HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Council 091296CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS
SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26, 1996
The Special Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Beach Gardens was
called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Auditorium of the Palm Beach Community High School and began
with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
The roll was called and present were: Mayor Pro Tern Eric Jablin, Councilwoman Linda
Monroe and Councilman David Clark. Mayor Joseph Russo arrive at approximately 8:00 p.m. Vice
Mayor Furtado was not in attendance due to an illness.
Councilman Jablin stated that this meeting was a continuation of a public hearing regarding
the communication towers proposed south of the Palm Beach County Estates development.
Commissioner Karen Marcus stated that at the last meet they left off with Mr. Farnsworth of
the County's Environmental Resource Management Department giving a presentation. Commissioner
Marcus asked Mr. Farnsworth to reference petitions the Palm Beach County Commission had
approved for communication towers and to compare this petition. Mr. Farnsworth stated that the
County recently approved a communication tower to be located 4 miles south of Okeechobee, south
of the M -1 Canal, south of the Ibis development. He stated that there were no sandhill cranes on that
site. The closest siting of sandhill cranes to that site was 3 miles to the north, 3 miles to the south
and 3 miles to the east. Mr. Farnsworth stated that sandhill cranes do not travel more than one mile
from their nesting site. Mr. Farnsworth gave a history of the site and stated that the tower is located
more than 3,000 feet from any residential dwelling. The tower site is surrounded on 3 sides by
property the County is trying to purchase for environmental control.
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING 9/26/96 Page 2
Attorney Ray Royce asked where the Fox property was located in connection to the County
tower site and Mr. Farnsworth stated it was one mile south of the site and that the sandhill cranes
have been noticed on the southernmost portion of that property. Mr. Farnsworth stated that it is
possible that there were sandhill cranes on the Fox property and that the Ibis property comes within
3/4 mile of the tower location. Attorney Royce asked if Mr. Farnsworth indicated that sandhill cranes
only travel one mile from where they were born. Mr. Farnsworth stated no, however, he mentioned
that the tower power lines were about one mile from where the sandhill cranes fed. Attorney Royce
stated that if the number of cranes gets larger they could move further from their nesting site. Mr.
Farnsworth stated that would be true only if the habitat is suitable. Mr. Farnsworth stated that the
cranes probably originally came from the Loxahatchee Slough, which was several miles away. Mr.
Farnsworth stated that if there was a foraging site south of the towers the cranes would fly south of
the towers. It was pointed out that there are golf courses southwest of the tower area. Mr.
Farnsworth stated that originally one 1,050 foot tower was approved by the County for this site and
is located 3,000 feet away from the houses in the Acreage.. The tower was constructed at a height
of 442 feet and the petitioner requested 4 additional smaller towers of 200 feet in height each. Mr.
Farnsworth stated that no County personnel noted any adverse impacts with the building of these
towers.
In response to Attorney Gary Fields, Mr. Farnsworth stated it was not likely that the sandhill
cranes would go an additional 3 miles for foraging.
Commissioner Marcus introduced Ron Day, Director of the County's Mosquito Control
Program. Mr. Day explained their practices and techniques for mosquito control. In Palm Beach
County Estates there are heavy rainfalls with heavy breeding sites for mosquitos. Mr. Day explained
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING 9126196 Page 3
the 2 methods of mosquito control - the truck mounted units and a method called ULV. The truck
mounted units ride up and down the streets of a development and have a 300 foot of effectiveness
downwind. Once they go into the more rural areas, aircraft are used and the effective swath width
is 1,000 feet. The aircraft can cover an area of 80,000 acres a night. Mr. Day pointed out various
diseases that have been experienced in Palm Beach County in the last several years and the need for
mosquito control. Mr. Day stated that when towers were erected the planes have a harder time
getting to the rural areas and stated that some homeowners' property in Palm Beach County Estates
will be missed. Mr. Day discussed the spray drive and stated that when you go beyond 1,000 feet and
go over the towers there is a large area that will be missed. The EPA controls the wind drift of the
chemical and if the wind speed is over 10 mph the County cannot spray.
Attorney Royce asked Mr. Day how many towers there were in Palm Beach County and Mr.
