BCC Minutes 09/09/1991 S Naples, Florida, September 9, 1991
LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
.. haue been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 5:05 P.M. in SPEGIAL SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the
following members present:
CHAIRMAN: Patricia Anne Goodnight
['i VICE-CHAIRMAN: Michael J. Volpe
Richard S. Shanahah
Max A. Hasse, Jr.
Burr L. Saunders
ALSO PRESENT: Annette Guevln and Wanda Arright, Deputy Clerks;
'~' {, Nell Dotrill, County Manager; Tom OllJff, Assistant to the County
Mana~je~; Ken Guylet, County Attorney; Marjorie Student, Assistant
.County Attorney; F~ank Brutt, Community Development Sexyices
Administrator; Ken Baginskl, Planning Services Manager: Bryan Milk,
P/annex; and Sue Fllson, Administ~'ative Assistant to the Board.
Page
September 9, 1991
'
[~":' OI%DII~ANO~ 91-B& RH P~TITION ZO-91-4, COMMUNITY DEV~LO~NT DIVISION
~Q~TINQ ~ ~~ TO ~E COLLIER CO~ ZONIN~ O~IN~CE 8~-2,
~ C~I~ ZONIN8 ~ULATIONS FOR ~ ~INCO~O~TED ~A OF
COLLI~ CO~ BY ~ING S~CTION 8, SUPPL~~Y DISTRICT
~TIO~ ~ ~DING SUBSECTION 8.10A, COgitATION TO~RS - ADOPTED
WI~ C~KS
Legal notice having been published in the Naples Daily News on
September 3, 1991, as evidenced by Affidavit of Publication filed with
the Clerk, public hearing was opened to consider Petition. Z0-91-4,
filed by the Community Development D~visfon, requesting an amendment
to the Collier County Zoning Ordinance 82-2, the Comprehensive Zoning
Regulations for the Unincorporated Area of Collier County by amending
,~ .Section 8, Supplementary District Regulations by adding Subsect/on
~.':! 8.10A, Communication Towers.
~' Commissioner Goodnight noted this is the second public hearing in
· consideration of Petit/on ZO-91-4.
Planner Milk recalled on August 21st, the Board of County
i!'{[ Commissioners suggested minor revisions and clarification of certain
issues raised during the public hearing. He advised the revisions are
iljustrated and summarized in the Executive Summary. He provided the
Board with an updated ordinance containing further revisions to pages
2 and 9 being requested by Staff. (Copy on file with the Clerk to the
:i:.,'" Board.) He indicated the changes on pages 2 and 9 eliminate the term
"microcell" from the ordinance. He explained Staff has provided the
opportunity to build monopole communication towers within residential
zoning districts and finds it unnecessary to define in any ordinance,
two of the same tower structure types, given the development regula-
tions as set forth in the Communication Tower Ordinance· He mentioned
Staff has also provided changes to the Urban Land Use a~ea within the
ordinance to specify that for towers in the RSF-1 through RSF-6, RMF-6
and E-Estates zoning districts, only certain development regulations
.apply.
In answer to Commissioner Hasse, Planner Milk advised only a mono-
'~' pole tower can be built and cannot exceed 75 feet in height including
Page 2
September 9, ~991
'attached antenna. He said that restriction applies to RSF-1 through
RSF-6, RMF-6 and E-Estate zoning districts. He indicated a monopole
communication tower may be requested up to 150 feet in RMF-12, RMF-16,
RT, VR, MHSD, M~RP and TTRVC zoning districts. He added in agri-
cultural, commercial and industrial zoning districts, there are no
height maximums, however, setbacks are required if the tower exceeds
185 feet in height.
Commissioner Hasse referred to the concerns of the Collier
Mosquito Control District regarding the height of communications
[': towers.
Planner Milk pointed out the District is concerned with the proli-
. feration of towers in and around the urban area and not so much within
· < the industrial or tower farm sites in existence this date. He said
this ordinance does not address a prohibition on towers over 200 feet
in the urban area, rather, it directs towers of certain heights to
certain residential, industrial or commercial districts.
In answer to Commissioner Shanahan, Planner Milk indicated the
Mosquito District continues to have concerns, however, they are more
comfortable with the proposed ordinance.
