to be granted: (1) There are special circumstances related to the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions applicable to the land or buildings, and such circumstances are . ..-- --------' o o VR 98-39 Page 2 peculiar to such land or buildings and do not apply generally to the land or buildings in the applicable zoning district. The application and evidence do not support the conclusion that there are special circumstances present to grant these variances. According to the application: "The size limitations of parent tract restrict complete setback compliance. The Commercial properties in the area have similar compliance problems." The applicant's response addresses only the setback variance and is silent to the height variance. The abbreviated response is simply not ample to grant these variances. The applicant has not clearly substantiated that a tower of lesser height would unreasonably diminish service capability, or that a fence of lesser height would not adequately protect the property. The applicant has not submitted adequate evidence to assure that the reduced setback will not jeopardize public safety in the event the tower falls. Finally, the applicant has not submitted adequate evidence to support the assertion that reasonable coverage cannot be obtained by locating antennas on an existing tower or structure. It is staff's observation that the lot is flat, vacant, and available for development. It conforms to the area, width and depth requirements set forth in the zoning code. These conditions are not conducive to variance approval. The surrounding neighborhood is developed with one story buildings and dwellings, with heights of approximately 15 feet. The proposed 120 foot high tower will not be consistent with the existing development. Finally, it is staff's observation that any special circumstances that may exist are strictly related to the proposed use, not to the physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions as required by code to approve the variances. (2) The strict application of the provisions of the code would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land or buildings. The application and evidence do not support the conclusion that the applicant is denied the reasonable use of the land. According to the application: "the intended use is ideally suited for onsite development due to its con"sistency with predominant commercial land use throughout this area." The applicant does not state how the 120 foot tower is thought to be consistent with other nearby commercial uses. Furthermore, the applicant does not indicate why a reasonable use cannot be made of this property if the variances are not granted. Absent a showing by the applicant to the contrary, staff believes a reasonable use can be made of this property. For example, it could be developed with a retail or office building. (3) The variance is not based exclusively upon a desire for economic or other material gain _ by the applicant or owner. ". The variances appear to satisfy this condition. According to the application, the variances are requested to provide seamless coverage for general public use and emergency services. (4) The granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the land development code and comprehensive plan and will not be materially injurious to surrounding properties or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The application and evidence do not support the conclusion that the requested variances are in harmony with the purpose of the land development code. The applicant indicates that the low traffic generation rate, consistency of the proposed use with other uses in the area, small lot size, and relatively small impact on water, sewer and gas are factors which support such a conclusion. Staff does not concur that the proposed use is consistent with other nearby uses --' o o VR 98-39 Page 3 or that the size of this conforming lot is material to this standard. The relatively small burden that this use will have on roads, and public utilities may be favorable, but not necessarily dispositive that variances will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the code. The zoning regulations are intended to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the people in the city, and preserve the aesthetic character of the community. The applicant simply has not met the burden of proof necessary to show that the variances for the proposed tower meet this standard for approval. COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996: Local government shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services. According to Ms. Nina Boniske, attorney representing BellSouth Mobility, Inc., in the event the City does not approve the requested variances, the City will effectively discriminate against BellSouth. Ms. Boniske points out that the City has approved height and setback variances for other towers. Furthermore, she points out that some of the other variances were greater than the variances being requested by BellSouth. Additionally, Ms. Boniske asserts that the City does not give appropriate weight to a draft ordinance that, if adopted by the City Commission, will negate the need for any height and setback variances for the tower. Local government shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. BellSouth representatives express interest in colocating their antenna on an existing City-owned tower east of Missouri Ave. at the south end of Young Ave., in lieu of constructing a tower on Belleair Rd. The City desires to oblige BellSouth. However, the City leases the land from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and FDOT officials appear unwilling to allow BellSouth's antennas on their land. Based upon discussions with FDOT real estate officials, FDOT will not allow any commercial use of their land. As of the writing of this report, City officials are attempting to schedule a meeting with the Deputy State Manager for FDOT to review this position. BellSouth representatives indicate that the geographic area served by the proposed antennas is critical to their coverage needs. Without antennas located in this vicinity, an unacceptable gap will exist in their service. Furthermore, in order to retain use of their FCC license, their service must be operational by September 1, 1998. . To allow testing of their equipment, they must have their antennas in place by August 1, 1998. BellSouth representatives indicate that they have exhausted all other possibilities to locate antennas in this area. For example, they state that they were turned away by nearby church officials upon offering to construct a new church steeple incorporating camouflaged antennas. Also, they indicate that they investigated use of the nearby 139 foot high power poles, but cannot make use of the poles due to the location of of the accompanying equipment box. BellSouth representatives insist that, in order to maintain signal strength, the equipment box can be located no farther than 20 feet from the base of the power pole. Local government shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of . ..- -- o o VR 98-39 Page 4 such request. In order to retain use of their FCC license, BellSouth's wireless service must be operational by September 1, 1998. To allow adequate testing of their equipment, they must have their antennas in place by August 1, 1998. Ms. Boniske indicates that if the City cannot accommodate BeJlSouth in accordance with this schedule, the City will have effectively prohibited BellSouth from providing their personal wireless service. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the requested variances as conditioned below because federal law appears to constrain local zoning authority in this case. 1 . A temporary mobile tower may be erected and maintained on this site in accordance with the variances until such time as: (a) the City concludes negotiations with FOOT to allow additional antennas on the Young Ave. tower, and (b) the City concludes alternative colocation efforts, such as placement of antennas on nearby power poles. Within 90 days after the conclusipn of such negotiations and efforts, the temporary tower shall be removed. In the event the City successfully concludes such negotiations and/or efforts, the variances shall cease to be effective upon termination of the aforementioned 90 day period. In the event the City unsuccessfully concludes such negotiations and efforts, then a permanent tower may be erected consistent with the variances providing a permit is obtained within one year from the conclusion of such negotiations and efforts. 2. The applicant shall obtain the requisite building permit prior to August 1, 1998. 3. Landscaping shall be installed to mitigate the visual obtrusiveness of the tower. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the City's Environmental Official for review and approval. Prior to approval of a final inspection for the tower, landscaping shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved plan. 4. The tower shall have a neutral non-glare color or finish. 5. The applicant shall remove the tower in the event the antenna is not used for a period Of@ consecutive months. 6. The tower shall not be artificially lighted except as may be required by the FAA. 7. The tower shall not be utilized for advertising of any type and the placement of signs, other than warning signs, shall be prohibited; 8. The applicant shall remove any antenna, including the supporting tower if applicable, which has not operated for a period of 24 consecutive months; 9. The tower shall comply with all regulations and safety standards of the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Communications Commission; 10. The applicant shall submit construction drawings for review and approval prior to obtaining a building permit; 11 . The applicant shall provide additional carriers with the opportunity to co locate on the tower until such time that space is no longer available. STAFF DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATION: The 1996 Telecommunications Act was passed to promote competition among personal wireless service providers. It is a very powerful and far-reaching law. Indeed, it can effectively restrict local zoning authority in certain cases. This appears to be one of those cases. City planning and legal staff believes the stringent requirements of the Act constrains the exercise of local zoning in this case and, accordingly, drives approval of the requested variances. . "'Jt--....-.-.-. o o VR 98-39 Page 5 FINDINGS. OF FACT: . On January 23, 1997, the City Commission adopted Resolution 97-08 encouraging the joint use of existing telecommunications towers. . According to the survey attached to the application, this property is 110 feet wide and 160 feet deep. . This property is currently undeveloped. . According to the City zoning atlas, this property is zoned General Commercial. . According to section 40.423 of the zoning regulations, permitted uses of property in the General Commercial zoning district include retail and offices. . According to section 40.426 of the zoning regulations, within the General Commercial zoning district, the minimum lot area is 10,000 square feet, the minimum width is 100 feet, and the minimum depth is 100 feet. . According to code section 40.003, the zoning regulations are intended to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the people in the city, and preserve the aesthetic character of the community. . At the request of Ms. Nina Boniske, attorney representing BellSouth Mobility, Inc., a meeting was held at City Hall on May 27, 1998, to discuss the proposed tower. The meeting was attended by BellSouth representatives and City planning and legal staff. Ms. Boniske indicated that BellSouth would seek injunctive relief in federal court under the. Telecommunications Act in the event the City does not accommodate BellSouth's antennas in accordance with their established schedule. Ms. Boniske further indicated that BellSouth would be willing to locate a temporary mobile tower on the Belleair Rd. site on a time restricted basis to allow the City time to work with FDOT on the Young Ave. site. However, if the City and FDOT cannot come to an agreement, BellSouth expects the City to allow construction of a permanent tower on the Belleair Rd. site. . The City has in draft form an ordinance to regulate telecommunications facilities. The ordinance is patterned after a countywide model. It has not yet been presented to or approved by the City Commission. The ordinance stipulates that no building permit can be issued for a new tower unless the applicant submits evidence that no reasonable use can be made of any existing tower or structure. It also proposes to eliminate the existing bifurcated public hearing process applicable to some recent tower proposals, including BeIlSouth's. With regard to BellSouth's request, it proposes a single public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board for any tower in the General Commercial (CG) District. The focus of the hearing by the Planning and Zoning Board would be whether to grant conditional use approval. Most tower proposals would not have associated variances. For example, a 120 foot high tower in a CG district that is positioned back in accordance with CG setback requirements and at least 120 feet distant from any residential use, no height or setback variances would be required. In sum, BellSouth's tower would not be the subject of height and setback variances, but instead would be the scrutinized by the Planning and Zoning Board as to its compatibility in this neighborhood. . On May 27, 1998, City staff invited industry representatives to review and comment on a draft telecommunications tower ordinance. Representatives from BellSouth did not attend. OTHER REQUIRED REVIEWS/PUBLIC HEARINGS: On June 2, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Board approved a conditional use application for the tower. .