Ord. No. 18-01-1749ORDINANCE NO.1R-Q1-1749
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA,RELATING TO AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 4 OF
THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES,WHICH IS ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES,"IN ORDER TO EXEMPT RESTAURANTS LOCATED ON U.S.I
(SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY)FROM THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FROM
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS,theCityCommissionadoptedOrdinance 3-98-1651 onFebruary3,1998,which
ordinance amended Chapter4 of theCity'sCodeofOrdinances,entitled"AlcoholicBeverages,"by
providing aspecialexceptionforrestaurantslocatedonBirdRoadtoservewineandbeer,not
withstanding the distance requirement fromresidential properties;and
WHEREAS,theCityCommission,atitsmeeting of June5,2001,attherequest of Vice-Mayor
Horace Feliu,directedthatanamendmentto Section 4-2(a)(4)ofthe City's Code of Ordinances,entitled
"Alcoholic Beverages:Distance Requirements,"which would permit restaurants located on U.S.1 (South
DixieHighway)toservewineandbeersubjecttothesamespecialexceptionprovidedforrestaurantsin
theBirdRoadarea,shouldbeforwardedtothePlanningBoardforreviewandrecommendation;and
WHEREAS,apublic hearing regarding the proposed amendment washeldbythe Planning Boardon
July 10,2001,at which timethe Planning Board voted 5to0to recommend approvalofthe proposed
amendmenttotheCity Commission;and
WHEREAS,theCity Commission desires toacceptthe recommendations of the Planning Boardand
enact the aforesaid amendment.
NOW,THEREFORE,BEITORDAINEDBYTHEMAYORANDTHECITYCOMMISSIONOF
THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA:
Section 1.ThatChapter4."Alcoholic Beverages,"andmore specifically,Section 4-2(a)(4)entitled
"Distance Requirements,"oftheCity's Code of Ordinances,is hereby amended toreadas follows:
Alcoholic Beverages
Section 4-2(a):Distance Requirements.
"(4)Exceptions from the aforementioned distance requirements from residential.Premises located in
zoningdistrictswhichpermitrestaurantsandwhicharelocatedalongBirdRoadandU.S.I(South
DixieHighway)mayservewineandbeeraspartofanapprovedrestaurantusewherenobaris
provided,wherefoodisservedinconjunctionwithalcoholicbeverageswithinoruponthepremises
atapprovedseatingonly,andwherea permanent,opaquebufferisprovided between the premises
andanyandalladjoiningpropertieswhicharezoned residential.Distance requirements from
churchesandschoolsshallbeobservedforallpropertiesalongBirdRoadandU.S.I(SouthDixie
Highway)."
(2)
Section 2.All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconflictwiththe provisions of this ordinance are
herebyrepealed.
Section3.If any section,clause,sentence,or phrase of this ordinance isforany reason held invalid
or unconstitutional byacourt of competent jurisdiction,this holding shall notaffectthevalidity of the
remainingportions of thisordinance.
Section4.This ordinance shalltake effect immediately atthetime of its passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this -j^h day of August -2001
ATTEST:APPROVED:
IY CLERK <^/
^Reading-7/24/01
>nd2 Reading-8/7/01
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY f
MAYOR
COMMISSION VOTE:4-0
Mayor Robaina:Yea
Vice Mayor Felieu:0ut of town
Commissioner Russell:„
Commissioner Bethel:„
Commissioner Wiscombe:Yea
NOTE:New wordingunderlined;wordingtoberemovedindicatedbystrike-through.
South Miami
An-AmerteaCRy
2001
Excellence,Integrity,Inclusion
MEMORANDUM
To:Honorable Mayor,Vice Mayor
and City Commission
From:Charles D.Scurr
City Manager
Date:August 7,2001
6RE:Agenda Item #
City Code Amendment
Alcoholic Beverages Distance
Separation
Request:AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
MIAMI,FLORIDA,RELATING TO AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 4 OF THE CITY'S
CODE OF ORDINANCES,WHICH IS ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES,"IN
ORDER TO EXEMPT RESTAURANTS LOCATED ON US 1 (SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY)
FROM THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FROM RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY,ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT,AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BACKGROUND &ANALYSIS
The City Code provides a minimum distance requirement between an establishment selling
alcoholic beverages and residential property,churches,and schools.The distance is five hundred
(500)feet.