Co~u~lsstoner Volpe inquired under what circumstances would an
applicant be required to apply for a Provisional Use (PU) for a com-
. munications tower? Planner Milk meplied under all circumstances, if
the intended tower exceeds 20 feet above the ground or is not a ham
radio tower, a PU must be applied for in every residential zoning
district. He said if the request is for a tower higher than 185 feet,
,the applicant must show that all possibilities have been researched of
sharing either a tower or a tower site within a six mile radius.
Frank Van Essen, Director of the Collier Mosquito Control
District, pointed out he ts not concerned about towers under 200 feet
or if new towers are cjustered either in the industrial areas or areas
where a number of towers already exist. He said if there will be a
ii~ proliferation of towers in areas in addition to where they already
exist, they should be limited to 200 feet in height. He requested
04
Page 3
September 9, 1991
"the following language be added to the intent and purpose section of
{'the ordinance, "and to allow for the safe operation of night flying
~,~? aircraft for mosquito control missions"
In answer to Commissioner Hasse, Planner Milk explained there are
no distance requirements from one tower to the next. He said if a
self-supporting tower is requested on the same site where one already
exists, it would be allowed as long as the engineering integrity of
each tower is provided and it is designed to certain wind loads.
Ray Brill stated having been in the tower business for many years,
he has installed towers all over the United States. He said there is
no ~ustification for allowing towers of any height in any of the resi-
dential areas for any reason. He advised towers should not be allowed
.on agricultural property of less than 20 acres. He also recommended
that tower bases be installed at least 18 inches above the road, the
flood plain or the ground elevation, whichever is higher. He said
this will prevent the towers from standing in water.
Commissioner Shanahan asked if consideration was given to
excluding towers from residential areas?
Planner Milk responded in the affirmative, adding the first four
or five drafts of the ordinance excluded towers in all residential
districts. He said based on the workshops conducted, information was
provided indicating towers are needed in the residential areas to pick
up the capacity to transmit to larger towers. He explained Staff is
proposing to be flexible and limit it to the monopole and certain
heights to accommodate that requirement.
Pat Rodinsky, representing Trlnlty Place, commented regarding the
~ 330-foot GTE tower in that residential area. She said they have sub-
'mitred many photographs, petitions and documentation regarding that
tower. She reported having attended every meeting and listened to all
the information presented with regard to the safety of the tower and
lack of any danger associated with it, and she does not believe any of
!:~. She said she has been verbally promised by Staff that due to the
negative siting problems at the GTE site behind Trinity Place and the
.., Page 4
September 9, 1991
that this 330-foot tower sits in and is covered by water, that
will be no new towers at this location. She stated, in fact,
towers are planned for this area 400 feet closer to the residents
Ot Trinity Place. She urged the Board of County Commissioners to
include the addition of single-family residences zoned A-2 consisting
of leas than 20 acres for the same reasons the Estates zoning was
added.
Paul Rodinsky reiterated comments made by the previous speaker.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Planner Milk stated the Justi-
ftcatton for the 1,000-foot restriction in residential areas is pri-
:~:':martly for aesthetics rather than safety,
Frank Heaton, with Cellular One, stated the Collier Mosquito
Control District has indicated it does not have a problem with all six
of his firm's proposed 280-foot towers that have PU applications on
file with the County. With respect to the lightning safety of a
tower, he said, he has built towers within 100 feet of residences and
has never yet had any adverse consequences. He noted there is no
- gtlarant¥ with regard to lightning, however, his firm takes every known
~:' precaution to prevent lightning from damaging their own property and
in the context of that, it should prevent effects on any other pro-
!party. He disagreed with the proposed ordinance and suggested that it
~' be started over.
Commissioner Saunders questioned if limiting towers to a maximum
200 feet in height presents a problem to the communications
Mr. Heaton Indicated his belief that reliable radio propagation
Would be reduced if the height is reduced and it will lead to the com-
m%~nications industry requiring additional tower sites in Collier
County that would otherwise not be required.
Co~tssioner Saunders asked what problems would be created for the
?~'cOmmunications industry if future towers were prohibited in residen-
t~a! areas?
Mr. Heaton advised generally speaking, they can usually find an
Page 5
September 9, 1991
;'.'.',"area that meets their need that is not residential.
Mark Lamoureux suggested the ordinance be revised to incorporate
more clarifying language on those towers already in existence that may
be considered non-conforming once the new ordinance is in place. He
.l..; requested language be included that deals with a situation where
existing structures are blown down during a hurricane and whether they
can be rebuilt afterwards on the same site. He indicated concerns
with the shared use provision which forces an applicant to overdesign
his structure in order to rent space to a future tenant, as well as
publishing the rents in advance.