---_J o o VR 98-39 Page 6 PREVIOUS RELATED BOARD ACTIONS: . On May 28, 1998, the Board continued this variance application at the request of the Bel/South representatives. . On December 11, 1997, a height variance was granted to aI/ow a telecommunications tower with a height not to exceed 221 feet above mean sea level at 1231 N. Hercules Ave. Also, setback variances of 80 and 82.5 feet were granted. . On July 10, 1997, a height variance of 62 feet to aI/ow a 112 foot high tower and setback variances of 25 feet and 47.75 feet were tabled for property at 505 Virginia Lane. . On June 13, 1996, a height variance of 60 feet was granted to aI/ow a 120 foot high telecommunications tower at 1375 S. Fort Harrison Ave. Also, setback variances of 54.8, 51.5,56.3 and 17.7 feet were granted. ATTACHMENTS: . Resolution No. 97-08. . Comments from other reviewing City departments. . Petitions and letters from the interested parties. . Affidavit of mailing notices. \, ~""Qc",,,.. It, ~ ~ ~ - ~ ....~ l' - --~~ 'k~. ~,,1" b ,.''SO. D~ 0 .1.,'1' rROPSiI'Y oWNER(S) NAME' ADDRESS: "a:;~,.~..~.~---.~- PBONl: "1-41"1 rA'1fJ 111-417. , IMSrECl'lON LIMB: 1.t-f(jO ~S"9 REPRESEN1'A~ OIanJ) ItUd MJDRISS: TELEPHONE:e13)740-9183 TELEPHONE: (&1 ~ 531-4558 ADDRESS OF SUBJECf PROPERTY': Be11eair Road NAME OF BUSINESS (1F APPUCABLE): ZONING DISTRICT: i:AND USE CLASSIFICATION: C-G .~~....~~!lfrn.;>~~.~~c.r PROPE.RTY: 'See Attached LAND AREA: '~:}' ~'"!.. ... ... ."1'. .."::' '" .:<,.' : :::, ~." \0 ':.. ." . . . ._ ,.. ...~'''f...,:'.....''~;..:':f..:............. . '. . . .pAll,CJLNUM!!IlR: I I I I "l1>Ie .lion II avllJablo 60aa JOUr laX JOCOIplor COIlllCl Pill tf~ &hill Oft' t number .tiadl8 M Illlftcb aheeC. D~g SURBQ~iNG USES OF PROPERTY NOrda: LilDited Of South: General commercial V/JUANCE(S) REQUEST: East: West: A varian 1s requested in order to meet the of tower height OD all 2) Height variance of 70 ft. of 3) Fence bel bt variance of t. ~ :: ( ;-,.-.-..........-- . :, .,,16:- .. ~iiOft-anu-." -.........-;. ".- .-..- . Q 'l1len 1ft ~ cIs<V"'- fila,"" ",lhl ~lat ph,.aIlUrrau~ ..,.-.- ;-. ~ ..,,&ooblo to lh.II,,("',"'ildlnp. .... iudo cItcu--- en ~1IIr to .....1oM"";X;1WIop .... · _ ""''' p;..dr III \lit Ion' .........ildlnP 11\ !hIoppWlo lOll.... ~- = ge. A.t.I"Ar.haA . ".. *'"' ......tJooI.allh........... "'\lit.... _Ill..,.... !hi ...1loMI aI\IIt _tbIo - "'!hi" .. bui1cJ1nlllteclUII: ~ - _see Attached S) ".. .1_ is noi bl..d e.c1usively upon I desire ror economic or othlr m.teriol pill by lh. Ippliclnl '" owner because: . :-:- sP-p.. . a.tt~("'hp~ q''-''"'" ..; . " . .. '. .' . ~ . _. '''' ." z' . """". .~,.' ..",.. ,.:,'..{ .,......,..., . .' .. : .' . . .. . '." . . 4) ".. p'dnl ;~~ :~.:ili.Jt;~J,;;-J$~ltitci';~~;.j~~~j~~-:,. . CocJe .... CooDpieheooiY. P\an ..., wi\1 nol 1>0 ftlIterill1y!njurioul10 .-odinl PI;,p..~lOlorblti'~'" ;:.~{;: &etrialental to &hI public welfare becauM: -= - See Attached = THIS SUBMISSION GIVES AN APPIJCANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO REQUEST THE VAlllANCE AJllI APPEAll BEFORE TilE DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTldENT BOARD. FEES PAlO AllE NON. REFUNDABLE REGARDLESS OF BOARD ACTION. BY SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT I AM ACKNOWLEDGING THAT ALL FEES PAlO DO NOT GUAJL\NTEBAPPBOVAL OF THIS APPLICATION. SlGNATURB OF PROPERTY OWNER (OR IlESPIlESENI'A11VEl: (lndu. otioG lAd ft · ........... 1JIl4' lJocribed bet... ...lhlo...... Y IIa1 '" ~.w- . ." !!.11o"~" ~ to mur .... 'I8J-DI STATE or FLORIDA. coUNTY or Jh'l~~~ Cornmlssioa: 1i =-- 1 * * ~ :I~~.IIITV~ · ElClhI~"- NoW>' Pubyc ~ '6. 4AMn~ !IalDe alNo&aI1 tJPed. printed at .~ - NOTES: .. . PROPERTY OWNER OR IlEPIlESENI'ATIVE ~~T\'END RJWUNO. . APPIJCAnON sHALL INCLUDE A rJffiRE bCfIf1lAn: SITE rLAN. FORM . v AllIANCE APPUCAnoN (,~aq 25. 1m 14104104 "' j. " _l,. I ecc-Site NQ:~1427fo She Name: Sunny Hale . I o o I L 11ae size IimltatioD' 01 pareDt tnet restrIet complete setbaek compliance. TIle Commerelal properties la the area 'ave similar compliance problems. 2. The parent tract, due to the overall size limitations, precludes the ability to satisfy codified setback standards. However, the intended use is ideally suited for onsite development due to its consistency with predominant commercial land use throughout this area. '" " . .3. This locat~qn is necessary to"'in~ up. with nearby sites in.oJ:'d~r to "'. . " .., " " " ".:1..1;" , ," .., '"^"'''nh'''~l.:.\~">..at;'''in18'''''''''IiJ.i,;.i.~;.",-;f.''''' .",+ "~~'J'..'_" :':;;,'~~://"~f:~{ ';~'~~.t pr:ov~~.1~~ ~:9#~~ ~~~ . 'I!~~,~~, ' ". ~~~ ~ ': $-'~;~~{ .,;:.~ J'" ..,,'~ ~.~ . services. .' . ~ It will not generate any additional traffic as It will be aD unmaDned facility and wiD not impact the current traffie trends. Utility use is consistent with land development use in area. The property Is too small to appropriately develop In In tbe C-G zoning district. Tbe facility requires no community services (sewer, water, gas) to support its use and is generally considered a passive land use. ~~LCC; ~ LCC IHTIINATO. IHe 30' 2 US ....., )01 ... Stilt '000 ...... F~ ))6 1f lIl311~o.91n Poa ,,'3J 6>>93'. o Apnl 10. 1991 Mr. JobD Richter Senior P1ann<< City of CIelrwIlCl' 100 S. M)'111o A veouc dearwa&er. Florida ~'1-47'" [)ear Mr. Richter: . _.,' .,.~. ._ ".~. ",,~.Pg..\:"I~~I4"; ~._4."ii.l.IW' ".-.1#" ~~/... .' .' .. . ". ,..~ ;0"'4- o;~ .~...~!\ .:J-.... ~ .~~;~ ~~~ ~...... ~-- I.~_:\ifa..' '..~~....:::r..'.:- ..', ..~. ~:~.' '. , wlS ..todtd by youncIf. l..... Moncia~ Michait Austin ofLCC 1IlIeriulioaiI..,II,ysOlf. . .~... 'v- .'.. ." "'.'. Due to a new I)ircct<l' rl ~ninl beine IppOlnted to&ether wllb · ~t ~ of I CiIy Mw&tr. LCC IntematioDl1 was ast.ed 10 postpone the hcarinI dam to the rollowinc IDClIIIb of May. This WM agreed as we would sliD I)Cd our djad's time frame and builckuL Ms. Mantini ~ u foJlowial: a Elevatlol J)nwlJlClw"ldI willltow lite type 01 toWel' t.._ .I~ urna ItOtIIItI. 711 AeI. FInn ltU kat ItuncId 14 ptVvI4, ",. utlW.II ",lid .111 ",~ lit IIIw1*& .11(1'- 'tnldllff ad..... 1ftD4I"'. fils sIt~/d H ,ro~ II] wd;.-d 4117/H. Q A fUt...,.t vcrif1iaC 1M color t)'pe 01 tIl. lower t1ncftU't, n. .",.. .1ll bf, ,1hulu4 coIot did ~., r.w ,.a"'. a Apffmelt 10 p~ bd'eril& aloae IIle ri&'lt or ~ to lad.. ~m (3) l' toot 111&11 Uv. oak trees It pllafiA1. Tlb.m 6t proWt/fd ItIfdAn wltlt IftIIb"tIf~ ,/... Mr. RidUer requesttd die fQlJowin&: Q IAUtI' reqMStlll pi dN claleror........ 17rtIwil - J1<<1'**d by -- 4/JQI9t o SbIetIMt oItII, ...... .. cIMardleIt ~ .. 1M ". -I}...... .... .......... · possible CP6IaIeS 1Id.........1k mpotlRL 77w,."", tl/Wdt-.... ."",."..w Off 1111M1>> ItIerttI1 (drq Wt1I4"" ~ lit ~II.......... 011 tIw ~A.d ~ wWdI woW4lf1w prtIVldt4 ~ /neON 10'" cw--..tIIy. WpGJIon.... ~.i1rsI~"",_....ou~_J_Uld..~.LCC IIfIenttIIIotttIL Ow t(tI. ptlIlOlJ acorf<<lIM SiU ACf'lWlitM $p<<WiIf 10"" II.",.,.'" 6kD4dt1mJ1011/DT_Yid. Q Stateaant rtpnII& ... P,o. T. lOwer. MiaMrt. /AItfldv -- .wa..ioIIr..., 1e'tIi1wJaN lI/rC1W1illJbllily ~ co-lO(QIiOll ()tI1M lOWf'. r...o (1) odJi1k1Id ilia ~ lllflllOIIIIt ~dtiI lOWfIt' Itad t<1 H "" lh~ dwt 10 rJtt fI1WlYQi/lbilily ofdtb 1rr<<I. .,. ~ JllTNIdI dtI seM/1eu c(JVtr"O# rtI{Wtd fur Mis arttI and by IRIT d~ j'"". I ' ',--. If'd>>cre n lAY odaer 1-" ~ Ibc PIInDiIC DcpInmIaI.touId lib. ~',,.,.. rccJ hi 10 c:oaI8CI 1M II any.... My ~...., iI'~ltJ or 41'-1006, W. ClCfti-Iwecille,ow dmc. cSiscuM all..-..... ",look rorw.... COIIIftutd ooopaIIJon'.6t C~ O(~_. WiIh belt ~ siDeerd1. ft:~ loninC Supervilor R~pmenriD8 8eJlSouth Mobilit)',lnc. ".,.:-",.. "~. .....1. .. ....... ,'" ......, ~ ""'''1'' ....... .,...... ,.,' . . ,.:....~.~"\...-J~.;. 0:.<<., ," ..:,.,._~.......... '''~.''.. 'to ."I'~...\r-ou ..........tt:..)IJ"'.......-:"..."......... ......_..:.......\.c.,...........'r.:...~ .......,,;.. ..: .. _....A, . . .. . ... , ... l' ..... , - .. . . ' ...~ . · .' ... " l: ' ... . ., . " ,... ' ' .~.. . " ., . , . . ...... .\. "[ . ...,"~, .... ,:.' '.,,' .' .... ;. ...... ..~i"..,.4,..-:.... ......~:~ ..~.:-:::.. <oS,<< '.: , ,,;,..' ",:~,. .;..>J ~ .,~ ...:~ .~.... ',' ... J.... '. ~~'. ::. , . .,.. .' . .. . " .,. . .... . ._ '. ..:- ~i;. ,0 ".JJt... !.". 0' .......'1 ~:-. .~...:." ~.. .: ,'_1 ,_ ~_' _.r. . Siu Name: SuMJ Part . HaJa W"'III"W-_....._--~- . 0 8 0 STATEMEN1- FENCE VARIANCE - A Fence Variance orthree (3) reet is ~uired &om six (6) fed to nine (9) reet around the perimeter or the compound ror the following reasons: ~ . To prevent vandalism of the Equipment Shetter . To prevent vandalism and/or theft oftbe equipment . . To.p!"ev~nt vandalism and/or theft of the cou cable .... :.' .~.,. . ". ~T .. ~ntl'""''GI''' dI^,;.~".A Cot.- t '. '.' . ," .' . .r. .'. ~, '. .'. .. "'01; .0" . .~ ,-,0 "....v~~ ~ !&~.to UKi.&n ennas ' . . ,:.r.~'aj~~"). .;-'t.~~...::.. ..~"'.' ..~~ -:,.~~,..~!~/.~~~':;I. ~!:;,;":.J/',:";!";'; ':. J~'~,,,\',\ .....:. . ~.;", :,r~.:;..';;"~~"" : ..;;.."..:. ,.;, . .... .' . _ "'~' ." ':"." . ~". ':":'\. 1'. t~..' .:'40:"':,,~'r."', ~....~. ~ .....~ ',' ~;;:""':";':';::~"" .::'.: 7:~..; ~~m . To prevcot any attempt to climb the tower The fence will be topped with three (3) strands ofbarbed wire one foot above the top of the eight (8) root chain link as an extra precaution. The fence win have a total height of nine (9) feet comprising of an eight (8) foot chain link fence topped with barbed wire giving a total of nine (9) reet altogether. --- - * * . * . * . . : o o LCC Site No:440-142-IO Site Name: Sunny Park SIAnMENI Further to a telephone conversation on 4/27/98, a request was made by Senior Planner - John Richter to provide more detailed information to the Planning Department prior to the May Conditional Use Hearings. WIND LOAD: The Telecommunications Industry Association, in association with the Electronic Industries Association, (E.I.A.), has issued standards recognized by building codes which outline windspeeds for every COWlty in the country. A communications tower in Pinellas County would be designed for a basic wind speed of 105 m.p.h. A monopole communication tower is custom designed for each application. Therefore, a '. . '.". 120 foot monopole designed for 105 ni.p.~, winds with a gust facto~"of l.3.will be.able.to' ~~~r;~~~~~;t:;~~~i~.~:~P:~~fJ~~~~~'~~'~~:~"-~';~~:~~:~~~~~':?J.~~;::"..:'~-;~:';t.~:...~/"~ FALL ZONE: With regard to the failure mode in the event of a catastrophic wind loading, theoretically, the failure mode would be a local buckling failure involving a crippling of the pole wall on one side of the pole as opposed to the pole shearing off or completely breaking off. CONSTRUcnON DETAIL: A monopole tower is similar to a self-support tower in its construction design. There are flange plates and anchor bolts at the base of the tower. Normally, the foundations would be 15%-25% of the tower height. However, the depth of the foundations would depend on both soil conditions and antenna load. A construction drawing is attached which will detail the construction base of a tower. HEIGHT: The RF Engineer has determined that based on zoning and property restrictions, the maximum feasible and allowable toWel' height in the target coverage area is 120 feet. Though this is not "a fixed number, prediction model and signal propagation characteristics require a certain minimum antenna height to achieve a desired coverage area. The higher the antenna height, the greater the coverage area and the less sites required by the overall system. Conversely, as the antenna height is reduced, the coverage area is also reduced with a commensurate increase in the number of sites required in the system overall. f~~~it~ L pcqM\TTING CENiP.; "\ ;;'. ~\:JA T7.R C\--:YC.~ .--- ~.t would the cove...,e area be Wltb bel&hts noefnl from 50 feet - no reet? o o Lee Site No:440-142.10 Site Name: Sunny Park , o. ~_i. The exact extent of coverage at any specific height varies and is influenced by several factorS such as changes in the SUITOlUlding vegetation. Prediction tools are however used to determine an average propagation ch8racteristic (coverage area)~ The predicted coverage at an antenna height of SO feet is an approximate one (1) mile radius around the site while the predicted coverage area at 120 feet is 1.8 miles in radius around the site. It is important to take note that at lower antenna heights, the signal is more susceptible to obstructions from objects and vegetation in the near environment. Why was this location the only one that we could use? Whenever.possible, an effort is made to co-l~te on pre-e~sting structures s,uch ~ta11 . ~.. ~. 'if~' ..., ..~ui1dinas;~4_q>;;,:~~.~...,.... .'.:..~, . ..~. . . ~'. ;-- ..... ',~... .......- .: ,'. ~ . . . . .....:. .oe je ....,...,. .,' ..t......" it.:,....CIO. .,'. '...." ......' .......~ .' .'Z \I '. ,,', .' ........"'.-:,... - . -"~ \'.' ..' . ....."... ....... ..... \0-. r" . .... ..... ....... . ... .,..... . ...... .._ ,. Mh._ ..' ..... .,,- ..... . <>I .... . .... .' ,'r .... . . - . .. . . :....... ....:.. I....:. ...,....,. .r~:......:......... r', : "..'