10/24/1996 (2)
~<~:: 'I:. '....'. ~ ~
....,\'. ,?<~,.
[.oc
. .
, .'
.< .,' .
;.~';, .
" .
.>< .'
'..
.:
.,
, ,"
,.
.i
. , .
... ~ ]'. - ..
,.,
, !
;r',.;,;.;::: :.,.
,.'!.. ,',
~~:'(~" I ~ , '.; " .' :. ~' .
~;i:t ....;: .. . ':...
..-..l..I..............., ~ . .
\) 'J
. ". .. .' .~~ ~.' I ( ,,'. ...." r ~ I'..., ;'1, " . ' .
. .
,. ~..' ~.. .. . ,. t._... '. .' ". ','..,'..... """
.' .
'. Q
.c ..
DCAB
Development Code Adjustment Board
Minutes
Date Ot,fo her 2-t/)' ~
()
-f-9c23
w.
, '.: ' . . . I . ," ~. . ~. " I . " . .' .. I. . I . I' . I' __' . ,
;" ' : '" ,~ .
. " , ~
i~
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
CITY OF CLEARWATER
October 24, 1996
Present:
Otto Gans
William Schwab
William Johnson
Mark Jonnatti
Ron Stuart
Leslie Dougall-Sides
John Richter
Gwen Legters
Chair
Vice Chair
Board Member
Board Member
Board Member
Assistant City Attorney
Senior Planner
Board Reporter
The meeting was called to order by the Chair at 1 :01 p.m, in City Hall. followed by the
Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. HA outlined meeting procedures and the appeal
process. To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not
necessarilv discussed in that order.
B. Continued Variance Requests
B1. (cont. from 10/10196) Lawrence H. Dimmitt, II for variances of: (1' a setback variance of
17 ft to allow a swimming pool without a screen enclosure 8 ft from Bruce Ave right-of-
way where a minimum setback of 25 ft is required: (2) a height variance of 3.5 ft to allow
a 6 ft height masonry wall within the setback area from the Bay Esplanade right-ot-way
~i;,",'~~ where a maximum height of 2,5 ft Is allowed; (3) a landscape buffer variance of 3 ft to
":~j' allow a zero ft wide landscape buffer strip where a minimum of 3 ft is required; and (4) a
landscape variance of 50 percent to waive the planting requirement for shrubs along 50
percent of the exterior length of a wall at 1015 Bay Esplanade, Carlouel Sub; Blk 273, Lot
6 and part of Lot 5, zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-64
This case was continued from October 10. 1996. at the applicant's request. In a
letter submitted October 23, 1996, architect Alex Pliska requested a continuance to the
meeting of December 12, 1996 to prepare a revised site plan. No verbal or written
support or opposition was expressed.
Member Schwab moved to continue Item 81; VR 96-64, to the meeting of
December 12, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C. New Variance Requests
C1. John 8& Sandra S. Ladd for a height variance of 2 ft to allow a wood fence 6 ft high
within the setback area from the St. Thomas Dr. right-of-way where a maximum
height of 4 ft is allowed at 1529 S. Fredrica Ave, Brookhill Unit Two, Blk C, Lot 13,
zoned RS 8 (Single Family Residential). VR 96-68
I,~
The applicant requested a continuance to allow this request to be heard in conjunction
with a similar request scheduled for November 14, 1996. No verbal or written support or
opposition was expressed. One member encouraged the board to view the application
personally.
mdc10b.96 1 10/24/96
I . .' ." ....1 I .. ,
. .
11-'..... , I
f?
Member Johnson moved to continue Item C1, VR 96-68, to the meeting of
November 14, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
C2. Kenvon Dodae. lnc, for the following variances: (1) 50 ft to allow an antenna a height of
100 ft where 50 ft is allowed; and (2) a height variance of 2 ft to allow a chain link fence
8 ft in height where a maximum height of 6 ft is allowed at 19660 US 19 N, See 1 9-29-
16, M&B's 11.05, 11.06, 11.061, zoned CH (Highway Commercial). VR 96-63
In a letter dated October 23, 1996, applicant's representative Heidi Amato withdrew
the request. She asked for City assistance to identify a location that may have less impact
to the City. No action was taken.
C3. William & HODe Georollas for the following variances: (1) a height variance of 62 ft to
allow a telecommunications tower 112 ft high where a maximum height of 50 ft is
permitted; (2) a setback variance of 25 ft to allow a telecommunications tower 31 ft from
the north side property line where a minimum setback of 56 ft is required; and (3) a
setback variance of 47.75 ft to allow a telecommunications tower 8.25 ft from the rear
property line where a minimum setback of 56 ft is required at 505 Virginia Lane, See 13~
29-15, ~&B 32.05, zoned CG (General Commercial). VR 96-69
.c..,.,."..\
',-./
Assistant City Attorney Leslie Dougall-Sides reviewed the Federal Telecommunication
Act of 1996, regarding tower siting requirements. She said applications must be heard
within a reasonable time, must have a written record of the proceedings, and written
findings submitted. The act prohibits denial based on the perception of radio frequency
emissions. She requested the board clearly state the grounds for approval or denial in the
motion and to direct the City Attorney's office to prepare written findings. The findings
and transcript will be brought to the next board meeting, for approval.