In 1998,the City adopted an ordinance amendment to make a special exception to the distance
requirement from residential property for restaurants located on Bird Road that serve beer and
wine.This was due to the commercial characteristics of Bird Road and its immediate location
adjacent to residential areas.
The same situation exists on a portion of US 1 (South Dixie Highway).All properties within the
Hometown District on South Dixie Highway,are currently exempt from the residential distance
requirement.Properties located between SW 80 Street and approximately SW 73 Street which
are zoned GR and also face South Dixie Highway could similarly be exempt.The attached
ordinance providesthe exemption.
#
CityCode Amendment
Alcohol Distance Separation
August 7,2001
Page2
The exemption is only for restaurants that serve beer and wine;liquor is not included in the
exemption.Establishments under this provision must be an approved restaurant use where no
bar is provided,where food is served in conjunction with alcoholic beverages,and where a
permanent,opaque buffer is provided between the premises and any and all adjoining properties
which are zoned residential.Note that distance requirements from churches and schools shall
continue tobe observed.
It is anticipated that a restaurant such as "Schlotsky's Deli"could utilize such a provision to
serve beer and wine.Service of beer and wine would be only be permitted for patrons in
conjunction with purchasing food.
PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Board at its July 10,2001 meeting adopted a motion recommending approval of
the proposed amendment,with amendatory wording to clearly indicate that this exemption was
only applicable to establishments serving food inside the restaurant.The motion to approve was
made by Mr.Morton and seconded by Mr.Liddy.The motion was adopted by a vote of 5 ayes
and 0 nays.
CITY COMMISSION ACTION
The City Commission at its July 24,2001 meeting approved the ordinance on first reading.Prior
to approval the draft ordinance was amended to assure that the exemption was applicable only to
restaurants serving food on the premises.The wording "within or upon the premises at approved
seating only"was added to amendment language.
RECOMMENDATION
Itis recommended thatthe proposed amendment be adopted.
Attachments:
Proposed Ordinance
Section 4-2 of Code of Ordinances
Planning Board Minutes 7-10-01
Public notices
CS/RGL/SAYj/jrv)
D:\Comm Items\2001\8-7-01\City Code Amend Liquor Exemp reportdoc
Chapter 4
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES*
Art.I.In General,§§4-1-4-8
Art.II.Licenses,§§4-9-4-13
ARTICLE I.IN GENERAL
Sec.4-1.Manufacture,sale,distribution governed by pro-
visions of this chapter.
No person,corporation,or other entity shall engage in the man-
ufacture,sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages,except strictly
underthe terms and provisions ofthis chapter.(Ord.No 128 §1
9-24-40;Ord.No.1448,§1,6-12-90)"'
Sec.4-2.Distance requirements;nonconforming use;cer
tificate of occupancy.
(a)Distance requirements.
(1)Distance from a church,school,or residential property shall
be measured by following a straight horizontal line from
the nearest point of the property line of the property on
which the proposed licensed establishment istobe located
to the nearest point ofthe property line of a church,school
or residential property.
In all other cases,distance shall be measured by following
astraight horizontal line from the nearest point of the
perimeterwallofthe proposed establishmenttothenearest
point of the perimeter wall of the existing establishment.
No premises shallbe used for thesaleof alcoholic bever
ageswherethe proposed Hcensed estabHshmentis located
less thanthe distance in feet from another use as indicated
in the following chart:
(2)
(3)
'Cross reference-Consumption of alcoholic beverages in public and private
places,§15-74.*
State law reference-Alcoholic beverage laws,Chs.561,567,568,and 569,
rlonda Statutes.