Day stated that the areas he sprays have relatively few towers. Mr. Day stated he did not know
exactly how many towers have been approved by Palm Beach County in the last 2 years. Mr. Royce
stated that Palm Beach County Estate lots were about 1 acre with a depth of approximately 200 feet,
with streets 400 feet apart. Attorney Royce felt that with the use of the truck units the area would
be covered. Mr. Day stated that the chemical goes down wind and there would be 100 feet of
property that the chemical would not reach. Attorney Royce stated that when Mr. Howell testified
he stated that the spray would drift between 1,000 and 3,000 feet when done by aircraft.
Commissioner Marcus stated that the i mile radius was really bigger and that Mr. Day has
used the truck in an area like the Acreage. In response to Attorney Royce, Mr. Day stated that he
did not appear at the hearing when the County approved the tower south of Ibis or communicate to
the Commission that he would have trouble spraying the area. Commissioner Marcus stated that this
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING 9/26/96 Page 4
meeting was not to discuss the County's tower ordinance. Councilman Jablin agreed and asked that
the reference to the County be eliminated from any further discussions.
Commissioner Marcus introduced Julio Dumas, Principal Planner for Palm Beach County.
Mr. Dumas stated that he has reviewed the petition submitted to the City for the proposed
communication tower and felt that it violated the City's Codes. Mr. Dumas stated that the City
Codes states that no more than 50% of towers may be visible from one or more points used as the
line of site and that the communication towers shall be set back from the surrounding property so that
its height scale shall be compatible with the surrounding residential and non - residential uses. Mr.
Dumas used an aerial photograph to show the surrounding sites and the location of the proposed
tower site. Mr. Dumas stated that based on the petitioner's cross- sections, view one had a visibility
of 190 feet or 52 %, view 2 had a visibility of 52% and view 3 had a visibility of 49.6 %. Mr. Dumas
stated that he took into consideration that a portion of the property was not under the control of the
petitioner and he eliminated that section from the cross - section, which put the visibility on all three
views at over 75% once the vegetation was eliminated. Based on this analysis, Mr. Dumas stated that
the petition was not in compliance with the City Codes for communication towers. Mr. Dumas
compared the proposed towers to other towers in the north area and their visibility from abutting
residential areas. Mr. Dumas stated that he located a tower similar in height to the proposed and
showed photographs from that site.
Attorney Royce stated that he was just told not to discuss the County towers, however, there
is now a person testifying as to the towers in the County.
Councilwoman Linda Monroe stated that there was a difference in looking at photographs of
other tower sites and their impact on a community that is outside Palm Beach Gardens and discussion
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING 9/26196 Page 5
about Palm Beach County's rules regarding those towers. Commissioner Marcus stated that it was
their intent to show the visible analysis. Councilman Clark stated that he did not think that the
Council had to review other towers outside the City. Councilman Clark stated that if the buffer was
there then it should not have been eliminated in Mr. Dumas' analysis as it then became a hypothetical
situation. Councilman Clark stated he had no problem reviewing calculations regarding visibility, but
would like it to be pertinent to the proposed site.
Mr. Dumas stated that he wanted to point out that the tower, even from 4,000 feet, is a
substantial piece of architecture that will be visible and will be part of the landscape.
Attorney Fields asked Mr. Dumas if he removed the dishes and antennas from the photograph,
and Mr. Dumas stated that he had. Attorney Fields pointed out that in reality those dishes and
antennas would be on the towers and visible. In response to questions from Attorney Fields, Mr.
Dumas stated that there would be approximately 1$,000 feet of guide wires for the 3 proposed
towers.
Attorney Royce asked Mr. Dumas if he was present at the last meeting when there was an
agreement that the landholder of the property with the vegetation would preserve the vegetation. Mr.
Dumas stated that he was concerned that this would not fail in the future should a road be
constructed in that area. Mr. Dumas stated that the County would not accept that agreement unless
it was an absolute and would not condition the property that was located outside the petition.
Attorney Royce stated that the City Attorney indicated that there would have to be enforcement
provisions by the City and the petitioner agreed to that request.