Bruce Anderson, Attorney for Cellular One Colller/Hendry, distri-
buted a memorandum containing proposed amendments to the ordinance.
(Copy on file with the Clerk to the Board.) He requested the Board
!-.'h either vest the pending PU applications on file or consider the amend-
ments referred to in the memorandum. With regard to tower sharing, he
said, there needs to be an incentive to spend the extra money to
create additional capacity when it is uncertain whether or not the
.;, space will be rented. He stated the proposed amendments offer that
',' incentive, which would authorize towers not to exceed 185 feet as a
'principal use in certain districts. He added if a tower will be sub-
Ject to §00-foot locational restrictions, and if the tower is in
excess of 18§ feet up to a maximum of 300 feet, ft would still be eli-
gible to come in as a PU application. He requested analysis be done
to determine the locations affected and how many sites would remain
available given the 1000-foot restriction.
Commissioner Volpe commented the County is trying to enact a
general law and Mr. Anderson's client has designed a specific system.
He sa~d the Board cannot enact an ordinance designed around that
client's communications ~,ystem.
~r. Anderson ~greed, but ~'equested some consideration be given to
recogn~zing the applications which were filed based on the current
law.
Clerk ArrighA replaced Deputy Clerk 6uevln at thla time
Page 6
September g, 1991
~:~? In response to Commissioner Saunders, Mr. Palmer informed that in
surveying other County's for this type of ordinance, he has found none
that address the specifics that this ordinance does. He advised that
the proposed ordinance has been changed numerous times in order to
accommodate the Industry to allow it to function properly. He advised
that staff is satisfied that the proposed ordinance will not be unduly
-restrictive, and he added that Industry should be able to function
sufficiently within the constitutional constraints.
Commissioner Hasse questioned whether the proposed ordinance will
protect the citizens of the County? Mr. Palmer affirmed that it does.
Mr. Palmer explained that the proposed ordinance will allow only
monopole tower in residential areas of up to a height of 75 feet ]n a
six unit acre or less area and up to 150 feet in other designated
'~i~.~ areas, ~e pointed out that the height limitations for industrial
towers is the same as for amateur radio towers.
In response to comments by Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Palmer cited
that the Federal Communications Commission has passed federal and
State statutes that prohibit local governments from unduly restricting
amateur radio antennas, and they make no distinction whether the
!
antennas are accessory or primary use. He related that the restric-
tions for the residential areas were included for the purpose of
aesthetics. He added that the proposed ordinance also provides that a
tower can be constructed in a residential area only if it can be pro-
"~/'.ven that as a matter of engineering necessity it must be placed in
that location. He affirmed that testimony has been presented that a
communications system could be designed which would eliminate the need
of p/acing any tower in a residential area; however, it was also noted
.., that it would require more tower to be constructed throughout the
,;'~; County.
· Robert Kersteen, with GTE Mobilnet, referred to a handout he pre-
sented to the Commissioners (not provided for the record) which
suggest a few minor changes to the proposed ordinance. He specified
that two of the suggested changes can be found on pages 9 and 12 which
Page 7
September 9, lg91
X~;~re¢ommend a maximum height for the towers of 12§ feet rather than
feet. He noted another change, found on page 5, is to delete the
failure characteristics of the tower. On page 11 he recommended that
a structural analysis of the guide towers be provided every two years
and of the self-supported towers every four years. He commented that
the last change is found on page 12 which recommends a copy of each
inspection report be filed rather than each annual inspection report.
In reference to their structure which is located in the "Old
Marco" area, Mr. Kersteen advised that rather than build a new tower
the Company opted to buy an existing one; however, they only own the
tower not the property which prevents them from draining the water
the tower is standing in. He added that there is no plan to construct
another tower at this site. Regarding the comments on lightning stri-
kes, Mr. Kersteen advised that they have had no equipment failures at
the "Old Marco" site due to lightning.
Mr. Kersteen explained that with the coming of the personal com-
munication system which will replace the portable phones in the
future, it will be necessary to place monopo]es within residential
'areas.
Leroy Pate, a registered professional engineer in the State of
Florida with a specialty in tower design and construction, explained
the wind design loads on a tower and stated that if a tower is
designed and constructed with the proper codes and standards there ts
a considerable factor of safety involved. He asserted that with these
safety factors the failure characteristics provided in the proposed
ordinance are superfluous.