Supp.No.48 47
c/j
c
3
P
"§'
8
S3
<0»
*>
CO
Spacing•5%
85p
u£3
Requiredto3
e§O
•*S39
(feet)O
•8
SI
5*5
§
8
e65
i1
•Sp1
•si
CO
9«•8
<o
6
5
1ua:a:oqS:$si
££
Restaurants500500O
4*
00Bar/lounge500500
*-*
Nightclub500500
£
Grocerystore5000
Q
Supermarkets500
m
Packagestores500500
Giftbaskets
Nonconforminguses
4
V
'Thespacingbetweenre:
zithintheHometownDisl
sidentia
rict,as'
!propertiesandrestaurants,bar/loungeandnightclubdoesnotapply
wellasadjacentresidentialpropertyoutsideoftheHometownDistrict.
<•"'>*.
§4-2
(4)
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES §4-2
Exceptions from the aforementioned distance require
ments from residential.Premises located in zoning dis
tricts which permit restaurants and which are located
along Bird Road may serve wine and beer as part of an
approved restaurant use where no bar is provided,where
food is served in conjunction with alcoholic beverages,
and where a permanent,opaque buffer is provided be
tween the premises and any and all adjoining properties
which are zoned residential.Distance requirements from
churches and schools shall be observed for all properties
along Bird Road.
(b)Compliance prerequisite to issuance of licenses,permits,
certificates.No certificate ofuse or occupancy,license,building or
other permit shall be issued to any person,firm,or corporation for
thesaleof alcoholic beverages tobe consumed onoroffthe
premiseswherethe proposed place ofbusinessdoesnot conform
tothe requirements of subsection (a)of this section.
(c)Violating uses declared nonconforming;abandonment.The
usesreferredtoinsubsection (a)of this section that arein
violation ofthe provisions thereofshallbedeemedtobe noncon
forming,andassuchmaycontinueuntilthereisanabandonment
thereof.Oncea nonconforming useis abandoned itshallnotbe
reestablished unless it can conform tothe requirements ofthis
chapter.Abandonment shall consist ofa change ofuse or ofa
suspension of active businesswiththe public for a period ofsix (6)
months,orpriortotheendof the period,ona written declaration
of abandonment bythetenant and owner ofthe premises if under
lease,and if not,by the owner.
(d)Sketch indicating location.For the purpose of establishing
the distance between alcoholic beverage uses and any other use,
the applicant for such use shall furnish a certified survey.Such
survey shall indicate the distance in feet between the proposed
place and any other use.
(e)Reserved.
(f)Reserved.
(g)Reserved.
Supp.No.55 49
DRAFT
CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI
PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Action Summary Minutes
Tuesday,July 10,2001
City Commission Chambers
7:30 P.M.
I.Callto Order andthePledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Action:The meeting wascalledto order at 7:35 P.M.
Action:The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.
II.Roll Call.
Action:Mr.Mortonperformedrollcall.
Board members present constituting a quorum:Mr.Liddy,Mr.Illas,Mr.Morton,Ms.
Gibson andMr.Juan Comendeiro.
Board member absent:Mr.Mann.
City staff present:Subrata Basu (ACM),Richard G.Lorber (Planning Director),Sandy
Youkilis,(Planning Consultant),Luis Figueredo,(City Attorney),and Maria M.
Menendez (Board Secretary).
III.Local Planning Agency :Public Hearings
LPA-01-001
Applicant:Shoal Creek Properties L.L.C.
Request CONSIDERATION OF AN APPLICATION TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE
MAP OF THE SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE
FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY FROM THE MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL (FOUR-STORY HEIGHT)CATEGORY TO THE TODD,TRANSIT
ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CATEGORY (FLEXIBLE HEIGHT UPTO
8 STORIES)ON A 2.8 ACRE VACANT SITE,SAID PROPERTY BEING LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS LOTS I THROUGH 25,BLOCK 15,LARKINS TOWNSITE
SUBDIVISION.THE SITE IS BOUNDED ON THE SOUTH BY S.W.70 STREET,
ON THE EAST BY SW 59™PLACE,ON THE NORTH BY SW 69th STREET,AND
ON THE WEST BY SW 61st AVENUE.THE PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION IS
TO ALLOW FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OFA RENTAL APARTMENT
BUILDING.
