4/4/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1'29 6. `Backdoor" Argument for Changing the LDRs At the February 10, 2000 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, the applicant, rather than justifying the camouflaging proposal under the current LDRs, actually made a case for changing the county's existing LDRs. The applicant argued that a thin lattice work tower with landscaped base is less visually obtrusive than types of camouflaged towers allowed under the current tower regulations. Thus, the Board, if it finds merit in the applicant's analysis of visual impacts, can initiate and consider an LDR amendment that would apply countywide and accommodate the applicant's proposal. In staffs opinion, the proposed tower does not constitute a camouflaged tower as defined in the current LDRs (see attachment #6), because it simply is not "... disguised so as not to have the appearance of a communications tower...". In staff s opinion, the proposed structure has the appearance of a 110' tall guyed tower with a landscaped base and lighting fixtures located half -way up that will be visually "lost" among the various existing tower attachments. Thus, the proposed structure is not disguised and has the appearance of a tower. Therefore, it is not proposed to be camouflaged. There is nothing site-specific about the design that blends the tower "... into the existing surroundings..." at the Lakewood Village site. If through the appeal process it is determined that this proposal does constitute a "camouflaged tower", then the county would have to allow similar designs in all residential districts throughout the county. Thus, the decision as to whether or not the proposed design constitutes a "camouflaged tower" will set a powerful precedent applicable to all residential districts. Such a precedent would allow similar towers whenever "single parcel" cable systems, such as the Lakewood Village/21' Century system, are feasible. Generally such systems are feasible on residential project sites that consist of one large, single parcel, usually condominium projects, apartment projects, mobile home parks, or private subdivisions. Therefore, the outcome of this appeal will determine how tower proposals will be regulated in other large single parcel residential projects. Some examples of projects where single parcel cable systems may be feasible and therefore where towers may be proposed include Village Green, Countryside, Vista Plantation, Lake -in -the - Woods, The Club at Vero, and other large single parcel residential projects; some of these sites have significant frontage along major roads such as SR 60 and US #1 - Board of County Commissioners Review Guidelines for Appeals Section 902.07 provides guidelines for the Board's review of the appeal. Under section 902.07, the Commission is to review the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision and make findings in the following four review areas: 1. Did the reviewing official fail to follow the appropriate review procedures? Response: The Planning and Zoning Commission did not fail to follow the appropriate minor site plan approval and appeal review procedures. The lengthy timeframe for review of this application was due to the length of time necessary for the applicant to provide complete responses and to discuss various legal issues. The length of time to schedule the first appeal was due to a request by the appellant to allow several months "lead time" to avoid scheduling conflicts for its participants. It also should be noted that, on various occasions, the county has sought to delay Code Enforcement Board action to allow ample time for the applicant to exhaust its efforts to obtain after -the -fact approval and pursue appeals. At no time has county review of the code violations or applicant proposals halted telecommunications services to the park or halted revenues received by 21' Century for such services. APRIL 4, 2000