4/4/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3. The Proposed Tower's Height 21" Century has provided staff technical data and analysis to justify the 110' height of the proposed tower. County telecommunications division manger, Terry Smith, has reviewed this information and has asked the applicant for more information from the applicant. As of the date of this report, the additional information has not yet been received. Based upon Mr. Smith's review it appears that under current broadcast technology and -conditions, a tower of a height of 70' is justified to ensure reception of a quality signal of certain "local" broadcasts from distant locations. However, Mr. Smith has not yet received sufficient information to conclude that the proposed 110' tower height is justified (see attachment #11). It should be noted that, in 1998, when staff first became aware that the tower had been constructed, staff coordinated with the applicant regarding aviation safety. The applicant contacted FAA and confirmed that the 110' tower in its present location did not require an FAA review and did not require lighting (see attachment #3). Based upon this FAA contact and confirmation, staff determined that the county's airport zoning regulations (height notification requirements) were satisfied. 4. Alternative Sites and Co -location Staff requested that the applicant explore alternative sites in the surrounding area for either construction of a new tower in an appropriate zoning district (e.g. industrially zoned sites located north of Lakewood Village along 90' Avenue) or co -location on the closest existing towers in the area (e.g. BellSouth/Life for Youth Ranch, FDOT at I-95, county utilities wastewater plant). The applicant provided some details regarding co -location on the closest tower site and found that alternative to cost more than 21' Century is willing to spend. The applicant argued that any other alternatives would be more expensive then the alternative explored. Expenses involved in obtaining an off-site location that were noted by the applicant included a cost of "... over $29,000 to build a hard coaxial cable link..." to the existing off-site tower, costs of leasing tower space, and concerns about use of right-of-way for a cable link connection and any resulting franchise requirements (such as those imposed on cable companies). Thus, the applicant's main reason for not pursuing alternative sites and co -location is his sense that these alternatives are too expensive. Therefore, the applicant has decided to concentrate resources on the subject site. 5. "Camouflaging" Proposal Because the applicant determined that alternative sites and co -location off-site were not feasible, the applicant has pursued the other option available under the L.DRs, which is the option of constructing a "camouflaged" tower. The applicant's "camouflaged" tower proposal is to locate a 110' guyed tower in a 315'x 393' open area in the southeast comer of the Park site, and to plant a landscape buffer around the fenced perimeter of the area. Landscaping is to consist of canopy trees planted at a height of 12' and understory trees planted at a height of 8'. The proposed buffer is similar to the county's Type "C" buffer. The applicant contends that the proposed landscaping will help "camouflage" the tower by partially screening it. In addition, the applicant proposes to mount 2 light fixtures at the tower's 50' level, in an attempt to give the tower structure the appearance of a streetlight (see attachment #4). It should be noted that the applicant's tower elevation rendering does not depict the 9 dish/antenna structures currently attached to the tower. APRIL 412000 -89- v. A