PlanningBoard Meeting
July 10,2001
Action:Mr.Illas read the request into the record and Mr.Lorber presented a summary of
the request where the applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map
amendment inorderto construct a residential apartment building,designed tocatertothe
University ofMiamistudentsandyoungprofessionalswhowouldwelcomethe
convenience oftheeasy access to Metro-Rail and to most necessities within walking
distance.The above-referenced amendment will change the site's Future Land Use Map
category tothe "Transit-Oriented Development District (TODD)"category.The main
factorinthiswouldbeaswitchfromaprimarily office/commercial designation toa
residential designation,Mr.Lorber added.Also,the proposed amendment is consistent
withimportant goals and policies of theCity,suchas:assuring availability of affordable
housing;encouraging mixed-use residential multi-family projectsinthe Rapid Transit
Zone;aswellas discouraging urbancommercial sprawl by promoting growthin the area
surrounding the Metrorail transit station.
TheBoardexpressedsomeconcernaboutsettingaprecedentwiththeexpansion of the
TODDzone,but staff explainedthattheZoningTaskForcehasbeendiscussingthisissue
inrecentmeetings,looking attheTODDingeneral,andisplanningon recommending a
moderate expansion in that district.
Itwasalsoclarifiedby staff thatthishearingwasforthepurpose of considering amap
changeonly,notfor considering specificsite development regulations.
The Board and staff also discussed the amount of stories that should be allowed,as well as
thetrafficissue.Mr.Lorber noted thata detailed traffic study had been submitted by the
applicant.
Applicants:JosephGoldstein,James Harris,MichaelGetz(ShoalCreekProperties)
Mr.Goldsteinprovidedadetailedvisual/verbalpresentation of theproposal.TheBoard
inquiredaboutwhichlotsize measurement (grossornetarea)isusedtodetermineF.A.R
(floor-area ratio).Mr.Goldstein referred totheCity'szoningcodeforexplanation.The
Boardinquiredastothesquarefootagesize of the dwelling units.The applicant's
representative respondedthattheaveragesizewillbe930s.f.withthehighestbeing1,130
s.f.(forthe3-bedroomunit).Mr.Lorberemphasizedthatallthosedetailswillbe covered
inthezoning application.
TheBoardalsoraisedconcernregardingtheheight of thebuildingwhichappearstothem
toexceedthe maximum heightallowedbycode.Staff explained thatsome ornamentation
abovetheroofmaygivetheappearance of ahigherstructurebutitisnotcountedaspart of
theheight.Mr.Lorber informedtheBoardthatthe applicant wouldbe required togo
before the Environmental Review &Preservation Board (ERPB)forthe ornamentation
phase of theproject.
TheBoardexpressed concern regardingthisprojectasitwouldcontributeto consume the
valuableresources of thefewvacantlandexistingintheCity,andthefactthatno
provisionwasbeingmadetoprovide affordable housing.Staff notedthatrentingismuch
more affordable thanpurchasingandalargescale of thepopulationcouldbenefitfromthe
project.
2
PlanningBoardMeeting
July 10,2001
The Board further inquired about the relatively small percentage of space designated for
retail presented with the proposal.The applicant's representative noted that there were
various issues involved such as security issues,possible lack of tenants,and that they
would be bringing more information on this issue at their next presentation.
Before opening the public hearing the attorney noted there was no need for the speakers to
be sworn in since the following would not be a quasi-judicial hearing.
Speakers:
(residentsinsupport of the proposal):
Cal Rosenbaum,6101 Sunset PI
Joe C.
Michael Miller,6796 SW 62nd St
Bill Enright,South Miami Hospital
Christopher Cook-Yarborogh,6800 SW 64'Ave
Luciana Barreto,5959 SW 71st St
Charles Fostini,5900 SW 82nd
Dick Ward,8325 SW 62nd Ct
David Tucker,Sr.,2556 SW 78th Ter
Roxanne Scalia,6925 SW 63rd Ct
AlElias,7150 SW 62nd Ave
Greg Oravec,CRA Director
In summary,residents who spoke in support of the proposal,felt that the construction of a
primarily residential apartment building would be beneficial to the City since it would
enhance the area,create a safer environment,particularly at night,and definitely be much
better than having an office building.They also favor the idea of having accessible retail
intheproposed area.
For those residents who spoke against of the proposal,the majority expressed concern
about over development within the City,and also preferred a four-story as opposed to a
six-storybuilding.