...... . .~..~...... ~... ..>..,: ''\oW'''' ......,..._......~... .... ..1.. .......~.....#... ........_-_.~~...... .: . .' .' '. . ' . .... . ~. ... . ,-Yo ~'. .,. The placement of a site is however a dynamic process influenced by many parametm' . J ... . . including zoning restrictions, property sizes and the location of neighboring sites. All of these factors combined contribute to the development of a "Search Area Ring" within which to find a site that meets coverage requirements. To deviate from this map and use a site outside of the search area would bring the near certainty of not meeting coverage objectives (continuous coverage and service areas). Radiated Power: The power emitted from the site lDlder consideration (with antennas at 120 feet) is approximately 167 watts. What is the effect 00 a person standine at close quarten? Sites are designed in such a way that a person is never in the direct beam path of an antenna in close quarters. With our antennaS at a height of 120 feet, they will transmit in a near horizontal direction, well away from any person who might be in close proximity to the site. Furthermore. the characteristics of RF signals, and particularly signals in the pcs frequency range which we &reusing for our system (1900 MHz), are such that the signal deteriorates rapidly. with a halving of the effective power every 0.3 miles on average. The site under consideration has a three (3) sector configuration. The sectors are centered on 0 degrees. 120 degrees and 240 degrees with respect to true North. Each sector will have two (2) antennas. The antennas are characterized by a 1100 degree horizontal beamwidth and a 60 degree vertical beamwidth. Due to projected user traffic considerations, each sector will support a total of three (3) channels wi power being equally shared between the channels (167 wattsl3=56 wa C~NTR.~l.. ~,=~Mr~!~IG ,>-y C .. C ._"",,\;:'.' - '.: o o LCe Site No:440-142-10 Site Name: Sunny Park ,. ......-,j It is important to take note that the new digital PCS wireless communications systems operate at a lower power level than the traditional analog cellular systems currently deployed. In fact, PCS systems have been measured to operate with less emitted power than common household appliances such as microwave ovens and coffee makers. Other EDstiDe Strudures: The Site Acquisition Department looked into the availability and possibility of other struCtures within the vicinity: The'Florida D.O.T. tower, known in the area as the Young Tower and owned by the City of Clearwater is located on Young Avenue. This tower is .85 miles North or 4,478 feet (3070 True North) of the existing proposed location which would most definitely have formed a coverage hole. This site involves lengthy lease negotiations which would have . ., preveQted.~ expedient. ?uild-~ut ~or th~ .sy.ste~. . ;.;..:;~~:.~t'~ ';::.'Jd'd'~'~'~:.:.:i.C.~O"~;'t....~;~~&..-l~~:L::;i-~i~1'~':L1:'.I'~'t.l:-< ~'r:' 'f:' 'sed~'':;'~te.\ ...:......j~i~?I....;~.:~., :.:.',....,~.:-...: .... 'I ne t'I'E OWCl SllC-WUW ul.Heu, OBO'BIIU OHIlC>prepo ,.JootWOD ... .'''~:..... .~~..., .~ ", tower height of 120 feet with available mounting height at 100 feet. This is too short for ' . " the coverage required. A water tower owned by the City of Clearwater and located on Greenwood Avenue is 1.05 miles north-west or 5,558 feet (2920 True North) from the proposed site location. This tower was too far from the coverage design area and could not be used. A building known as the Barbie Towers was identified on Druid Drive north of Belleair Road. This site is 1.62 miles or 8,538 feet (3280 True North) from the proposed tower location. The distance is too far from the design area identified by the RF Engineering & Design Department * * * * * * * * * m~~~!q) ~ C~;,;. ;". ":.L ", Tl~~' L c,'.Y :' ! '. :-. ...: - . I "_ ,. .... - . . -Y""'" . ... ~:I .:../'; . . # . :.. ~ .. . -- o No. 91.01 0 A IlESOUTrION OF nm CITY COMMISSION OF mE CITY OF ClJ!AAWA'I'D. FLORIDA. ENCOURAGING 1118 lOINI' usa OF EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWElS AND STIltJCTUl\ES AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO NEW TOWEl CONSnUC110N, AND ENCOUIt.AGINO nIB JOINT USE OF NEW TOWERS; P&OVlDINO AN EffEC'I'IVE DAm. WHERBAS.1he City otOearwaler It experiencIea IDereuUw requests lor buiIdina permitJ ror the constNCtion orriew ~ towcn; and WHEREAS, it is in the interest orthe City to roster a.ood visual environment and to enhance the appeal or the City IS I desirable place in whidl to live. conduct business, ,. and visit~ and WHEREAS. it is in the interest orthe City to ensure that struetures are compatible in the area in wldch they are located 0( planned; and WHEREAS. towers are often viewed u incongruent elements in the setting in which they are located due to their projection and visibnity above other structures; and . . WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the City t~ avoid tJJe prolif'ention of towers; and . '. ... ,..... :t..:,:, ":;,,,;,:: ~":"o#,,;~,~','WHEREAS~:~i~10werl<<<<tUctur:a'~:~ bc:~.II.~:~~YO~ ,:'. '.:,,-;:-.' :.': '~'...:. to new tower construetion. . . NOW, THEREfORE. BE IT IlESOL VED BY mE CITY COMMISSION OF nm CITY 9F CLEARWATER, FLORIDA; Section 1. 1bo City or Clearwater hereby encouraaes the joint use or existiri, teleconununication towers and strUCtUres IS an alternative to new tower constrUction. and encourages the joint use or new towers. . Section 2. This resolution shaD take eKed immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this l1IJiday or Janu_n , 1997. Approved IS to rorm and legal sufficiency: Attest: ., ~~.~_. . Goudeau. City Clerk Resolution 97-08 \: .. CITY OF CUARWAT~ 10: 0 vARIANCE ~RANSMITTO ~ Goude"" CItY CIIrt lOdalnII ... QuIt. T"ffIo ~ tAsI1e DouGaa-Sld", Asst.~1iv Attorney VIe ChodOfl, NdInQ 0fftcIII StepheftOOlwrtY.eentrel ~ TomM!llr.rnw--- IbIl 0uIU1At. SteW s.motf. DcIn : ZarinlI R.vIeW lAad ......... ~ DATI: AId 23, 1898 ~ rnM: . ~ II-3t ~APPIJCANT (8USIN~A11Vl: ScCItt and Ruth HeIe I LCC IntlIrnetIonel. Inc./Jane Kelly and Ralph JoneI ADDRESS: 1498 Sellaelr RoacIIProposedl LEGAL DESCRIPTION: M' B 33.06. Section 23-29-16 LOCAnON: 186 ft. Wilt of Highland Av.. South and lying on the North aide of BeDealr R08cl . AREA: 0.38 acres m.o.l. EXlsmNO/PROpOSED USE: Vacant ZONING: CG IGaner.1 Commercl8ll VARIANCE REQUEST ::~!~_"'~J; ,~:RE~lJfl~~~iri.=!!!r:ggfmx I.I~~ S~~l .etbaCk from a 60 percent of height- i 42:24(;2) .. -' '66 ti: ,.~, ," idlC.'" ..... ald. propertY Une (East) HeIght of awctUra 10 It. I 40;426181 120 It. 70 It. ernonopole tower) Fence height 8 It. I 42.281dl 8 It. 2 It. g t 0 monopo tower. NEWSPAPER AD: .poll ,nd.1lu\ll Ha1t.111' setb.ck v.rlance of 10 ft. to .Row a monopoll tower 60 ft. from the Ellt .Id. property One where a minimum .etback of 60 It. II reCl,ulred; 121 . height variance of 70 It. to .now a mono~le tower 120 It. high wM" a IIlIXImum height of 60 It. II permitted; 131 a height variance of 2 It. to aRow fence B ft. high where i maximum heIght of 6 ft. II permitted. it ~ Road (propo"1IL. M · B 33.06. Sactlon 23-29-16. zonect CG (General Commer~- SURROUNDING LAND USES (PlaIM "far to attac:hed map for aurroundlnllOlllnll d1atrlctal: Nord): Offtctl Ea.t: OffIceS South: ()fftceI West: Vacant (retail c:nY 0FflClAL8 WISHING TO COIIMB!!: MAY DO 80 .. THE SPACE PRCMDED -.ow (CO~ 8~ . \imlRflED TO zoNING AT LEAST fll"1"EN DAYS PRIOR TO THE s(iiEDULED pUBLIC Hf,ARINGI. ..' . .. '" . . DAft: ~ 1. 1.81 . lOR pUBlIC HEARING 8Y THE DEVElOPMENT COOE ADJEUSTMENT lOAD I vR983I T1\ANsMlTTALDOC t VD~(()M * Okf.,? ~~~tA) ~ ~~~a: ~f".~ "1Z..r~~1'" -01" _ w#-,V 'Tb #rOO''/) ~1~C.-r'C, wI OI,vLKrU,t' UNE:-<( h) On the opposite side of the property is a Church which conduct. prayer schools with children. Long ter., what effects will this tower pose to these children. o o For the above reasons I urge the Board to reject the petition for variances on 1496 Belleair Rd. Thank step en Murphy Adjacent Property owner 1498 Belleair Road Clearwater, Fl. 33756 '. ... ,.::.'~':.. ':,;...t.....:...,:.. ....~. .... ..... .:. ", '.:" ~'. '..I~:C.'" ..:..... ..::.-.........-. ,:...... ....: .'~..l4h............'. . ...... ~.~. 1.3 9B 11: aBp . : ~... .. ul<-t::"u-""-r<'"C"' o '~ 81 . . WASH SYSTEMS' The Next Level Mav 4, 199B , . Mr. Steve Murphy 1498 Belleau Rd. Clearwater, Fl. 34616 . Re: Equipment. malfunctions .~. ',,,,':. .;. :-'~'." "".' '1, ...,.......~... .l~.. i:;...:O:.......... .0:.'\:.......:-.....:;...; ....:...~..::.....~. .:....,. - ..':" ...... .."... eo: . Dear SteVe, Please be alerted to the fact that our factory has traced the rash of recent timer problems to sites that are in a close proximity to the new cell towers. Somehow their signaling creates some type of interferance that will erratically turn on our machines without customers inserting money. Also, customers in the process of cleaning their cars may have the system shut down, thereby losing cycles that they have paid for. We arc working on a fix, but for nOW if you ace, experiencing a problem, you should post. a !:Iign on the property for refunds, and 8 phone contact to explain the problem. Yours tr\lly,~, .' ///I~ . Greg Frey .. 5824 Bee Ridge Road · Suite 300 · Sarasota, FI~rida 34233 Phone: (g/tl) 379-~!)R1 · Fnx: (941) 379-2731 ,'" ., I .. I" 'r-.... .. I ""-T" ~ . o ,0 May 27, 1998 Central Permitting 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 Attention: Mr. Richter ...,._ .~.. ....,": . ,~..' ....:. . e....... ~:.t. .:.. ...;.. . .:". . ...-!oo. :. ......,.:.... ... .~.' .....,;... ..., .....~..;.:-:.,. ..~,...'. -J .:......;.~...~ :, ,~. eo. .. . Re: Variance meeting May 28, 1998 Dear Sir: I work at a business within 150 feet of the proposed location of a communicationa tower. I obj ect to . variance being grante<1 for a ~o1l'lm1J1ications tower at 1496 Belleair Road. The hearing on this matter is set for 1 PM on May 28, 1998. I am a resident of the City of Clearwater. Very truly yours, 3 vN!o.... L0~ '-r:{;". lfint 2690 Drew Street unit '931 Cle.~.t.r, FL 33759 ., J.t .., . o o May ~7, 1998 Mr. John Richter City of Clearwater Central Permitting 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 . .....~...._..<: ':Re':' ..'::")tearing"'sth8dtiiedt,tor T-hii'ts~..May'i2-8',,"1998 -.l.;()O.'IlM.. ; "''':';: .',. .', on request for variance of Land Development code #V98-39 ..' ,. . ' for coamunicatiolUl Tower Dear Sir: I am a resident of the City of Clearwater and I object to the request for a variance of the Land Development Code for a communications tower as referenced above. Very truly yours, t~:::i 14 Windward Island Clearater, PL 33767 ..~. ... o JOIJJf MORO.6N BBUJlSOM' 0 AnOawft AJfD <;Oo....l.O. &T LA- 1.7. ,",0__ Bu.u cova CL....IIWAT&.. FLOalDA ~~ 11'7~' TaunOlla (813) "'7-0120 T.ucol'l.. (e.3) _2 - 0.74 May 2'7, 1998 ~r. John Richter City of Clearwater Central Permitting 100 S. Myrtle ~venue Clearwater, FL 33756 ... ".. :... Re; Hear.ing 9c1)~<2\lled tor 11lursday May 28., 1998 1: 00 PM .' ." ";0'. ~ ~ .' .. . 'on t'equ~'8t ':ror:'v,ttanctf""of" 'r.an4'.I7ttV"el:o~ttt .~ode: ....t ..... 00 IV ~8-J9 .-;-'"...: . ... Dear Sir: I represent Teresa L. Malke, as Trustee, the owner of the land and one-story office building located at 1472 Jordan Hills Courc, Clearwater, PL 33756. My client strongly objects to the request for variance of Land Development Code IV 98-39. A communications tower on this small piece of property at a height of 120 feet would be unsightly to the area and in close proximity to homes and businesses. My client's office building appears to be located within 120 feet of where the proposed tower would be sitting and so would create a danger to the building and personael in frequently occurring Plorida windstorm conditions and other possible occurrence.. A tower of this eize on the size lot which i. located at 1496 selleair Road could not fall on its own property. A eover at thia height will act as a lightning rod and will compound a problem ray client and her neighbors are _lready having with lightning damage to their office equipment as a result of 1 ightning strikes traveling through the ground and striking the underground wiring in this ares. off ,...tr. . . o o Mr. John Richte~ City of Clearwater central Permitting Page 2 May 27, 1998 . . -. .-. We alSO have concerns abOUt the porcupine effect of a proliferation of towers in the area. It seems unusual to request a height variance of 70'. 'l1Ji8 is a tremendous increase over the allowable tower height. There are numerous towers in the general area and it would seem an additional tower is unnecessary absent a showing by the applicant of the necessity for additional towers. For example. . cellula.r phQneservice in the area. i~ more than adequate and it '0 seems . tOo" me -.that ~'add1 t ioti~l' antenD-a ai-tea' oan be.- ~ocabed. . o,n..' tbe.. towers that are already in existenCe without granting this unusual. request. . Clearly thil type of use would devalue my client's building based on both the aesthetics of an unsightly tower and based on the increased health an4 safety hazards due to the increased lightning risk. .". 0 ~ '.. 