Mr. Pate also emphasized that contrary to what is indicated in the
..; proposed ordinance on page 6, a 185 foot to 300 foot tower cannot be
desipT~ed and constructed to support additional antennae without addi-
t~onal costs, and suggested that the capacity of the tower should be
left to the owner of the tower.
Mr. Pate suggested one last change which is in reference to the
frequency of inspections. He recommended that on page 1], paragraph
Page 8
September 9, 1991
if<l )(e) the tension requirement be every three years and on page 12,
paragraph 12, the inspections be regulred every three years also.
Steve Mathues, representing the Department of General Services of
Tallahassee, expressed his concern regarding the implication that the
proposed ordinance will prohibit any tower over 200 feet. He
explained that by limiting towers to this height it would become dif-
'ficult to provide communication coverage seaward as well as throughout
"!''the Everglades. He suggested the continual use of provisional uses
for towers.
Frank Van Essen of the Mosquito Control District clarified that he
only concerned about the height of the towers that will be in the
District, and reguested that if the proposed ordinance is adopted and
does allow towers over 200 feet, Mosquito Control would appreciate the
opportunity to review the locations of the proposed towers.
Commissioner Goodnight questioned what is permitted in the agri- '
cultural areas7 Planner Milk explained that the proposed ordinance
does not specify criteria for agricultural, commercial or industrial
areas because there are no regulations rega'rding the height of a tower
:in those districts
~:" In response to Commissioner Shanahan Mr Milk affirmed that
staff agrees with the two and four year inspection restriction. In
~ega~ds to the allocation that the Corkscrew site would not allow a
~80 foot towe~, M~. M~lk asse~ted that this ]s a false statement
because the E-Estates area does provide for a provisional use for an
essential service.
Co~mlssioner Volpe moved, seconded by Commissioner Saunders and
carried unmn~ously, to close the public hearing.
Commissioner Goodnight commented that it is important that the
Board review the locations in the rural areas where the subscribers
~a~e planning to build their communication towers. She indicated that
in regards to the agricultural area there needs to be more than a 1000
foot setback criteria established as well as criteria created that
would allow a tower as a permitted use in A-2 and commercial areas.
Page 9
September 9, 1991
..She related that she sees no reason for a tower to be constructed over
'200 feet in urban areas; however, she does understand that in the
rural areas there is a need for higher towers.
Comm~ssioner Shanahan noted that there should be an appeal process
available for people who wish to challenge the decision.
Commissioner Saunders suggested that he review the recommended
changes of the proposed ordinance for the benefit of the Board. He
reported the first change to be on page one under the Intent and
'Purpose section to provide some recognition for the necessity to pro-
mote and protect the safety of the Mosquito Control operations, The
consensus of the Board was to include this provision in the ordinance.
Co~unissioner Saunders continued to the suggestion found on page
five, and indicated that he did not find it necessary to provide for
· failure characteristics of the tower. Assistant County Attorney
i!' . .Palmer related that the failure characteristics are an important cri-
teria in order to promote sharing of towers for antennas.
Commissioner Saunders pointed out that sections 3) (a), (b), and (c)
appear to require the same vital information for potential problems
created by the failure of a tower. Mr. Palmer disagreed and added
~ !.that the burden of impacts would be shifted to the site owner. The
consensus of the Board was to delete Section 3)(d) which provides for
failure characteristics.
Commissioner Saunders referred to page 8, subpart 5) and
/.qllesttoned who would determine what is practicable as mentioned in the
sentence, "To the extent practicable, the proposed rents . . ." Planner
Milk explained that the intent of this terminology is to allow staff
the ability to analyze what is fare based on the market. The consen-
sus of the Board was to leave the wording as it currently appears.
Commissioner Saunders commented that in reference to page
::paragraph 11), he has no problem with changing the inspection period
to two years for guide structures and four years for others. The con-
sensus of the Board was in approval of this change.
Commissioner Saunders added that on page 12, paragraph 12), he
Page 10
September 9, 1991
to strike the word annual In the first line to which the Board
i~(,Yl, concurred.
-,: Commissioner Saunders stated that a major suggestion ls to ellmt-
-nate all towers in the residential properties zoned up to RSF-6.