Mr Goldstein returned to the floor and recapped his presentation,assuring those present
that the applicant will be working with the City with the details of the proposal as part of
the rezoning process,which should be back before the Planning Board at its August 14 ,
2001 meeting.
Motion:Mr.Comendeiro moved and Ms.Gibson seconded the motion to approve the
request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the South Miami Comprehensive Plan by
changing the Future Land Use Category from the Mixed-Use Commercial Residential
(four-story height)category to the TODD,Transit Oriented Development Distnct category
(flexible height up to 8 stories);the approval to be subject to the following staff
recommended conditions:
(residents against the oroposalV.
Walter Harris,7100 SW 64th Ct
Francis Meltzer,8340 SW 60th Ave
Dean Witman,6259 SW 70th St
Mark Radosevich,5703 SW 83rd St
Mario J Salazar,7030 SW 63rd Ct
Ida Harris,7100 SW 64th Ct
Gus Williams,7000 SW 63rdCt
Planning Board Meeting
July 10,2001
Applicant shall submit a rezoning application,with detailed site plans,which are
restricted tothe following development parameters:
•maximumnumber of dwelling units 300;
•maximum height of structures on the site -6 stories (60 feet);
•maximum floor-area-ratio -2.25;
•minimum of 10,000 sq.ft.of retail /commercial space to be located along the
ground floor of the S.W.59th Place frontage.
The rezoning application shall be reviewed and approved bytheCityCommission
prior tothesecond reading (final adoption)of this Comprehensive Plan LandUse
Amendment,the approval of the Plan amendment and the rezoning application would
thenoccur simultaneously attheCityCommissionlevel.
Vote:Approved 5Opposed0
LPA-01-002
Applicant:City of SouthMiami
Request:AN ORDINANCE OFTHE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF SOUTH
MIAMI,FLORIDA,AMENDING THE ADOPTED SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN IN ORDER TO UPDATE THE RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE AND
CONSERVATION ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN,BY ADDING AND REVISING OBJECTIVES
AND POLICIESENCOURAGING LAND ACQUISITION FOR PARK AND
RECREATIONAL FACILITIES,GREENWAYS AND TRAILS,AND PROTECTION OF
NATIVE SPECIES;PROVIDING FOR RENUMBERING AND/OR COMBINATION PARTS
OF THIS ORDINANCE WITH OTHER SECTIONS OR PARTS OF THE SOUTH MIAMI
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;PROVIDING FOR
ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Action:Mr.Morton read the request intothe record.Staff presented theitememphasizing
theneed for this amendment which willhelptheCityto score much higher oncompetitive
applications for grants that willbe used inthe acquisition of recreation and open space
facilities,preserve and protect native species,and encourage the creation ofgreenwaysand
trails.
Speakers:JoeC.
Jay Beckman
The Board and staff briefly discussed therequest.Staff advisedthattimeis of theessence
on the proposed amendment due toa deadline in November of this year in order to qualify
for the competition of these grants offered bythe State.Staff also explained thatthese
amendments are not intended to revise the entire element.The Conservation and
Recreation elements are revised once everyfive years andthe process iscalledEAR
(Evaluation andAppraisalReport).
PlanningBoard Meeting
July 10,2001
Mr.Beckman addressed the Board and staff that during research for the previous LPA-01-
001,he found discrepancies in the Comprehensive Plan having to do with public facilities,
etc.Mr.Lorber accepted his suggestions stating that these will be addressed ata later date.'
Motion:Mr.Comendeiro moved for approval ofthe request and Mr.Illas seconded the
motion.
Vote:Approved 5 Opposed 0
At this point Mr.Morton closed the Local Planning Agency agenda andcalledthe
Planning Board to order.
IV.Planning Board :Public Hearings
Mr.Morton announced that item PB-01-011 (Corporate Property Services)onthe agenda
wouldbedeferredattherequest of the applicant.