0... .. .. . Also it seema to me that the city' 8 policy limiting the height of billboardS and signs Cor the sake ot the appearance of the community in general would be in direct opposition to the concept of granting such an unusually large height variance tor this proposed tower. It is my understanding that the coamunication tower use is currently not allowed OD this property and therefore any variance ot this nature i. totally inappropriate. Since~_~ ~rgan 8runsoa (Ji=~~ for Teresa L. Malke, Trustee .r\dty-;- . J. ) o o May 22, 1998 City of Clearwater Development Code Adjustment Board and The Planing and ZoniD9 Boards Clearwater, Florida Re: utility Facility 0\ (i1rl J 7 Communication Tower V 9 ~ - ~ J CY C- V I~" TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: There is presently a proposal to have a communication tower erected at the property located at 1496 Belleair Road. We, the residents of Clearview Heights, are very concerned about the obvious eyesore effect that this will have on our neighborhood. Any structure of that height is obviously unsightly, and consequently will cause a ..;....: ;:~, ....,.. ;b.l.:l:~~ .-<1Q-: t~Et.1?eay~x. ap~. JJl.te~x::ity. <;>(. o~r. ~~~ghb<?r:hood.. . . . . . . .... .'. . .., ..... ........... .... '..':. ..~.....,...'..:..,.....( ....."\..............,. We feel justified in our request for denial of the placement of such a highly visible structure in our community. Such a tower would certainly lower the value of our homes. Address _!j_~..9- ~~l{_~t.&_L:.~~-~ ..J.I/_~-~~-~--~ L~I Z~-~~ffi1 L~o!L-~~~--- ~ -1~~~------- Lh5:-.5"4L_g[~ g..LJ:1!_f- ~- L~~~ S'S:~~PD..Atlc.._ LIp1~ -L....!~____tL_--~-- L65g_ s. ~.hLe~J1.~_.I:)_V ~- ffJ'f ~lIrJ(LGJf/ ;r~-,---- Ik2_~f3U..4td.'/!.rP Al1.f L~~/-~u.(~-~ ft:.lg-~~~--~ ------ Rjest For Variance Denial - ,~~~--------- -- ~~------------ --~--~~---------- . __??J~-J2~--- _~_g;,._ _ _ ..!..k2o.s:...e[efl!f:.KJ..e.w.._/Fye --t!~-------- ~C!_~_~~_~__ ___ _ _ __ __<<:__ ~___ ...!601__.f./c-<;!'..'!..~':5__.k~__ _____ ____~_;.{i -----~- ~--- J-tf-!fP:A~-~t&._-~-- . .. . . . . . '. '. '. ..' . .... '. . . . . . :.' ...... . .lj . . . .':. . .'. ......;.. .....1.... "'_.L~~ --~...~..' . ~..Jjjl::zId..~-~_~;...;.., .". ___{}J~~--- .L6>>-~.t3~3151!.D__________ __()~A-~--- _L~~~dllA)_g~'!jf!AII~ J~_ _L 7""..s- _ll~-"rE4L.:;.s_--- _JJ3) _f3y~-kL'-_-__- _!1:f3Q--~~ j-YL~4d_ .DJ:.._ .L/..Q'1Q5. _.YJ~bLQO.d.~ I 4-1 ~ JLd.:~ ~ j,~' X · ---- -7--;;;--~n~-- _ft 7/ -~~-..i:Y(L-,--- . J.6l:L~~&___ J..ifj_ Sj~_ _fbJ__ -I~.L~ ~-~~---- ~.I-/3~-~-- A..-3.3_4L~g' _~ . ... . o o Page , . .... ~ o .... .; ""0"\ ...... ". 1'~-"'"".-:' .,..- ~--:~~'":'I"""'- -.-~.;--'--=-1-;.....~....-r-.-~. t.. ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ------------------------------ ~----------------------------- ------------------------------ o Page 14 -- ------- /~ tl-i.~J) ~~~-~: -LkLfZ-C?I4ELr/.!!.s!..~~ _1 ~.2_fLJ2~.tb&L-- .i€~f-~~!- ~ .cfrq'<~~.AL__8.1/E Ll~_~_lQ(~;r~_._Il~_ :.. .- . ..-:- ~.....-: .0 . .~~-T:-.;.-~~~",.~.,.~-:".t-:.: ...... ...., -------------------------------- -------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------- -------------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- -------------------- --------------~------- -------------------- ------ -- --------------- -------------------- o GReatty;GJnc. 1472 JordaD Bll18 Court, Cleuwater, PL 33756 (813) 442-9554 'AX (813) 442-r,914 May 28, 1998 Mr. John Richter City of Clearwater Central ~ermitting 100 S. Myrtle Avenue Clearwater, FL ))756 Re: Hearing at 1:00 p.M. May 28. 199i Request for variance IV 98-39 communications Tower at 1496 Selleair Road , . :.... .' .... .;. :-.: tle-ar" Mr:: '"Rlcl1t'er.j.. v'. .,.~ .".: ....: '." : " ".;' . ."" ".." ". .... .'. . eo. .. . ...... . ....."',.-. ., .,......: ........ .... :".. . ..... .., The undersigned and his wife are the beneficial owners of a Trust that has title to the property located at 1472 Jordan Hills Court. Our staff of 3 persons has occupied the South half of the office building for approximately) years. I would like to register our most vehement protest regarding the proposed construction of .a 120 foot bigh tower overlooking our building. In the past we bave had episodes of lightning activity in our area which has caused malfunctions ot some of our electrical equipment. I believe a tower of this size would certainly invite more electrical epiaoc1es in our area. As you know high wind storms of gale strength together with tornadoes are not uncommon in the south Clearwater area. Witness approximately one year ago a tornado removed the roof at the corner of Belleair Road & Missouri. An office building constructed on the subject lot would certainly be Coa'lPatible with the uses of the surrounding area although perhaps not all profitable as a structre of the type proposed. An office building would not present a threat to the lives and property in close proximity thereto. I am sure the applicant will have engineering studies that will speak to the safety of the tower, bowe"er as a practical matter I believe I can state unequivocally that the two female members ot our staff and the undersigned would live in constant fear of the tower collapsing under a strong wind and hitting our building causing damage to the property and danger to our lives. o o .. , Mr. John Richter May 28, 1998 Page 2 I have read over the past 2 or 3 yearll of the City's effort to beautify. Clearwater by imposing restrictions on billboards and other unsightly structures in areall in which they are no~ compatible with their surroundings. I for one applaud the City's efforts in trying to remove/limit unsightly activity in areas not conducive to their surroundings. It is comforting to know that the City Staff has recognized that there is no hardship involved in this request, and hopefully other persons regulating this proposed activity will be standing invisibly by to protect the health and welfare of the surrounding property owners. . .. .......... ,,'". 0". .. ; .... "~.... : eo .. .... ... eo '..:_ _: .. ...' '",~. 0.. ".: 0, ...~.. .. ~..' ... ..si;e elY;.':~:'. ......- Y. '.: ~. 4r p r M. Le rdt .."".. . .. "'.. .. ..,- ..'. o o Aghemo, Lorenzo From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Lutz, Deb Friday, April 24, 1998 10:16 AM Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Richter, John; Barrett, Earl; Shuford, Scott; Lutz, Deb; Belzel, Fred; Aghemo, Lorenzo Harper, Jeff RE: Tower ordinance Schedules aren't meshing for next week. Let me know your available dates/times for the first week in May. Fred and Lorenzo, please see attached E-mail from Scott Shuford requesting your presence at this meeting. N;l.Zi ~ Cell Tower meeting From: Sent: To: Subject: Lutz, Deb Thursday, April 23, 1998 11 :11 AM Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Richter, John; Barrett, Earl; Shuford, Scott RE: Tower ordinance Please let me know what days and times are good for you. Let's try for next week. Leslie, can you send me the final version of the ordinance, per Jeffs request, so I can get the copies made. Thanks! From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Harper, Jeff Wednesday, April 22, 1998 5:06 PM Lutz, Deb Dougall-Sides, Leslie; Richter, John; Barrett, Earl; Shuford, Scott Tower ordinance Deb, We need to schedule a meeting of the Tower Ordinance group ASAP. This is John Richter, Leslie Dougall Sides and Earl Barrett. The purpose is to go over the final version of the ordinance and then schedule a meeting with industry representatives to get their input. Will you get the latest version from Leslie and be sure all members have it. Page 1 Jl o o .. Aghemo, Lorenzo From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Importance: Shuford, Scott Friday, April 24, 1998 9:59 AM Harper, Jeff Lutz, Deb Cell Tower meeting High At the Infrastructure Team meeting this AM, Arlita indicated Gen Svcs was getting a lot of requests for co- location and Fred Selzel was the contact person. Additionally, Lorenzo was expressing a good deal of interest in telecomm towers. Is it possible to add them to the meeting next week? Page 1 . o o From: Sarnoff, Stephen Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 9:02 AM To: Chodora, Vic; Glatthorn, Sandra; Aghemo, Lorenzo; Dussault, Earl; Melone, Donald Subject: FW: Small conference room The availablity of this room is vital to my job performance. Since the designers of our building deemed that no zoner is allowed to meet with the customers at their work station only leaning on a counter in a walk aisle, this room is the only place we can meet with a customer in a professional way. It is ridiculous to sacrifice this treasure for dead storage. Stephen From: Chodora, Vic Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 7:46 AM To: Permitting Subject: Small conference room The small conference room is being kept locked. The room is being turned into a storage room and a smaller private room for staff to use for internal meetings of about 3-4 people. The large table will be removed, and a smaller table will be installed. If you need to use the room, you can make arrangements with either Debbie or Doreen. This includes putting something in storage or taking it out, or use for an internal meeting or quiet work area. The reason we want it locked, is to control what is stored in the room so it does not get to cluttered with useless stuff. lIte 4517 Page 2 o o Kronschnabl, Jeff From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Richter, John Thursday, April 09, 1998 11 :03 AM Kronschnabl, Jeff Mancini, Teresa Proposed telecomm'n tower NW of Highland and Bellair Jane Kelly, representative for this project, verbally agreed to postpone the conditional use hearing to 5/19 and the variance hearing to 5/14. Please keep Teresa and me up to date on your conversations with Mike R. I'll need to work on the staff report next week. r- (;~ ~ ~ 1ttMJt - e5I 61~k..r ! j,.N".- - ~ ".- dt..orr ~ fIJ~ Page 1 V~A.f, o o - --. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE LAND DEVFl..OPMENT CODE; AMENDING SECTIONS 35.11, 40.284, 40.304, 40.324, 40.344, 40.365, 40.384, 40.404, 40.424, 40.434, 40.444, 40.464, 40.474, 40.503, 40.524, 40.543, 40.564, AND 41.053, AND CREATING SECTION 41.281, CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR TIlE SITING OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND ANfENNAS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the technology of telecommunications has changed considerably over the past several years, making wireless communication and direct broadcast systems more popular; and WHEREAS, the 1996 Telecommunications Act provides that no local regulation or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Clearwater wishes to enhance the ability of residents to make use of this new technology, while minimizing the number of towers and antennas needed throughout the City; and WHEREAS, the current land development code requires revision to accommodate modem technological advances in the telecommunications industry; and WHEREAS, the 1996 Telecommunications Act and related rules limit the extent to which the City can exercise control over telecommunications towers and antennas. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FWRlDA: Section 1. Section 35.11., Code of Ordinances, is amended to read: Sec. 35.11. Defmitions. . * * * * A.ntenna means any exterior ap,paratus desi~ned for telephonic. radio. or television communications. throu~h the sending or receivin~ of electromagnetic waves. * * * * . FM means the Federal Aviation Administration. FCC means the Federal Communications Commission. * * * * . Stealth technology means design to blend into the surroundin~ environment. for example. o o telecommunications towers desiened to look like trees. * * * * * =ns lower means any struclu~ thal is desienoo and constructl:ll primarily :r ~ ~~ :;;;~;.~~ ~ ~Jii~. incl~ipe self su,,?,mne Iatti~ ~. ~ :e~' ~ ~_wwe The odes raQ1Q aJ1!\ televtSlon trans,",,:" ~ miCf ~ w mmon ~er to~rs: ceii~lar tele>>hone towers. alternative tower structures and the like. * * * * * * * * * * Section 2. Sections 40.284, 40.304, 40.324, 40.344, 40.365, 40.384, 40.404, 40.424, 40.434, 40.444, 40.464, 40.474, 40.503, 40.524, 40.543, and 40.464, Code of Ordinances, are amended to read: * * * * * Sec. 40.284. Conditional uses. Within limited office districts, the fol1owing uses may be allowed as conditional uses: (12) Telecommunications towers. * * * * * Sec. 40.304. Conditional uses. Within general office districts, the fol1owing uses may be allowed as conditional uses: (7) Telecommunications towers. * * * . . Sec. 40.324. Conditional uses. Within neighborhood commercial districts, the following uses may be allowed as conditional uses: (16) Telecommunications towers. ORDINANCE NO. 2 o o * * * * . Sec. 40.344. Conditional uses. Within north greenwood commercial districts, the following uses may be allowed as conditional uses: (1m Telecommunications towers. * . * * * Sec. 40.365. Conditional uses. Within beach commercial districts, the following uses may be allowed as conditional uses: (13) Telecommunications towers. . * * * * Sec. 40.384. Conditional uses. Within resort commercial 24 districts, the following uses may be allowed as conditional uses: (13) Telecommunications towers. eXceJlt on Clearwater Beach. * * * * * Sec. 40.404. Conditional uses. Within resort commercial 28 districts, the following uses may be allowed as conditional uses: (12) Telecommunications towers. except on Clearwater Beach. * * * * * Sec. 40.424. Conditional uses. Within general commercial districts, the following uses may be allowed as conditional uses: (2m Telecommunications towers. * * * * * Sec. 40.434. Conditional uses. Within infill commercial districts, the following uses may be allowed as conditional uses: ORDINANCE NO. 3 .' o o (24) Telecommunications towers. . . . . . See. 40.444. Conditional uses. Within highway commercial districts, the following uses may be allowed as conditional uses: (19) Telecommunications towers. * * * * * Sec. 40.464. Conditional uses. Within commercial center districts, the following uses may be allowed as conditional uses: (14) Telecommunications towers. * * . . . Sec. 40.474. Conditional uses. Within downtown/mixed use districts, the following uses may be allowed as conditional uses: (17) Telecommunications towers. . . . . . Sec. 40.503. Pennitted uses. Within limited industrial districts, only the following uses and structures designed for such uses shall be permitted: (17) Telecommunications towers. . . . . . Sec. 40.524. Conditional uses. Within research, development and office park districts, the following uses may be allowed as conditional uses: (8) Telecommunications towers. . * . . . ORDINANCE NO, 4 o o Sec. 40.543. Pennitted uses. Within public/semipublic districts, only the following uses may be allowed as conditional uses: (17) Telecommunications towers. * * * * * Sec. 40.564. Conditional uses. Within open space/recreation districts, the following uses may be allowed as conditional uses: (3) Telerommunications towers. * * * * * Section 3. Section 41.053, Code of Ordinances, is amended to read: Sec. 41.053. Supplementary standards by category of use. * * * * * * * * * * Section 4. Division 14. Section 41.281, Code of Ordinances, is created to read: DMSION 14. TELECOMMUNICA nONS TOWERS AND ANTENNAS Sec. 41.281. Telecommunications towers and antennas. ORDINANCE NO. 5 o o ~ffect of prohibitin~ the provision of personal wireless services. ~~ ~~licabililY. Telecommunications towers and antennas installed and maintained in f:h~':= ~ i.