Gommlsstoner Volpe suggested that tower should be prohibited In
" all residential areas and limit them to commercial and industrial
zoning and agricultural areas of more than 20 acres with a maximum
height of 200 feet in the three areas. He noted that there are
variance procedures in the ordinance which will address the concerns
!i~.~! .:'i of the public communication systems.
Planner Milk questioned what this means to the ham radio operators
!i' -because the ordinance does provide for them and allows up to a 75 foot
'.i~i tower for ham radio operators. Commissioner Volpe explained that the
:,_. :>: -
-~/accessory use provision would address this concern. Mr. Milk con-
: curred.
Gommtssioner Volpe recommended that when there is a previously
ij' approved provisional use for an essential service, then a com-
:: muntcatton tower should be permitted even if it does not meet the
!':other criteria.
Commissioner Saunders commented that a limit of 200 feet for a
tower in the urban areas is too restrictive. Commissioner Shanahan
!.';i¢ountered by stating that there is the opportunity for appeal, there-
..,:..fore, sees no reason for not limiting the towers to 200 feet.
~. · Commissioner Goodnight argued that for permitted use zoning in the
: urban area there should be a 200 foot height limitation on towers;
however, no restriction is needed for provisional uses in the urban
.area because these provisional uses are reviewed by the Board prior to
construction. The consensus of the Board was in approval of this
In response to the question by Commissioner Saunders as to whether
':~ existing towers or damaged towers should be grandfathered into the
· ordinance, Mr. Milk advised that with the adoption of the proposed
Ordinance there will be towers and tower sites that will become non-
Page 11
September 9, ~99!
<:conforming, and a non-conforming tower and/or site cannot be increased
~.'~or expanded upon without going through the non-conforming use appllca-
2.'tton variance which will allow the Board to determine if a tower can
~!~"i~ibe rebuilt or added to. Commissioner Goodnight affirmed that the
:~':,,'~,~ Board wants the ability to review the non-conforming use applications
· for towers where 51% or more of it has been destroyed.
Commissioner Saunders questioned what the feeling of the Board is
in regards to the separation of tower from various zoning districts
being restricted to 500 feet rather than lOO0 feet7 The consensus of
', the Board was to leave the separation at 1000 feet.
Commissioner Goodnlght recommended that in agricultural rural
i.~areas the height of the towers could be constructed as high as 280
feet as a principle permitted use on a 20 acre site; however, any
tower proposed higher than 280 feet would need to be brought before
the Board as a provisional use.
In response to Commissioner Volpe, Mr. Milk affirmed that towers
~in the rural estates area could be provided through a provisional use
'!]:.'with a restricted height of 75 feet. He requested to correct for the
record that the proposed site for a tower at Corkscrew would be sub-
'Jeer to the Estates residential restrictions.
Jean Burker of Mosquito Control expressed her concern for safety
regarding a/lowing towers over 200 feet and requested that a provision
be made in the ordinance requiring that Mosquito Control have the
opportunity to review all appllcatlon for requests of towers over 200
feet. Commissioner Saunders concurred that this request be made part
bf,the ordinance.
Mr. Milk asked for clarification of the permitted uses for commer-
::i:¢lal and industrial areas. Commissioner Saunders responded that in
'-.the commercial and industrial areas towers of 200 feet or less will be
permitted use and over 200 feet will be a provisional use.
County Attorney Cuyler asserted that in regards to the suggested
~!provisional use lanuuage, it should be clarified that the term, essen-
~ial services, is limited to a communication facility as a normal use
Page 12
September 9, 1991
the property. The Board agreed to have County Attorney Cuyler
this change.
Co~atssioner Saunders moved, seconded by Commissioner Shanaban and
carried unanimously, that the Ordinance as numbered and titled below
be adopted with the noted changes and entered into Ordinance Book No.
46:
ORDINANCE 91-84
AND ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 82-2, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY BY
AMENDING SECTION 8, SUPPLEMENTARY DISTRICT REGULATIONS BY ADDING
THERETO SUBSECTION 8.10A, COMMUNICATION TOWERS, PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICT AND SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
There being no further business for the Good of the County, the
meeting was ad3ourned by Order of the Chair - Time: 7:45 P.M.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
ATTESt.:'
JAM~? C. -GILES / CI~RK
PATRICIA ANNE GOODNIGHT~ CHAIRMAN
~%%' approved by the Board on
~esbnted, ~ or as corrected
Page 13