Attorney Royce, referencing a photograph that Mr. Dumas stated was an actual photograph
and his location at the time of taking it, asked if he removed any vegetation from the photograph.
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING 9/26/96 Page 6
Mr. Dumas admitted that the picture was not taken from a view that the residents of Palm Beach
Country Estates would see, but was taken from another direction. Mr. Dumas stated that it was his
intention to indicate what the view would be from the back of a home should the vegetation not be
present. Attorney Royce pointed out that there is no such open area near the property in question.
Attorn Royce asked about the Ibis tower and showed a picture that was taken north of West Lake
Park Road (Northlake Boulevard), running east/west of Ibis Boulevard. Attorney Royce stated that
Mr. Dumas testified regarding this picture that it was taken north of Northlake Boulevard. Mr.
Dumas stated the tower was setback 190.2 feet from the road and Northlake Boulevard is 40 feet
wide. Mr. Dumas stated that he was approximately 1400 -1500 feet away from the tower when he
took the picture. Attorney Royce questioned how Mr. Dumas could have been that far away from
the tower when taking the picture and pointed out that none of the views presented by Mr. Dumas
were from a view that would be similar to Palm Beach Country Estates. Attorney Royce asked Mr.
Dumas if there was any evidence that the tower in Ibis had any negative effect on the value of the
homes in that area, however, Mr. Dumas stated he was not a real estate appraiser.
Attorney Fields stated that by the City Council and Mr. Kilday reintroducing information he
would like to ask Mr. Dumas questions regarding the video and if it was directly responsive to how
visible the proposed tower would be to residents. Mr. Dumas stated that the photographs he
presented were still shots from the video and were random photographs from within This Landing.
Mr. Dumas stated that if Palm Beach County had the same ordinance as Palm Beach Gardens, the
proposed tower would not be approved.
Attorney Royce stated that it was Mr. Dumas' testimony as to the percentage of visibility
from his scaling, however, pointed out that it was estimated figures and not done by computer or firm
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING 9/26/96 Page 7
calculations. Attorney Royce stated the County Codes would allow a tower to be within 100 feet of
a residential area. Councilman Jablin stated that the County ordinance should not be brought up.
Attorney Royce stated that the County is here with County employees at the County's expense telling
the City what they should do and it is relevant.
Commissioner Marcus objected to Attorney Royce's comments, however, stated the County
would be strengthening its ordinance in the future and reminded him that the County was providing
information based on the City of Palm Beach Gardens Communication Tower Ordinance.
Commissioner Marcus showed the Council plans for a preliminary road that was a real threat of a
road going through the vegetation that was agreed to be preserved. Commissioner Marcus asked
how much of the buffer would be reduced if the road went through the vegetation buffer. Mr. Dumas
described where the road would go and stated that he believed his picture that removed the
vegetation from the calculations. Commissioner Marcus stated that while there was not a right -of-
way in that area she felt that the MacArthur Foundation would be glad to donate it to the County.
Attorney Royce asked Mr. Dumas about the preliminary road and asked if it showed an
alternate route going up 69th Street and pointed out that the distance between the proposed towers
and the rear of the residential properties was 1100 feet. Mr. Dumas testified that the road right -of-
way on the proposed street was 120 feet. Attorney Royce stated that if you had 1100 feet of
vegetation between the site and the residential lot and you removed 120 feet of right -of -way, only
10% of the vegetation would be removed. Attorney Royce stated that the proposed deed restriction
indicated that the property would be preserved in a covenant that could be enforced by the City and
if the County Commission approved a roadway through there (that they could also deny) there would
be a clearing for the road, but the rest of the vegetation would remain. Attorney Royce stated that
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REGULAR MEE'T'ING 9/26/96 Page S
was the way the deed restriction was drafted and that was the intent and they have never proposed
or suggested if a road right -of -way would be removed, but just the contrary that all the remaining 700
feet of the vegetation would remain. Attorney Royce stated that based on that information, Mr.
Dumas' photograph was not accurate of what the area would look like if the road right -of -way was
removed from the vegetative buffer.