~ ~ e';":r~. iro:.~e ~eifo'::t.Ii~Ia~ons f!,r hpiJdines ill)d structu.res set ~~'~ I. _' The~m_ _ __ _ iilis sectiOlJ shall eovem the ~Iehl pf ~ hci;;b li~.nfin~~ of: = OIJ a b~Ddine whikb is .[lOIICOIIfOlJ!line in ~s ~f ~u ~~.~ ~~OIJ:' ot __ to oonstllll1e ihe el\P3I1~on at: a IllJIICOIlfonmne ~:. ~' i. n Oper.red by a federally licensed arna~ radio sIalion ~ are ":;;; =~~~~s ~t...=:n1e.dish antenn:" w~ich are ~ ~ or I 10 dl _ __d _md__ve-onL __ _ conSIdered a restdential accessory use. and ~ exempt from the requirements of this section. ~3) An!ennas. Antennas are an accessory use in all moing districts. Antennas may be ins~l~ ~e ~xi:f; .~~c~res~ suc~ as ~uildings. light po~es. or other freestandin~ structures. provld .. 10v LtJ_n ad_s n_ mo_ th_ 20 feet to the hetghtof the structure and the antennas and :~;;ne. elec;trical ilOd mechanical equipm:t are neutral in l'9lor and identical to. 9r closely com~le with the color of the supporting ._clUre so as to make the aniennas and related equivm",ni as visually unobtrusive as possible. Where possible. antennas should be architecturally screened r integrated into architectural elements. All antenna installations shall require a permit from the City. No lighting shall be permitted. except as may be required by the Federal Aviation Administration. (4) (a) Telecommunicalions Towe~. Join! Use if Existing Towe~ Required as an AlternoJive 10 New Tower ~~'i~~~n. ~int uSe. of exi~ting telecommuni':1tions towers or other exis~ng butldm= _r ~tures IS reqUIred as an alternative to new tower construction whenever feasible. Therefore: anyone considering new tower construction. must first explore :ther options. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for a new tower. a de_rmination must be made that no existing tower or other structure is available as a reasonable alternative. An applicant requesting a permit for a new tower shall submit evidence to the City that sUpports a conclusion that no reasonable use can be made of any existing tower or structure. The evidence shall clearly establish one or more of the following conditions: 1. No existing tower or structure is located within the geographic area required to meet the ~1icant's covera~e requirements. 2. Existing towers or structures are not of sufficient heieht to meet the applicant's engineering requirements. 3. Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support the ap'plicant's proposed antenna and related equipment. 4. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with or would be interfered with by other antennas if placed on any existing tower or structure. ORDINANCE NO. 6 ~. 6. 7. o o r~:~:~~ o~ co~=rvisions ~ui~ by the owner in order to _h____~ y _ ___fe for a time penod of 25 years. exceed the cost of developini: a new tower. It is not financially feastble to modify or replace an existini: tower to accommodate the proposed antenna. ~~ =~cant. d~monstrates that there are o~er l~timate limitini: factors ___ __r eXIsting towers and structures unsUltable. {~~ U,se of N: T~wers !?equired. Joint use of an~ ~ew telecommunications ~wer I ~Ulred wh_ ev r feasIble. In order to promote Jomt use of new towers. pnor to the issuance of a building permit for a new tower. the applicant shall demonstrate a ~mmitment to joint use as follows~ (1)) 1. Solicitation of Additional Users. The applicant requesting the permit shall submit evidence to the City demonstrating that a genuine effort has been made to solicit additional users for the proposed new tower. Evidence of this effort shall include. a~ minimum. co-pies of notices sent by registered mail. return receipt reques ed. to all other providers of cellular and personal ~mmunication ~i~ in Pinellas County. Florida. advising of the intent to nstruct a n~w tow r identifying the lOcation. invitini: the joint use and sharing of co ts. and requesting a written response within 15 days. 2. Agreement to Allow Future Joint Use. The ap'plicant shall sign an in~trumen~ie which sh~l ~ maintained by the City. agreeing toenoourage and prom the joint se f telecommuniCations towers within the City and. k, that extent. committini: that there shall be no unreasonable act or omission that would have the effect of excluding. obstructing or delaying the joint use of any tower where fair and iust compensation is offered for such use. (c) Design Standards. 1. Height. Sin:le user towers are allowed a maximum height of 120 feet. Towers desi ned for joint use may be greater in height provided the additional hei~ht is ~nStructed coincident with the actual use. Furthermore. existing coot; rmin towers may be increased in height to accommodate ~dditio;;i u~rs without a conditional use permit Towers designed for two ~sers are all wed a maximum height of 140 feet. Towers designed for three r more users are allowed a maximum height of 160 feet. 2. Setbacks . a. From Residential Uses. Towers shall be set back from existini: residential uses a distance equal to the height of the tower. The distance shall be measured from the base of the tower to the residential property line. ORDINANCE NO. 7 o o b. F~m Historic Districts. Towers shall be set back a minimum of 500 Ci from any National R~ister historic district. c. Fro~Qpe~ linesilie Towers shall be set back from pnwerty lines in a r<lan with reQuirements set forth in the zonine district Jqulations. 3, Colo~ I?~tru Ex= ~tiOi or markini reqpuoo ~y the ~t.A. towers and sy_rtin----ctu s _be a neutral. non-glare color or fimsh. so as to reduce visual obtrusiveness. 4. :;:::'ng~ T~ers Sh~ ~ enclosed by a six foot hiih secqrity fence. 5. ~ ca~~ The wri: ;.f ~e tower site shall be buffered with sh!Obs -1~ted_d placed _ sc_ _e _ase of the tower and. to the extent possIble. with trees selected and placed to minimize the vertical scale of the tower. A minimum of ten feet of landscape ~uffer shall be provided around the outside of the required fencing. The l_dscape design requires approval by the Development Code Administrator. 6. Illumination. Towers s~l not ::e aartificiallY lighted except as required by the FAA. At time of const_ction _f _ tower. in cases where there are residential uses located within a distance which is three hundred percent of the height of the tower from the tower. dual mode lighting shall be requested from the FAA. 7. Appunenances. APpurtenan~ buildings and structures shall conform to the standar: set forth in the fu; ning district regulations. Such buildings and structu ~ shall be screened m adjacent properties. At a tower site. design of :e buildings and related ~~~~: shall. to the extent possible. use materials. _IO~ textures. screenini __ Ldscaping th;lt will blend them into the natuIal settin=- and surrounding buildings to minimize the visual impact. 8. Stealth Tech;;ology Constmeti01f. To the extent possible. towers shall be =00 ;m~ltng stealth lllChnplogy ee"~I~~.A ~"iljllOS wh... delcffflined -===38fY b~=e De'/clepffieflt Cooe AdffilAlstmtor In order to protect the aesthetics of the neighborhOod where the tower is pro,posed 9. Variances~ Any variances to the design standards identified above shall be acted upon by e Planning and Zoning Board in concert with the application for a conditional use permit. Cd) ~~!n: ~~i~ /'t4Uired #frJllge and ~riIy. NQ low!:!: shall. be l\sed fi!r ;v"'~:r of 'to..;;. and :e plarement of SIgns. other than wanung SIgns. IS ~hl i . All we must reasonahly posted. in ~ with the !:;ity of ~ter sign ordinance. and secured to protect against tresj>asS. eel Installation and maintenance standards. Owners shall install and maintain towers. t;l~mm~~ti~ns faci1iti~. wires. cables. fixtures and other equipment in compliance wi.. the uirements of e National Electric Safety Code and all FCC. state and local ~u~n;:" iOj:l~ding DdoPr: ~l~in~ gJSles. Pr!or to ~e i~uance 9,f a ~ficate of =y ~r ....lOWer. th~ a..hean shall proVIde enimeenni cemfication thai the ~:;;;v~ s _ctu3l meets such regu1ato'Y standanls, m~luding adqpted buildini rode d for wind velocity. All construction and maintenance on a tower. ORDINANCE NO. 8 o o telecommunications facility or antenna suWOrt structure shall be perfonned by licensed ~~~~ ~~ m~ntenance personnel. All towers shall achieve and maintain compliance wi t iof;Q~~ncy emissions standards promull:ated by the FCC. (f) Sta/eTnenJ of Use and Removal if Abandoned AnJennas and Towers. Any ~~';~~::s ~~~:~ th~t ~:s a tOwer in the Ci~ ~ ~Ie an annual statement _v I m t A mt strator by October 1 tdentifyin~ each tower owned. ;;ci~1: wh~r ~~h ~w~r is currently in use. and naminl: all users of each tower. Any =~nc1udini ;;;y sup~rting tower if ~licable. which is not operated for a period of 24 con;;utive months shall be Considered abandoned and shall be removed upon written notificati n by the City within sixty <t\ys of said notification. Failure to do so shall ~nstitute a violation of this land development code. ~) Comoliance With Other Codes and Safety Standards. Telecommunications towers and an nnas shall comply with all regulations and safety standards of the Federal Aviation Administr'ation. the Federal Communications Commission. and any other agency with regulatory authority . Section 5. The provisions of this ordinance are found and detennined to be consistent with the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED ON FIRST READING PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED Rita Garvey, Mayor-Commissioner Approved as to fonn and legal sufficiency: Attest: Cynthia E. Goudeau, City Clerk Leslie Dougall-Sides, Asst. City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 9 TO: cuo7ir~.~.~~h.~( ~~rwafer <;'n\'$[~'" ' I) -~~ o _ ONE CITY. ONE FUTURE. City Attorney's Office Memorandum Honorable Mayor and City Commissioners ~ILII Pamela K. A~i~City Attorney . ~Z""'3 ~O; VY};I1''.:.. L_",<. Final Order - American Infoage, LLC v. City of Clearwater . DOAH Case No. 00-0999 o FYI f FROM: RE: DATE: September 5, 2000 Enclosed is the Final Order in the above case. The order reverses the Community Development Board's decision which denied approval for a telecommunications tower on the property located at 505 Virginia Lane. It states that the application is approved and does not impose any of the conditions recommended by staff or adopted by the Board. Judicial review of this decision as stated in Code of Ordinances Section 4- 5050, would be through filing a Petition for Certiorari in circuit court within 30 days. The Circuit Court would conduct a review of the record (as opposed to a de novo hearing). Please advise whether the City Commission desires this office to file such a petition for review. PKA:jmp Attachment Copy to: William B. Horne II, Interim City Manager Cynthia E. Goudeau, City Clerk -.~ o v ~ fiee;lVf:n. SEP 0 1 lOOO :1\nrroRNEY STATE O~ FLORIDA. DIVISION OF ADMIN]STRATIVE HEARINGS L L. ~.. , AMERI~ ri5~:iGE, ar;~~"h'r , . .~ I ~IW LLC, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) . ) ) ) @@/P)')f vs. Case No. 00-0999 CITY OF CLEARWATER, Respondent. FINAL ORDER Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Daniel Manry conducted the administrative hearing in this case on June 29, 2000, in Clearwater, Florida. APPEARANCES For Petitioner: Darryl R. Richards, Esquire Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel and Burns, P.A. Post Office Box 1100 Tampa, Florida 33601 v For Respondent: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, Esquire Assistant City Attorney Post Office Drawer 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 STATEMENT OF THE ISSTJE The issue in this case is whether the decision of the City of Clearwater Community Development Board (the "Board") to deny the application of petitioner for flexible development approval to erect a telecommunications tower should be upheld pursuant to the City of Clearwater Land Development Code (the "Code"). (All section references are to the Code adopted on January 21, 1999, unless otherwise stated). . . ........ J .. ~ PRELIMINARY STATEMEN~ On January 25, 2000, the Board voted to deny Petitioner's application to erect a telecommunications tower and entered a written order on February 29, 2000. On February 8, 2000, Petitioner timely filed a Notice of Appeal. On March 1, 2000, Respondent referred the appeal to the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") to conduct an administrative hearing. At the hearing, the parties agreed to the admission of Joint Exhibit One. Joint Exhibit One includes the audio tapes, minutes, exhibits, and transcripts from the proceeding before the Board. Petitioner presented the testimony of two witnesses, including one by deposition,.and submitte~ 27 exhibits for admission in ev~dence. Respondent presented the testimony of two witnesses and submitted three exhibits for admission in evidence. The identity of the witnesses and exhibits, and any attendant rulings, are set forth in the Transcript of the hearing filed on July 14, 2000. Petitioner timely filed its Proposed Final Order ("PFO") on July 25, 2000. Respondent timely filed its PFO on July.24, 2000. Resp~ndent's object~on to. the admissibility of the deposition testimony of Mr. Joseph Feraca is sustained for the reasons stated in Respondent's written objection. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Petitioner is a Florida corporation engaged'in the business of building telecommunication towers for co-location of 2 v ~ antennae to send and receive cellular telephone signals. Proper , location of 'telecommunication towers is essential to efficient and effective cellular telephone communications., There must be an available tower to pick up the signal as a user moves from a distant tower to the available tower. Without an available tower, the user would lose signal. 2. It is undisputed that three telephone carriers, identified in the record as GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo, need an available tower in the vicinity of Clearwater High School (the "high school"). Another telephone carrier, identified in'the record as AT&T, shares an existing tower at the high school with the Pinellas County School Board (the "school board") . 3. No reasonable use can be made by GTE, Nextel, or PrimeCo of the existing tower at the high school without modification to the tower. The existing tower is not adequate ,in height and ~ structural capacity to meet the requirements of GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo. 4. The school board and AT&T repeatedly rejected efforts by GTE, Nextel, and Petitioner to discuss the possibilities of modification of the existing tower to accommodate co~location. In 1996, AT&T advised GTE that the school board was not interested in co-location activity. The school board repeated that position in a separate meeting with GTE. 5. GTE and PrimeCo searched for over two years for an alternative structure, tower, or location that would provide reasonable use for their technical requirements. In 1997, GTE 3 ~ C0 requested a permit from Respondent to build a new tower approximately two blocks from the existing tower at the high school. Respondent contacted the superintendent.of the school .. board to encourage co-location. Respondent did not issue a perm~t to GTE for a new tower. 6. Early in 1998, GTE and PrimeCo approached Petitioner to locate a site for construction of a new tower in the vicinity of the high school. . Over the next eight months, Petitioner searched for a suitable site for building a new tower. Petitioner found a site surrounded by commercial property and bordered by mature trees which are 20 to 40 feet tall. On October 13, 1998, Petitioner optioned the portion of the property on which Petitioner intended to build the tower, and Petitioner now owns the property. ",- 7. On May 17, 1999, Petitioner filed its application for site plan approval. The application proposed the construction of a 160-foot wireless communications tower for co-location by GTE, Nextel, and Prime Co (the "proposed tower"). Petitioner sent a notice of the proposed tower to Mr. Kevin Becker at AT&T. 8. The staff for the Board conducted a technical review of the application. The staff recommended approval of the application subject to certain conditions. Petitioner complied with each of those conditions. 9. The staff also recommended approval by the Development Review Committee (the "DRC"). The DRC must review each application before it is submitted to the Board. The staff 4 (,0 ~ , report to the DRC stated that the existing tower at the high school-was the only other" tower in the area and was in poor condition. The report found that the tower cannot structurally hold more weight and cannot accept more antennae. 10. Before the Board reviewed the application, Nextel again contacted Mr. Becker at AT&T to discuss modification of the existing tower for co-location of Nextel' s antenna". Mr. Becker responded for AT&T with a terse e-mail that stated, "This is the THIRD TIME I have told Nextel that. . tower is not available for anyone." 11. The Board conducted five hearings to review the application by Petitioner. The hearings spanned six months. The Board conducted the first hearing on July 20, 1999, a second hearing on October 5, 1999, a third hearing on November 16, 1999, a fourth hearing on December 14, 1999, and the last hearing on ~ January 25, 2000. 12. The Board did not follow the staff recommendation at the first hearing. After hearing testimony and receiving other evidence, the Board continued the first hearing, in relevant. part, to "allow the City to do whatever it may want to do in terms of addressing that issue." The Board directed Petitioner to contact the school board concerning the condition of the tower and directed the City Planning Director to also contact the school board. 13. After the July hearing, Petitioner contacted the school board concerning the existing tower. Neither the school board 5 ~ ~ nor AT&T had any plans for modification of the existing tower at the high school. The City Planner conducted an independent inquiry and determined that there is not much of. a desire on the part of the school board or AT&T to "create other opportunities at this time." 14. Petitioner and the City Planner reported their findings to the Board at the second hearing conducted on October 5, 1999. No one from the school board or AT&T appeared at the hearing. 15. Petitioner presented an engineering study concerning the inadequacy of the existing tower at the high school. One Board member asked whether a new tower could be constructed at the high school to replace the existing tower. Petitioner and the Board's attorney sta~ed that the.Code encourages the use of existing towers.ratherthan.new towers.. The. Board continued the .,~I hearing over objection from Petitioner so that City representatives could contact school board representatives at a higher level and also allow consideration of a new tower at the ~ high school. 16. After the October hearing, the City Manager contacted the superintendent of schools to discuss the tower at the high school. On November 10, 1999, the superintendent stated that he would meet with city representatives only if AT&T representatives were also present. The superintendent eventually met with the City Manager without the presence of an AT&T representative. The superintendent indicated a willingness to consider modification of the existing tower but no agreement was reached due to the 6 o ~ , absence of AT&T participation. Another Board member prevailed on the superintendent four times to make a decision without success. 17. The Board conducted the third hearing on November 16, 1999. Representatives from GTE, Nextel, and Prime Co testified at the hearing. Modification to the existing tower at the high school would accommodate one of the three companies but not the other two. The proposed tower is the only tower that would accommodate all three companies. The proposed tower is necessary to provide effective and efficient service to the customers of GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo. GTE has been at a competitive disadvantage since 1996. The Board voted to approve Petitioner's application. 18. . The Board conducted a fourth hearing on December 14, 1999. At' that hearing, the Board voted to reconsider Petitioner's application on the ground that the Board had received timely requests for reconsideration from an interested party. The Board determined that Petitioner had misrepresented the position of the school board and AT&T concerning their willingness to modify the existing tower at the high school. 19. The catalyst for the Board's reconsideration was a letter from Mr. Becker, dated September 16, 1999, stating that AT&T was willing to consider co-location. Mr. Becker sent a copy of the letter to the Board the day after the Board approved Petitioner's application. The letter stated that AT&T was very interested in considering co-location with other carriers but that the existing tower at the high school was inadequate for the 7 J o C'~ purpose. The letter represented that AT&T would be willing to discuss replacement of the tower with other carriers. Petitioner , had never seen th~ letter prior to the Board's approval and had no knowledge of the change in position by AT&T. 20. The Board conducted a final hearing of Petitioner's application on January 25, 2000. The Board considered the letter from Mr. Becker and a letter from legal co~nsel for AT&T. Both letters stated that the existing tower does not have the structural capacity to add additional wireless antennae. A staff member for the Board again concluded that the term "existing" meant a tower in existence at that time. Respondent's expert confirmed that the existing tower, without reconstruction, was not a reasonable alternative to the tower proposed by Petitioner. Mr. Becker testified that AT&T was not proposing to modify the existing tower to accommodate the proposed antennae needed by .. GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo and that the existing tower was beyond reinforcement to accommodate add{tional loading. 2l. The Board denied Petitioner's application. The Board found that the existing tower "can be modified to accommodate carriers and thus reasonable use may be made of the existing tower. " 22. The evidence does not support a finding that the existing tower can be modified to accommodate GTE, Nextel, and primeCo. To do so, the existing tower would need to be replaced rather than modified. Reasonable use of the existing tower cannot be accomplished by modification. 8 o ~ , 23. Replacement of the existing tower with a new tower would not provide reasonable..use of the "existing" tower. As a threshold matter, an interference study would be. necessary before a determination could be made that the replacement tower would accommodate all of the carriers. Prime Co cannot commit to the replacement tower until the interference study is completed. In addition, there are other problems. 24. AT&T proposes to place seven carriers on the replacement tower. That configuration would not provide adequate coverage to each carrier. A second tower would be required in the "short term." 25. AT&T's proposed location of each antenna on the replacement tower would reduce the amount of coverage that is available to each carrier on the tower proposed by Petitioner. Petitioner's proposal locates GTE at 155 feet to accommodate GTE's technical needs. AT&T would locate GTE no higher than 120 feet thereby substantially reducing the area served by GTE. If GTE is located at 120 feet, GTE would need to construct another tower a mile away in order to obtain the coverage achieved at 155 feet in Petitioner's proposal. 26. The replacement tower proposed by AT&T imposes additional limitations on AT&T's competitors. It requires GTE to reduce the size of its antenna to four feet from the eight-foot antenna in Petitioner's application. AT&T imposes a similar reduction on Nextel and requires Nextel to agree to a "compromising antenna" to co-locate on the replacement tower. 9 v .~J ~ ~ 27. The continuances ordereq by the Board delayed , construction of the tower proposed by Petitioner. If Petitioner had received approval of the application in July. 1999, Petitioner could have had its proposed tower in service by January 2000. The delay has placed GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo at a competitive disadvantage. 28. As of the date of the administrative hearing, AT&T had not begun construction of the replacement tower. The school board has the right to approve any co-Iocat~on agreements for the replacement tower proposed by AT&T. AT&T has not submitted any co-location agreements for school board approval. 29. Board policy considers the timeliness of a replacement tower as one factor in determining whether the ~eplacement tower is "feasible" or a "reasonable alternative" within the fueaning of Section 3-2.001D.1. A replacement tower that would require more than one year to construct is neither feasible nor a reasonable alternative. 30. Neither the Board nor its staff enunciates any intelligible standards for adopting a one-year time limit or for applying a one-year time limit, including any standard for identifying the starting point of the one-year limit. For example, Petitioner first applied for approval on May 17, 1999. The Board began the one-year period for determining feasibility of the AT&T replacement tower on September 10, 1999. Respondent failed to explicate why it started the one-year period on September 10, 1999, rather than the date of application. 