PB-01-010
Applicant:City of South Miami
Request:AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH
MIAMI,FLORIDA,RELATING TOAN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 4OF THE CITY'S
CODE OF ORDINANCES,WHICH IS ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES,"IN
ORDER TO EXEMPT RESTAURANTS LOCATED ON US 1 (SOUTH DIXIE HIGHWAY)
FROM THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FROM RESIDENTIAL ZONINGDISTRICTS;
PROVIDINGFORSEVERABILITY,ORDINANCESINCONFLICT,AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Action:Mr.Mortonreadtherequestintotherecordand staff presentedtheitem.
Speakers:David Tucker,Sr.
Ricky Warman
The Board andstaff discussed the proposed amendment.Mr.Lorber explained thereisa
provision of theCityCodewhich requires aminimumdistancebetweenan establishment
selling alcoholic beveragesand residential property,churches,andschools.Thedistanceis
five hundred feet.However,this provision also exempts restaurants facing Bird Road.
The amendment would extend this exemption forall restaurants located on properties
facing US1.Theissue of settinga precedent asforotherfastfood establishments tosell
alcoholic beverages was alsodiscussed.
Motion:Mr.Morton moved approval of the request subject to the inclusion of wording
limiting this exemption only to restaurants with consumption on the premises.Mr.Liddy
seconded the motion.
Vote:Approved 5Opposed0
PlanningBoard Meeting
July 10,2001
V.Approval of Minutes
Action:
A.The Board duly voted on and approved the minutes of May 29,2001 withan
amendment *to item PB-01-004 (AT&TWirelessServices).Seeattached
RevisedPage2 of May 29,2001 minutes.
Vote:Approved 5 Opposed 0
VI.Discussion Items
There were no discussion items.
VII.Adjournment
Action:There being no further business before the Board,Mr.Morton adjourned the
meetingatapproximately10:30PM.
RGL/mmm
K:\PB\PB Minutes\2001 MinutesXMINS 07-10-OI.doc
PlanningBoard Meeting •
May 29,2001
COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY(FLAGPOLE)ONTHEYMCA PROPERTY LOCATED
AT4300S.W.58™AVE.,WITHINTHE "PI".PUBLIC /INSTITUTIONAL
ZONING DISTRICT,
Action:Ms.Chimelisreadtherequestintothe record andstaffpresentedthe
request,giving an overview of the proposal,indicating that the present request is a
revision of the original proposal.The applicant's original submission showed the height
of the flagpole-tower to be 87 feet.At that time,staff expressed the concern that the
height of the antenna was excessive and could not be screened from view by existing
trees.In addition,staff was also concerned about the electrical equipment building with a
barbed wire topped screen fence located within a few feet of recreational facilities for
children.Therefore,due to the above concerns,staff had recommended denial of the
request.
The revised plans submitted by the applicant show a reduction in the height of the pole to
75 feet,also showing removal of the barbed wire from the screen fencing around the
electrical equipment building.In addition,the applicant has carried out a line-of-sight
study from several locations in the surrounding residential neighborhoods.The results
indicate that the flagpole will not be visible from most of these locations.The applicant
is also proposing to plant heavy vegetation with 12 feet high trees which is in addition to
the existing 60-80 feet high trees between the flagpole and the residences which will
contributeto significantly screenthetower.
Representatives:Aldo Bustamante,Charlie Adams and Larry Lotterman
(Lotterman Development Corporation)
Felix Bravo,(AT&T Wireless)
The Board,staff and representatives discussed the proposal.The particular design of the
tower was discussed.In addition,the Board inquired whether the applicant had pursued
other locations prior to selecting the YMCA site.The Board also raised the health issue.
The City Attorney informed the Board that the Telecommunications Act of 1996
specifically precludes municipalities and local governments from considering any
environmental health issues,therefore,that could notbe considered evidence thatcanbe
weighed in the determination of granting or denying the application.
At 8:30 PM Mr.Morton called for a five-minute recess to allow those present to examine
the graphics and photographs brought by the applicant with respect to the proposed
telecommunication tower.The meeting was reconvened at 8:35 PM.
Speakers:(residents against proposal):
Ana M.Rabel,5876 SW 42nd Terrace
Martha Cruz,5801 SW 42nd Terrace
Manuel Lopez,5990 SW 44th Terrace
Speaker:(forYMCA)
Mark Thompson
2
(Revised)
NOTE:New wording underlined