Attorney Fields asked if a roadway was put near the eastern end of that property there are
other regulations, such as mitigation, that would require the roadway to take 300 -400 feet of the
vegetative buffer. Mr. Dumas stated that a large tract of land could be used for drainage. Attorney
Fields stated that there was also no guarantee that the road would only be two lanes. Mr. Dumas
stated that the trees taken out would be the ones closest to the Palm Beach Country Estate residential
units. Mr. Dumas also testified that if a roadway would be put on the property it would have to be
approved by Palm Beach County and there would be alignment studies done. Attorney Royce stated
that the County would study the property and make assessments and one of the factors they would
consider would be impact on neighboring properties.
Commissioner Marcus stated that even if she voted against the road, there were six other
Commissioners that could vote for it. Commissioner Marcus introduced Marty Hodgkins.
Mayor Russo entered the meeting at this time and asked if parameters were set for the
meeting as he would like to get the public hearing completed. Mayor Russo asked that triple re-
directs not take place if an effort to complete the hearing. Attorney Royce stated that he would try
to keep it as brief as possible, however, new questions keep arising as the County asks questions and
Commissioner Marcus make comments.
Mr. Hodgkins stated that he was the Zoning Director for Palm Beach County. He stated that
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING 9/26/96 Page 9
portion of the City's ordinance that prevents a tower to be within 3 times the height of the tower from
residential dwellings was in question. He stated that essentially the tower would have to be located
1100 feet from the nearest dwelling unit and felt the Council had to look at the long range impact of
this petition. Mr. Hodgkins stated that the Council had to look at what other uses would remain in
the area and pointed out that there was no guarantee that there would be any rezoning in the area
immediately east or north of the tower. In response to Commissioner Marcus, Mr. Hodgkins stated
that if the MacArthur Foundation does not agree to the covenant, and if there was not a road put in
there, you could not put residential homes on the adjacent sites but would have to put some other use
in there. Mr. Hodgkins stated that in the City's planned development area they would allow such
uses as parks, recreational facilities, churches, schools, etc. could be constructed within PDA areas
in addition to single family residences. Mr. Hodgkins felt the Council would be creating a conflict
of uses between the towers and the adjacent single family residences.
Attorney Royce asked Mr. Hodgkins if he was saying if the covenant was not enforced
something else could be built there other than residential. Mr. Hodgkins stated that there is the area
north and east of the site that is not part of the petition and he did not know if there was a covenant
that would be recorded. Mr. Hodgkins stated that the last letter he saw stated there would be a
recommendation to the MacArthur Board and there was no guarantee to the residents of Palm Beach
Country Estate what would be built in the areas north and east of the tower site. Attorney Royce
read condition 15 to Mr. Hodgkins that stated that prior to the first building permit for the tower the
petitioner would present a signed covenant to the City that would be recorded in the public records
of Palm Beach County and that it would have to be enforceable. Mr. Hodgkins stated he did not
know what areas would be encumbered by the covenant. Attorney Royce pointed out that part of
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING 9/26/96 Page 10
the condition would be that a map and legal description would be attached to what was recorded so
that it would be site specific. Mr. Hodgkins stated that may help to preserve the compatibility of the
property, but one would have to look at the definition of compatibility in the City's Codes_ Attorney
Fields stated that someone in the County has just pointed out that the legal advertisement for these
hearings has not addressed in any way this adjacent land that Mr. Royce is referring to. From a
technical point, Attorney Fields felt there was another due process problem and did not feel this
adjacent land was discussable. City Attorney Baird stated that it was not a due process issue as the
adjacent property owner has agreed to restrict its land by offering that covenant and if any property
owner was entitled to due process it would be the Foundation and since they have waived that by
offering the covenant, Mr. Baird did not see that as a problem. Attorney Fields stated his concern
was Palm Beach Country Estates and they are adjacent to the MacArthur Foundation's land and did
not receive a legal advertisement as to that land that would be changed due to a governmental
agreement. Attorney Royce stated that there was no change being proposed, but that the land remain
the same. Attorney Royce pointed out that in condition 15 it is required prior to any issuance of any
building permit and it could be rewritten to state a building permit for the property advertised.