10 ~ ~ 31. The limitations imposed by AT&T for co-location on the replacement tower and the "continuances imposed by the Board, individually and severally, comprise a "legitimate limiting factor" within the meaning of Section 3-2001D.1.g. The limitations and continuances have the effect of placing GTE, Nextel, and Prime Co at a competitive disadvantage and also have the effect of discriminating against the three companies in violation of Section 3-2001A. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 32. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter. Section 4- 505. The parties were duly noticed for the hearing. 33. The burden of proof is on Petitioner. Section 4-505, in relevant part, provides: . ~ C. The burden shall be upon the appellant to show that the decision of the community development board cannot be sustained by the evidence before the board and before the hearing officer, or that the decision of the board departs from the essential requirements of law. (emphasis supplied) 34. Section 4-505C authorizes reversal of the decision of the Board if Petitioner shows either that the decision cannot be sustained by the evidence or that the decision departs from the essential requirements of law. Section 4-505 does not prescribe the evidentiary standard by which Petitioner must satisfy its burden of proof. 35. petitioner satisfied both disjunctive requirements "of the burden of proof prescribed in Section 4-505. Petitioner 11 o ('0 showed by clear and convincing evidence that the decision of the Board cannot be sustained by the evidence and that the decision , departs from the essential requirements of law. 36. Section 3-2001, in relevant part, provides: D. Telecommunications towers'. 1. Joint use of existing telecommunications towers. . is required as an alternative to new tower construction whenever feasible. Therefore, anyone considering new tower construction, must first explore other options. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for a new tower, a determination must be made that no existing tower or other structure is available as a reasonable alternative. An applicant requesting a permit for a new tower shall submit evidence to the city that supports a conclusion that no reasonable use can be made of any existing tower or structure. The evidence shall clearly establish one or more of the following conditions: (emphasis supplied) a. No existing tower or structure is located within the geographic area required to meet the applicant's coverage requirements. b. Existing towers or structures are not of sufficient height to meet the applicant's engineering requirements. c. Existing towers or structures do not have sufficient structural strength to support the applicant's proposed ~ntenna and related equipment. d. The applicant's proposed antenna would cause electromagnetic interference with or would be interfered with by other antennas if place on any existing tower or structure. e. The fees, costs or contractual provisions required by the owner in order to share an existing tower or structure for a time period of 25 years, [sic] exceed the cost of developing a new tower. 12 o ~ f. It is not financially feasible to modify or replace an existing tower to accommodate the proposed antenna. g. The applicant demonstrates that there are other legitimate limiting factors that render existing towers and structures unsuitable. 37. The evidence clearly established the presence of one or more of the conditions that must be present for the approval of an application to construct a new tower. It is uncontroverted that the existing tower at the high school is not of sufficient height or structural strength, within the meaning of Section 3- 2001D.1.b and c., to accommodate co-location of an additional antenna. Petitioner showed by clear and convincing evidence that the replacement tower proposed by AT&T would not provide sufficient height location for the GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo antennae within the meaning of Section 3-2001D.1.b. 38. The evidence clearly established that there are other ~ legitimate limiting factors that render the replacement tower proposed by AT&T unsuitable within the meaning of Section 3- 2001D.1.g. The seven antennae proposed by AT&T would not provide adequate coverage to ~ach carrier and would necessitate at least ,- one additional tower. The absence of an interference study prevents primeCo from committing to a replacement tower and may require Prime Co to build another tower. AT&T's location of GTE no higher than 120 feet on the replacement tower and reduction of antenna size from eight to four feet would substantially reduce the area served by GTE and would require GTE to build a second tower within one mile of the replacement tower. Similar 13 ~ ~ reductions to the antenna of Nextel would enhance Nextel's need for an additional tower. 39. Petitioner showed by clear and convincing evidence that the decision of the Board departed from the essential requirements of law within the meaning of Section 4-S0SC. Section 3-2001, in relevant part, provides: ~I A. Purpose and qoals. The purpose of this division is to establish general standards for ~he siting of telecommunications towers and antennas. The goals are to encourage the use of existing structures as an alternative to new tower construction, to encourage the joint use of new towers, to encourage the design and construction of towers and antennas which minimize the adverse visual impacts, and to enhance the ability of providers of telecommunications services to furnish such services with the city quickly, effectively and efficiently. It is not the intent of the city to discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services, or to prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services. 40. The evidence clearly established that the replacement tower proposed by AT&T would not enhance the ability of GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo to furnish services within .the city quickly, effectively, and efficiently within the meaning of Section 3- 2.001A. Conversely, the evidence clearly established that the tower proposed by Petitioner would enhance the ability of those providers to furnish such services. 41. For reasons stated in paragraph 38, the evidence clearly established that the replacement tower proposed by AT&T would encourage the construction of additional towers by GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo in violation of the goals prescribed in 14 c,'J ~ Section 3-200lA. Conversely, the evidence clearly established that the tower proposed by Petitioner would encourage the use of the proposed tower by reducing the need of GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo for additional towers. 42. The evidence clearly established that the continuances ordered by the Board did not enhance the ability of GTE, Nextel, and PrimeCo to furnish services within the city quickly, effectively, and efficiently. The continuances delayed construction of the tower proposed by Petitioner. If Petitioner had received approval of the application in July 1999, Petitioner could have had its proposed tower in service by January 2000. The continuances ordered by the Board and the significant limitations imposed.by AT&T for the replacement tower had the effect of placing GTE, Nextel, and Prime Co at a competitive disadvantage and also had the effect of discriminating among ~ providers within the meaning of Section 3-200lA. The competitive disadvantage is underscored by the failure of the Board to explicate any intelligible standard for application of the one- year time limit for a~ailability of the replacement tower. 43. The Code does not define the term "existing." The Code provides in Section a-lOIN that words not defined in the Code "shall have the meaning indicated by common dictionary definition." The replacement tower is not an existing tower because it does not have "actual or real being" and is not "present. . . in a certain place." The American Heritaqe Dictionary, Second Colleqe Edition, 475 (Houghton Mufflin Company 15 ~ ~ ~ 1982). The Board is bound by the express terms of its own ordinance. Carroll v. City of Miami Beach, 198 So. 2d 643, 645 , (Fla. 3d DCA 1967), rev. denied, 545 So. 2d 1366. (1989). 44. The Board's determination that a replacement tower is an "existing" tower departs from the essential requirements of law. When the Board defined an "existing" tower to mean a replacement tower, the Board construed the term "existing" in a manner other than its common ordinary meaning; inserted additional terms not found in the express terms of the ordinance; and thereby departed from the essential requirements of law. Mandalstam v. City Commission of the City of South Miami, 539 So. 2d 1139, 1140 (Fla. 3d'DCA 1988). Zoning laws are in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed in favor of a property owner such as Petitioner. rd. 45. The decision of the Board departed from the ess~ntial requirements of law by engaging in ex parte communications in violation of Section 4-2060.3. Section 4-206D.3. provides: . Except as provided in this subsection, no member of the . . . board. . shall engage in any ex parte communications with any person in regard to the substance of a. quasi-judicial matter which is to be considered by the board. (emphasis supplied) a. MeIDhers of the. . board may conduct personal investigations and site visits regard [sic] to a quasi-judicial pending [sic] before them provided that the existence of such investigation is disclosed at a public hearing and made a part of the record before final action on the matter. 16 L. cjJ C) 46. The Board went far beyond the personal investigation and site visit authorized in Section 4-206D.3.a. Board members engaged in ex parte communications with the supe~intendent of schools without allowing Petitioner to be present to cross- examine the evidence obtained by the Board. Such ex parte communications violated Section 4-206D.3., as well as fundamental notions of the due process right to cross-examine evidence that the trier of fact will consider in determining the substantial interests of Petitioner. FINAL ORDER Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED that the decision of the Board is reversed, and the application of Petitioner is approved. DONE AND ORDERED this~day of August, 2000, in v Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. D~G Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings, The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Divisio~of Administrative Hearings this ~~ay of August, 2000. 17 ~J " C'\) COPIES FURNISHED: , Darryl R. Richards, Esquire Johnson, Blakely, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel and Burns, P.A. Post Office Box 1100 Tampa, Florida 33601 Leslie K. Dougall-Sides, Esquire Assistant City Attorney Post Office Drawer 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33758 Cynthia Goudeau, City Clerk City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618 NOTICE.OF RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Agency Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a second copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to. be reviewed. 18 ., . . .. .~ ) . .. -" -- , . -. I ~ - ...:. ~ .~ .. :: ~'. ~~ . . .~ ,: :-.: :-......: 4'," ..: ~ .... . L. . .... '- ~ -' . . . '- ;- :-: :, ~. ;-=: ~ ~ = '- ;-: :-.~ . 1""'".. '. t O-:-r,7C2,7j p~G[ 1880 JY o COUNT'f"\ sa::TloN/3btf S'l'Nl'E HOI\IJ PN~CEI.S Pinellm; 15570-2603 S-595-1\ 271 & 274 " . . ~ \ / CLI.() r; () CDC~ "3 -; .t.. '(,I '7) //i /' "j _ (.., v! ~:~ TIIA'" CI~HTAIN LEASE AGHEEMENT DATED JANUARY 19, 1976, 861 G3.131 MODIfICATION Of LEASE AGREEMENT between the STATE OF FLORIDA DEPAH'rMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, LESSOR, hereinCl[ter c.'11led the "DEPARTMENT", and the CI'fY OF CLEARWATER, FLOHID/\, LESSI~E, hereinafter called the "CITY" is this day modified. TilE OIUGINAL LEASE IS PRIMARY AND RE(l.lI\INS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. ^ copy of the Original Lease is attached with its OriginCll AttClchments, marked Exhibits A, 13, C, 0, E, F, and is mClue Cl pClrt of this Modifici'ltion of Lease Agreement, for reference. TIlE PAHTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The IClnd area is increased ,to include that legally described in Exhibit "1", attached hereto. The "CITY" Clccepts maintenance and liability responsibilities for this additional property. 2. The right of each party to terminate this Agreement upon "30 Days Notice", is extended to cl term of "One Year Notice". 3. The "CITY" may erect R free standing tt:'"ansmitt:er antenna, and .:l tra n~mi t: ter bui ldin'g. The height of the antenna (approximcttely 300 feet) will have a 30 ft. x 30 ft. base. The building dimensio~ to be approximately 20 ft. x LO ft.. The location of the antennl'l on this property to be longitude 82"47' 13" West and ICltitude 27056'42" North. Structures shall not inter[erc~ with dra'inElge and WElter retention use illlcl purpose or this property, nor the public pClrk use. lj . In the event of termination by either party prior to f~hc cxpirCl tion of the term of the CJTY Ill,'y leCl se, <tlH~ ~~ c= 'l';n1 r- rn:;::::t r-"'- (1 I: i t ~: e % r ,-', n s c'~ , r 11 (' t J- " S n ~ ..- co J ~ _'. n n . 1 i ~ e L:_ .;; "-, ',':1: equirJl1lent C1nd <111 fixtures U1 ,',., f Sl P f reInOV(~ , .:111 t(~nrl(1, r21Clted jnst,llled by :..c~ -. ;.I -'C) . c: .')-- , ,-< ("""Cl :,..ale.) --c: ~~ I:hc CITY. N -.J -a ~~ - en 0') P<1qe 1 of 2 , (~: F, '-, I tf ;, (. ) ! " .,---:: I '.~ I , I .' o o o.p..G275 PAGE 1881 The "CITY" to indemnify, defend, save, and hola hClrl'llcss the "DEPARTMENT" from a 11 claims, demRnds, 1 iabi 1 i ties dnd suits of uny nature whatsoever nrising out of, because of, or dU8 to the construction of these structures, or the use and maintenance of S3me, now and in the future. All provisions or the Original Lease apply and, are not a([cctcd by this ModificCltion, except as specifically stated herein. IN WITNESS WIIEHEOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be executed, this \fA'-. a~ dC'lY of i ~ BG \"JITNESSES: _~ \:.f\n..r--- ~ \..l...) l~ lIv~ ~~. L =\ PV-t~ . . ( .' . .. .., , .11. ,... CITY if\ CLE~RWl\l'ER, IlI~~/! ? By,jj\.-7 ~L~;;;Ji),~, Approved as to Form clnd Correctness: '. :.C;:' Title: ci ty n<?-g~;r;'I'- . r. '.' ...~.-\,...~:.:" :.~~; "It .t .)~{~~....~. " (":,,;~{ }.". ATTEST:~:'::" .~ 2.. .'.J~. .:):J..._ : f." . . .1'#':: 'I'itle:.'~ity ~le'rk:,' <,:'.'C.. - .J,!~II. ,.'r-': 01", . ./i:, . "I '.J, (Seal) Countersigncd:-; . / .... j ,/. ./ . I 1/.. . .,. ."/6,/1 . /;/ ~~. hh"'" / / :- '/ . . _ I ~".i/. , i '-.' . ..-' " . , t. ( -/ /'Mayor-Commissiort'er . / ( ;' / 7 ,(/~ .\ '---: ";1 ,__/ j (!~',-., 'f'!.I uil..lv ,/ City ^tto/ ney ( ,f .. - . I ,'" '.: f...' . ":i~ :..... . ~..:. ~. Attorney' 0.0,1'.,. Pugc :2 of 2 o E~H'str 1 o O.R. G27 5 P~G[ 1882 T. S. N/A, M. S. 16 i SECTION 15570-2603 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE CONVEYED PARCEL 271.1(Part) & 274.1 PARCEL 271.1(Part) Those portions of formerly Lots 102, 103 & 104 of Eldorado Subdivision, in Section 22, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 66, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. Being described as follows: Begin at the Southeast corner of Lot 4, Block A, Second Addition to Salls Subdivision, in said Section 22, as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 35, Page 6, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida; thence North 138.00 feet along the East boundary of said Second Addition to Salls Subdivision to the Northeast corner of Lot 5, said Block A; thence East 20.00 feet along the prolongation of the North boundary of said Lot 5; thence South 138.00 feet parallel to said East boundary; thence West 20.00 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 2760 square feet, more or less. ALSO PARCEL 274.1 All of Lot 57, Replat to the Third Addition Salls Subdivision in Section 22, Township 29 South, Range 15 East, as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 36, Page 31, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. Containing 0.197 acre, more or less. "This conveyance is made subject to all utilities in place and in use, and to the maintenance thereof." , , ~LC n-o,,:.. STATE ROAD: PAI~CEL 0 LEASE AGIUTi.\ENT .... J-.",-;-...,---- e- 271,,\ .: " EX~I~IT 0 S-S9S-A Part Parcel Nu~ber o.p..C275 P~S( 1883 T\llS AGREG\ENT, made' this ~ day of 19~, by and ben:eeIl the STATE OF FLORIDA DEPART:.\' .T' OF hc.reinaftcr called the "Department", and CITY OF CLE:\R~':ATER, FLORIDA, hcr('iT"...,(t"... r:]llCd t.he "City"~ WIT N E SSE T H hl!FREAS, the City is prepuTcc.\ to utilize certain Dep3.rtment lar.ds for p~lbljc park purposes \dthollt thereby interfering "ith the necJs of thl' I)('partment in connection ,,:ith said lands. NO\:, TIIEHEFOIU:. in con:;ider:ltio,n of the prclili:'i'.:'$ C\nu th'J co v e n ant s c .,:. t J. i 11 (' d hen.:' j J1 the par tic.: S (J ~ r e cas f 0 110 \\ S : 1. The DCp~lJ"t1i!Cnt leusc~ to the City. {Ol: use as a public p~rl;, the 1:~p.J5 dcscri1~ell in rxhiLit "A", ,1ttClchcd hereto 2.J~d JniHlc :) part hereof. 2 . T h ~~ 1 e a set (l ~. In shall he .c 0 r 9 9 )' (';1 r she g i J~:l i n g ,.! i t h lbc date of ':.':::;~il:.iun h(.!'l~;J[, sul.jcct to the ri~~ht of (:~c.:\ po.1-t)' to ten~inate t.;-lis agl'(;e~!~Ilt'. UPl.)i! 30 clay:> netice. 3. The Departr.!cnt reserve:; the rjf,l~t to use the leased 1 <1 n d s a s a \,; a \: C L r e ten t i 0 il are a a n J too v e l' f 1 0 \'; oS aid 1 an <.1 san d s tor e \oJ ate r the \. <.~ 0 il tot h e ex t C J: t d c em e d n (;, c e s s a r y 0 l' des i r ? b 1 c by t h C' Deportment. 4 . The C i t Y ,..-j 11 J;1 a i n t a i n t 11 c lea sed ) and s, the p C\ r tie s !~C0~!,.i7ifl~ t:h:~t: t:h,:, t-'?!1~f:5.t ?Cc!,I,lin~ t(' thF' Dpr~rtmpnt'h;, ,'p::lc;nn (If snch maintcnan'ce is-greater than the economic rent obtainable for the leaseholci interest created by tilis agreement, S. The City agrees to' indemnify, defend, save, and holJ h:-.mless the Dcpa1-tJilent from all' claims, demands. li<.t';,;:lities, a.~~ suit- o f c1 n Y II J L Ll 1 t.: ;~ i I a ( 5 () t: " (; :.: a r i sill g 0 U t 0 f, b e c a use 0 f " 0 l' u u e tot. h e breach of this agreement by it, its subcontractors, agellts, or e~ployces, or due to any act or Qccurrence of omission or commission oft r. c C j t)', its s u ~ con. \. r ;1 c tor s. ,a g e n t. s, 0 r e mp 1 0)' e e s . ", "":":'Y"a.- . ..' , ( ~x If( ~ i1C] IN WITNESS (~---..--~ ~-.,- . O.R'D2(.)p~C(iO~Zl 'j' WIIEREOF, the parties heQto have caused these presents to be executed, the day and year first above written. WITNESSES: STATE OF FLORIDA THAnRTATION - , DEPARnlENT OF . -/2 '. ',-, -- ," <../z;...r"..4-~ of Road Operations (SEAL) ~-(L f4~ '-., "\) ~". ! " --L..).. /c..-, f ( L\. '-~"\ . ~' ) (., 6:-""'''\ 1/( COU!1tc r ~ i.~'1~c1: . . ctness: ::T~~~R;;\~~ FLORIDA T1~LI;: Ci~ _ " ~ = d ATTEST: ti!!:&~ TITLE: _ ity Clerk ( S EA L ) -;Y;;~j;? c-L/ i.';~."_:V:'. . :" . . ~ f -. . C'._ -cf--u,,/{ if~ ) - --. .~ ExH-t\~~ rrO o o.R.6~75 P~G[ 1885 EXHIBIT "A" Section 15570-2603 State Road S-S95-A Pinellas County Pa,-t Parcel Ilu:al.Jer 271.1 That ce:rtain trilct of 1tlnd 1yinq 2nd being in Sccti(,n n, To~'msh;p 2~' SC'~lth, r:iJn()~ 15 F~st; cJe5crib~d :15 follo\./s: Cegin at the nort.h- \-Iest (,)l'ner of Lot 57 (no bled ~i\'r.n) accordir~9 to ii:.:lP of rcp1?t of Third Addition to SJ11~ Subdivisio:l, as recor~~d in ~lat Dook 3{i, r~~'~ 31, Pil;~llas County rCCOI";~;;, for a noint of bcginnin); ar~:.J i,'c'; th0 rr;int of bcyir:nir.] tl:ll:; establisiJe-d run thence \"!:.:stc:r1y ulG~:': :,!:? e,l~t 211'~ '..:est cr!nt!'r1in:: r:f S~ction 2,~, Tc...!r.~hip 29 South; p.:Ii~':'~' 1:~ ~-,:~t, (:~ t!:~~ east beu;-'(;,;I':/ of Lot 10 in r.bd ",'\" of S~c:',:',,~ :';(it~.:.;-: tu :'~l1s Slls~i':i~,;~Ji1 cS ,recorded in Plat l3ool: 35, Piil)i: C, Pi::::l1.i$ C"'.:I;,ty rc:con::;, r:!11 thence s(ll;~h':'rl..'/ 31009 tr.e eJst :)::"'::'!_:"~;"/ :..f ~,l,;ci: ";"." of s,:Jid Secc,!;,j f.,cJdition tG Salls Sul:c1ivisioil t..) t~.-:..: ~:..~i.~.h,,,,~'~i~ (;.-:!.i1;:i- of Lot 1 in ~io:k 11[';" of ~.~id Sec0nd . ;..!.j;t;...,': .... :,,',: ;~" ~~<,;c!i\:isbr:; n;n UI::',:CC: c:.st~:!'ly ~1cq)g the Ilol'lh :.:)',;': :' .:i' : >.:.1, ::;;. or $i'\irl 5c,;,,):,.1 r.',~d'itibll tl) $.,\: ~:; S'.Ibdivisi(:n 'L" : :;:' ,;: '- ': 1 ~ :::;' ::,: :..~!: (;'1 or 5;; L: i":'?'J 1 i; l: of Thi rd ,;:ldi t i 011 to ~'2;'::, '::.:'.:,::::.;:::;\; 1':;1' th~r:ce 1';,)1'::1 to the nortir,:c~t COlT;::!' of L:1: ::'.~ .,'.;' .:~'I'; r:;,,;,:t: of Tilir',j f:j.J';Vi(,n to S:.li~, ~1I~,(;i...isi0n; rUIl l.;: ~:: ',,;':::: ','0' t :.~ ~~ i.::? ~,O U U~, ::' ~ L. (. ::,)1': :-,: I 0 f L f) t ~'.::~ 0 f S l! i c1 r (: p lii t r:f ,,!i:';;:: :",::'.;;';:,,:: t.! 5.:~11s S'.I~::ii.\'is"ic,;,,; run lhtn(:e r;':wt/:cr1y to 'U:: ,:,>.'::;:,'-.::; ~';;i:'.~: :,:f b,:~innili:;, l.::~.; ;..'d: ~~:.:~.:.;.~~~: ,-.;:,-":';:' L",:'.:; 1:1(~, 1;;::: :..IHi 10', (.; ELif:>:"<1dlJ Sllb~i'.'i5i'1ll, in Sccticn ['2, '::.:.',~..i:;i) ;.,,~ Si.)::t;.:, ;:::'llHlf~ 15 [:1~,i" i1S pc,' pl':;l th!:r~(lf r"?cnrdcd ::, ,:,:'. :.,:.,~,t:l':, :.!,~':'; (,G. Puulic :~:;:':'I'ds of Pin:~l1.::; CO'Jnt'l, F1ol'id.1 . . . L;~;.-' (~2~::ri~':"~ :~:-; :r::ir..),,;s: BC:Gin ;~t. the SE cornt')- of Lot '1, ~:':-'_:: :'., j'.:C('".:i r-/~:;t';:"::J to S~li~ S!.;b~~ivisio", in s,lid Section 22, (\~ :'::," ~1<:L tii0:"C(::' r'::C(J'~C:'?d ill 1'1.:t ('.ook 3~;, page 6, Public Rcconi: of ;:~.;;:i'IJ~ CCI:i1,ty. Fiol'ida, '"un lh:::;cc: East 20 fc.:::t, thence Harth 132 f0~ti t~2 ~2St 20 fcet, thunc~ South 138 feet to the Point of Er;:: i ~::i! :-i~~ , CG~lt;;i!1i:lj 437,:';:;0 sC]uilrc feet or 10.0,';7 acre, li1or~ or less. . _... . $T^TE OF Fl.ORJC4 OEP:dnldENT CF TRANSPORTATION , ~l~rn or- \'/l\Y lll)ilcAU 9ESCnlPflCN Ai-'I'P.ovED ~_~/~;L . jf?--V ....-,.-, 6:(#' rs"O D, o O.R. 627.5 p~G[ 1888 RESOLUTION .. ..-.,- No. 76 - 8 WHEREAS. during construction of Missouri Avenue, the State of Florida Department of Transportation obtained Block 3, Eldorado Subdivision, whi,ch is located East of Missouri Avenue and North of Bellevue B'oulevard, in t~e City of Clearwater, Florida; and WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires to use this property for park purposes and as a water retention area; and WHEREAS. the Department of Transportation is willing to lease said property.to the City with the provision that the City maintain it; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COIAMISSION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER. FLORIDA, IN SESSION DULY AND REGULARLY ASSEMBLED, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Tb?-t the proper City officials are hereby authorized to execute that certain Lease Agreement be-tw~en the State of Fiorida Departlnent of Transportation and the City of Clearwater to lease for use as a public park certain real property in Block 3, Eldorado Sub- division. 2. That a certified copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the State of Florida Departlnent of Transportation. PASSED AND ADOP.T~D Lhis 15th ,day of January, A.D. 1976. / s / Gabriel Cazares Mayor-Commiss ioner Attest: / 5/ R. G. Whitehead City Clerk I.... . . ,'" . ( E X HIE ICE... 1, R. G. WH1TEHEAD, ( o D.P.. 627.5 P~G~ 1887 dul)' appointed City Clerk of the City o! Clearwater, Florida, certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 76 - 8 adopt~d by the City Commission on the 15th day of January A.D. 1976 W Hnes s my hand and the seal of the City of C1ea rwa ter, this 16th da y of January A.D. 1'110 - City Clerk '. T. :.;. ,1 ::~l (" ~XH()IT F ,~.:' ," ''''::;' t~ ill s', '.. ,J ,) 1\ :.' l... , . U.!L [jl\ 3 ~:LL P(j ..J2t:= D;\ r F3.:L:L-...:..z:J-_" ....." ..,.':,,, ,q ( Q O.R. G27.5 p~s~ 1888 ('I:d. I\'[J) ,...... .. PA!-~CE'_ rw. ---: :..:_~_ --:7\ .. .. 11- ."."\ 11;' :...~~~~I;, s!.:t-rrOi'f__:.... ___,' .....~ ST.\TE rw/..o -:~.:__ ~:..- , COlJ,,'TY _ j": '0. 1; ,..; Fl.!' NO. I 0 ;-J.-I/v TillS 'N[)ENTU~E r:nue tlli~ j - U:l}' of/~(. 01AAJl /~ . - ---r/ '1)'<; :./"l',':;'A bet We.: II F. 1. :::\'if::S (:10 il/\rTIE !!/\L \::.III.:~l, _~ iV ,A. o. 192-?- :!..~ 1~1It_ of the first (l3rt :lnd tlte ST ^ TE OF. FLOHlD/., for tlte u~~ and l'cn{'lit of the St:1tc of noairJ.1 Department of T.:lnSjlorl:llion, ;I.~ (J:Jrty of rhe second (J;Jrl. mn{ESSETH, l1::!t :he said (Jart - of the first pJrt. for :!nd in consider::tion of the swn of OOle Dolhr :lnd o:her \".1ItLlule consitlcr.Jlions, paid, re.ceipt of which is here:'y ::cknow/cdged, do hcrcby cr:lIlt, e':qpill, sell, :lI1d comey unto llt~ l'~rty of.tl;e seo:/)nn prort, its ~UCCCSsors and :Js.~:tlns, the foi!owing d::.;criued l11:d, situ=te,l)'ing :lJ1d beill!; ill tl:e County of ,J i ;,(: I ,il;) St:lte of florida, lo-wit: SECTIC~ 15570-2603 , P-IGi/T Or: 1!;W P[\[ZCEL .27 1 [\11 of: Th.:,"i: C~I'tv.in truct of lend lyiilf'} and beiti~j -in 'Sccticn 22, TO';:nsll';p 29 Sc:.r"i:h, r..::nr'2 15 E('st; C:escribcd as fono:'/3: G!;:rin at 'i:hQ i!r)l'tll~':Cst COi":1~l' of Let 57 (i;!) b 1 ~d~ ~i '!,!n) 2ccord i Ii:] to I!:~r C'( r2 ~ 1 (1 t of TlI'j i"a lidd iti ;~:1 "i:;j ~;c1! i:; SlIbd'lv~sicn, .:$ t'\2co;"d~d in PliLt 80(..1< 3u, flt:!j2 31, Pin21l(~:; County rbCOiG~, for ;} [lei nt of b~qi r.n-i n:1; m,d fl'o[;l tha iJ?'j n t of be~i nni n~l thus :~ t:.:b Ii ~;l(;d rUil th0nC\? i'.'('~st~rly iliCil0 th? Eust und \'!es"i: r.('nt~r li:le 0';' ..s'~tt'iC::1 22, Tc',m:hip 29 Sauth, RiliFie Hi Ei)st to th~ E.-,~t bCIHidm'y of Lot 10 in 810::: "p," of Second ,'\GdHi C!1 to Sa 115 SUDdi vi 5 i Oil ~s r;~corc.;2d in P 1.:1 t 13cck 35, pilSt! G J P1nC!ll,:~ Ccunt~' l'cc;:wds, I'm) thence Sctl"i:hpl'iy alon,] t~e E~s,t bat:nd~,~.' of 131cck "till of ~~j'id Scco;ld l-\dJ1~'ion to ~:':11':s ~t.:bdivisiCrt 1:0 i:h~ l;ili'Vn',cst c~rn~r of Lot 1 in Block "B:: of ~"i(i Second !~dr.litici1 to S,)lis ,)lIb~:iv!s'iGr:; rt::l '(:il~r.cc [~st('Tij' ~lC:l1 thQ tjQ:~t:it bwn',;,"iry of !)c:dd L:lcd IIn" of. !.<ll,j S::!CC;lr:l f\r:ciH:'ion to S~l1s Slicd"ivis~ci1 ta t;-;;? !.'C!:;t l-ii12 of Lvi: 5;'; of :;uid "C;11i1t Oi' Thi;-\! ,':';cd1t1r.n to ~;;l1s S';G";i'..'-i5icTf~ r:r;r thcnc;~ i~()i'~l! tQ t:,a i1at'th',1~5t CDi'n2" (n~ Lot :3~' vi !itlid r..;-fJI,..t 'xt "[;1'1I';j Ji,r:c1i t'io:1 "1:0 S~'jjs Su!:::iiv'l::;bn; n:n thcnc';! l:c-st(~t'ly to i:h!~ S\.1 CCl\'n:},' of Lot 58 OJ' $nid l"~-pi~t of T:lil'd .!iddHioll to 5.:1115 SL~bdh'isi'J"; rUiI thr:nce iIOrU!8"'ly to 'clte c;; "i:::.b 1 i s:1cd poi nt of b;gi nni i1a. C0l1tJinil19 /fliO!31o. ~qt!J~~ f(:~t 01' 10.11 llcr,~s, n;:n~ or iess. n: IS I1;STr:U:.~:;!T ~!.'\S rr([rf\r~E[) /.II' P. II. I :~nrl ST/;I,[ Gi- FLC;{Ii\~ o::r!;r:I;.iEilT l;( Tiifii:Sf'O:~r!:TIQ:l 8J;.~~TG~: ~ r-L 0;r.I 13;1 DESCRIPTIQ;/ ?J'P!~ot'E[) Si:l:TEf:GER 27, 1:171 RECEIVED JUL 24 1986 CITY CLERK r.S')2 (re,s l1e(r:rl"'lce ConI, cl No. .; . . I /