Attorney Royce stated that there is no proposed change of land use or any change that would require
a public hearing. Attorney Baird stated that the argument of due process had no merit and no notice
was required as the property would remain the same in perpetuity. Attorney Fields stated that as long
as the City Attorney was comfortable with position he would proceed with full argument on that
point.
Attorney Royce stated that Mr. Hodgkins made a statement that this was not compatible and
asked if he has given compatibility opinions before. Mr. Hodgkins stated he was not sure whether
10
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING 9126196 Page 11
he has but it was his duty to interpret zoning codes in general and to look at compatible zoning uses.
Attorney Fields stated that in opening the evidence that has been before the Council will show
that the applicant has failed to comply with the City's zoning codes and Comprehensive Plan and
therefore must be denied. Attorney Fields stated there are adverse impacts to neighboring residential
and non - residential areas. Attorney Fields called Miss Patricia Dollans to testify. Attorney Royce
stated that Attorney Fields did not have power of subpoena and could not require anyone to testify
that did not wish to testify. Attorney Baird stated that Miss Dollans has already testified and the
opposing side had the opportunity to re- examine. Attorney Baird stated that there is not subpoena
powers at this hearing and nobody could be forced to testify if they did not wish to do so. Attorney
Baird suggested Council following an outline that each side present there side of the evidence.
Attorney Fields stated that the item that he wanted to call the witness on is regarding new evidence
and something that has happened subsequent to the date she testified. Attorney Fields stated that
Attorney Royce would not have the right to call Miss Dollans to the stand to contradict the new
evidence.
Attorney Fields introduced a letter from Robert Gamin, Jr., from Kessler and Gamin, Inc.
Telecommunications Consulting Engineers, dated 9/10/96 addressed to Mrs. Martha Weber of Palm
Beach Country Estates. Attorney Fields read the letter into the record, stating that the application
for the C -2 license in Hobe Sound was filed on 7/29/96 and action had not be taken as of this date.
Attorney Fields stated that there has been earlier testimony regarding the fact that there are not
alternative sites and a month ago they had filed an application with the FCC to permit them to have
their station in Hobe Sound. Mayor Russo did not feel that was an issue as it was the option of the
applicant to go to another site if they chose. Attorney Royce objected to the letter as hearsay and
11
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING 9/26/96 Page 12
stated that it is irrelevant.
Attorney Fields called Mr. Steve Sirignano to testify. Mr. Sirignano stated that he is
employed by Lodestar Towers, which is a tower site management company. Mr. Sirignano stated
his company was nationwide and he is the Senior Systems Engineer. Mr. Sirignano detailed his job
responsibilities and stated that a tower was built to hold the maximum potential. Mr. Sirignano stated
he reviewed the proposed tower and felt that there could be up to 8 Fms on a single tower. The
proposed tower could use cellular use and could hold another 120 clients with the addition of more
transmission wires. There is approximately $250 per channel rent a month for each use. Attorney
Royce stated that the economics had nothing to do with the issues regarding zoning. The FM
channels rent for $1060 per month. The total annual rental income from the towers would be
approximately two million dollars per year. Attorney Royce asked Mr. Sirignano if they owned or
managed any towers in Florida, and he stated that they own one in Lake Park. Attorney Royce stated
the proposed tower would be in competition with the one owned by Mr. Sirignano's employer. Mr.
Sirignano stated it would be in competition. In response to Attorney Royce, Mr. Sirignano stated
he reviewed the drawings for the proposed tower, but was not aware of the requirements of the City's
ordinance to come back to the Council for approval of additions to the tower. Mr. Sirignano stated
that the price range varies for the construction of towers.
Attorney Fields asked Mr. Ron Blauvelt to testify. Mr. Blauvelt stated that he was a real
estate appraiser since 1972 and he has performed an analysis of the impact of the proposed towers
on the residences in Palm Beach Country Estates. Mr. Blauvelt stated that the City Council had a
copy of the complete study and Mr. Blauvelt summarized the study for the City Council. Mr.
Blauvelt stated that the location of the towers would adversely impact the values of the residences
12
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING 9/26/96 Page 13
in Palm Beach Country Estates because the visual impact would not be positive. Mr. Blauvelt
answered Council questions regarding the comparability of towers referenced and shown in his report
to those being proposed by the applicant. In response to Councilwoman Monroe, Mr. Blauvelt stated
that he did not try to establish a specific value because of the existing tower and did not do research
to isolate which type of tot would receive a value loss. Mr. Blauvelt stated that he could have done
a more detailed analysis because once a negative impact is noted there was no reason to go further.
Councilwoman Monroe stated that perhaps the lots in the area compared to Palm Beach Country
Estates were half the size and that was her interest. Mr. Blauvelt stated that the visual impact to the
various lots were the only differentials. In response to Attorney Royce, Mr. Blauvelt stated that he
was not willing to publicly announce the names of real estate appraisers that gave him his information
and he did not describe the term "prominent rear view" to those appraisers. Attorney Royce stated
Mr. Blauvelt's report was dated 3/21/96 and was furnished to Attorney Royce until 7/17/96.
Attorney Royce questioned Mr. Blauvelt about his study and Mr. Blauvelt stated that the third study
he conducted was not comparable to the proposed tower site. Attorney Royce, referencing page 3
of Mr. Blauvelt's report, stated that he interpreted Florida Statutes and pointed out that Mr. Blauvelt
was not an attorney. Mr. Blauvelt stated that he indirectly did a study of the proposed tower site in
preparation for potential rebuttal to Mr. Ford's testimony. Mr. Blauvelt stated that he did not review
anyone else's study of the proposed tower. Attorney Royce and Mr. Blauvelt discussed various
aspects of his study and comparisons made between the proposed tower site and other existing tower
sites.
Attorney Fields called Mr. Robert Berman, owner of a home on Donald Ross Road in Palm
Beach Country Estates that would be located within approximately 2000 feet of the proposed
13
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING 9/26196 Page 14
communication towers. Mr. Berman's study done regarding the proposed communication towers
was part of the City Council packet. Mr. Berman stated that he also spoke before the Planning and
Zoning Commission. Mr. Berman stated that he felt the Planning and Zoning Commission accepted
the appraisal report of Mr. Ford and he presented a report to show what he reported at that meeting
was true. Mr. Berman stated that his report showed that the proposed tower would negatively impact
the value of homes in Palm Beach Country Estates. Mr. Berman stated that his study showed that
it was the location of the tower that cause the negative impact in the value of the homes in close
proximity to the tower and that the proposed location of the tower resulted in residents wanting to
sell their home and potential homeowners deciding not to buy property in Palm Beach Country
Estates. Mr. Berman stated that based on the testimony received by the applicant's appraiser he
wanted to present a map of Palm Beach Country Estates to the City Council. Mr. Berman stated that
in Mr. Ford's testimony he stated that he took into consideration all land sales in Section P in the last
10 years, however, Mr. Berman stated that there were many more sales than Mr. Ford testified as
being sold. Attorney Fields reiterated some of Mr. Berman's study by having him repeat some of the
facts that were presented in that study as opposed to those facts presented by Mr. Ford. Attorney
Royce asked Mr. Berman about the selling price of lots located close to the proposed tower location
and those located greater than 3/4 of a mile from the tower site. Mr. Berman agreed that Section P
of Palm Beach Country Estates was not as built up as other sections and felt that it was because of
the proposed tower site.
Attorney Fields stated that he had no further witnesses to present for testimony to the City
Council. Commissioner Marcus stated that the custodian on duty tonight was new and did not know
where the override button was to turn the air conditioner back on. Attorney Royce stated that under
14
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING 9/26/96 Page 15
the rules set forth by the City Council his summary would take approximately 25 minutes. Attorney
Fields stated that there were several residents that did want to speak to the City Council on this issue.
Mayor Russo stated that the City Council would not hear the summaries tonight and stated that the
next meeting would take place at City Hall and not at Palm Beach Gardens Community High School.
Attorney Fields stated that his summary and Commissioner Marcus' summary would take
approximately 40 minutes.
Attorney Fields presented a petition of approximately 100 residents of Palm Beach Country
Estates that were opposed to this petition.
Dr. Lee Branscrim, resident of Palm Beach Country Estates, discussed his experience with
communication towers. Dr. Branscrim stated that he reviewed the applicant's line of sight analysis
and determined that 55% of the tower was visible based on the numbers and drawings presented by
the applicant in Scene 1, 57% in Scene 2, 55% for Tower 2 in Scene 5. Dr. Branscrim outlined the
figures that he disagreed with regarding the line of sight analysis presented by the applicant. Mr.
Berman stated that the applicant has not met the criteria as set forth in the City's ordinance and
should be denied. Mayor Russo directed staff to refigure the line of sight analysis. Councilwoman
Monroe stated that the Council has been hearing opposite opinions from the two sides and requested
staff review drawings and give the City Council an unbias determination. The members of the
Council agreed that they would like to have staff review calculations and report their accuracy or
inaccuracies to the Council at the next meeting. Attorney Fields stated that the ordinance does
require views for properties located within 2000 feet and recommended that City staff have an
opportunity to meet with the experts from the petitioner and those opposing the petition to see how
their evaluations were made. Mayor Russo disagreed with staff meeting with either side and asked
15
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING 9/26/96 Page 16
that staff analyze the calculations themselves. Attorney Royce objected to procedures being done that
were not in compliance with the City's ordinance, however, Commissioner Marcus pointed out that
the ordinance provides for other information that may be needed by the Council.
Mr. Henry Iler, aprofessional planner, addressed the Council pointing out the different criteria
required by the City's ordinance. Mr. Iler felt that the applicant met one out of four criteria required.
Referencing the buffer area, Mr. Iler stated that a fire could destroy any buffer between the tower
site and Palm Beach Country Estates. Mr. Iler asked the Council to consider what their feelings
would be if these towers were to be located in their back yards and asked for a common sense view
of this issue, feeling that all people would agree that the tower would have a negative impact on
property values in Palm Beach Country Estates. Mr. Iler expressed his concerns with adverse health
effects because of the loss of ability to spray for mosquitos.
Mr. Robert Vaughn, resident of Palm Beach Country Estates, addressed the City Council
stating that the proposed towers are a potential interference with local television and radio stations
that may be needed in case of emergencies.
Councilwoman Monroe expressed concerns with the covenant for the buffer area and how
the City would enforce this buffer area and also the preservation of non- native vegetation.
Councilwoman Monroe asked that the City Attorney give his opinion prior to the next meeting as to
whether the Council must consider any potential deed restriction which becomes a condition of
approval and how it gets included in this development order. Councilwoman Monroe felt that the
City would then have to force the removal of the non - native vegetation and felt that this would create
a problem. Attorney Royce stated that the Mayor has indicated that he would like City staff and the
City Engineer to look at the numbers and requested that both sides have a chance to look at there
16
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REGULAR MEETING 9/26/96 Page 17
conclusion before the next meeting to facilitate due process. Mayor Russo stated that both sides
would have a copy of the staff report. Attorney Baird stated that the staff report, once generated,
becomes a public record and anyone that wants to review that public record has the right to do so.
Attorney Baird stated that staff may be contacted for response to items included in their report,
however, any questions as to the presentation must be presented at a public meeting. Attorney Baird
also stated that staff would be available for cross examination regarding the staff report. Mayor
Russo stated that all items presented as evidence must be left in the City's possession for staff's
review. Attorney Royce expressed his concern that figures presented a year ago were now going
to be reviewed and evaluated by City staff and felt that the staff report already stated that the
applicant met criteria outlined in the City's tower ordinance.
Councilman Jablin made a motion to recess this public hearing to the City Council meeting
of October 17, 1996, so that a date certain could be established to continue with the public hearing.
Mayor Russo stated he would like the staff report available by October 17, 1996, and there would
be no input from either side of this issue. The motion was seconded by Councilman Clark and
unanimously carried.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10:40 P.M.
17
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL REG R M T 9/26/96 Page 18
APPROVAL: i i
(a�r Joseph 1�. Russo
Vice Mavox Lauren Furtado
Monroe
"-
Councilman David Clark
Attest:
_�,l t7
Cindy Harvey, D-
eputy City Clerk
18