Mr. Richter presented background information and written staff recommendations. He
detailed setback height requirements, stating the request does not appear to meet
standards for approval #1, #2, or #4. He said no special circumstances exist regarding the
proposed location; the property owner currently enjoys reasonable use of the land without
the tower; and the request is not in harmony with the surroundings. Mr. Richter stated the
City is sensitive to the intent of the telecommunication act, to remove barriers and
promote competition. The City encourages colocation on an existing tower on Clearwater
High School property, because it is felt one tower is preferable to two. This suggestion
has met with resistance from the Pinellas County School Board. As the request does not
meet the standards for approval, staff recommended denial.
In response to questions, Mr. Richter said staff felt another location could be found
that is more sensitive to the impact on residential properties. Staff is concerned with the
School Board's resistance' to colocate. The City Commission is sensitive to the boom in
the telecommunications industry. The City has formed a telecommunication act task force
to study the implications of deregul(!tion and increased competition. In most City zoning
districts, a utility facility is a conditional use requiring Planning and Zoning Board approval.
'-'
mdc10b.96
2
10/24/96
"I. .... . '. ,'. J ~. .
. ~ . . I
, . , .
.....'-....
f~
Robert Kersteen, GTE Mobilnet representative, reviewed the history of the search for a
tower site. He stated GTE was willing to bear a fair share of the cost to reinforce and
renovate the existing AT&T tower to facilitate colocation, and was disappointed with the
School Board's stance they want no more carriers on their property.
Mr. Kersteen explained the reasons for choosing the subject property on which to
locate a tower. He described cellular technology, stating the low frequency, line of sight
coverage must be provided where the demand exists. Television and FM radio carriers are
able to locate antennas in remote locations, but Cellular technology cannot. He explained
the additional coverage is needed to enhance City government telecommunication services.
He outlined the surroundings, proximity to power lines, and tower safety concerns. He
offered examples of tower performance under disaster conditions. He detailed the
locations and heights of seven other towers in proximity to this site, some more than 100
feet tall. He said Belcher Road is lined with 70 to 80 foot towers in proximity to
residential areas. He submitted photographs of existing towers, comparing their design to
the proposal. He said people seldom complain or notice telecommunication towers,
because the towers seem to blend into the surroundings. Mr. Kersteen responded to
questions regarding recent media reports of two towers it was thought had been in danger
of falling.
C"~}
c1~H' .
Thomas A. Giacomo, representing GTE Wireless Communications, outlined his
credentials and experience as a certified radio design engineer. He circulated a copy of an
FCC fact sheet explaining antenna requirements and new information obtained since the
Telecommunication Act of 1996. He profiled frequency and safety guidelines.
Summarizing the reasons wireless providers require so many antennas, he said the FCC
has allocated only 395 voice channels for GTE's more than 100,000 customers. During
times of heavy use, GTE has to reuse the same channels repeatedly within smaller areas.
Service is provided for car phones, portable units and other services, wireless computer
networking, Internet access and the Tele~go program for residential exchange service.
Displaying service coverage maps, he showed the lack of coverage and weak signal along
State Road 60, due to the rolling terrain, and how a tower in the proposed location will
boost service to the City of Clearwater Police and Fire Departments, and families. He
submitted copies of articles showing haw 911 emergency calls and disaster relief would
not have been possible without cellular service to enhance public safety and well being in
those areas. He related stories how cellular service has been beneficial in helping people
during emergency situations.
Robert Hardee, GTE site acquisition manager explained attempts to find an existing
location high enough to provide needed service. He said AT&T has no problems
colocating, but the School Board will not allow it, possibly because of concerns from the
school and parents about possible harmful emissions.
Discussion ensued regarding whether the School Board is bound by local zoning
ordinances. Mr. Hardee suggested asking the City to pursue the tower siting issue with
the School Board. He stated he looked at many potential locations and affirmed the
Georgilas property was his second choice. Not many properties with sufficient setbacks
exist where landlords are willing to locate towers far the small amount of return provided.
I.......,;
mdc10b.96
3
10/24/96
.... ',,'. , .
. ,> '.' . -.. ., .
rt'., .
,~
,..""-')
~";.
\ .....)
Discussion continued regarding tower photographs, coverage diagrams, and existing
tower locations and height requirements, Mr. Richter responded to questions regarding the
lot size needed to avoid having to get setback variances. He noted height a variance
would still be needed in this zoning district. Discussion ensued regarding existing tower
and antenna designs.
Three letters and a petition with 38 signatures were submitted in opposition to the
request. Concerns were expressed with exceeding the height requirement, appearance of
a telecommunication tower and negative impact on surrounding residential property values.
One member submitted copies of two articles related to the issue.
Messrs. Kersteen and Giacomo related testimonials how telecommunication towers
seem to become part of the landscape and residents do not notice them. One member
stated telecommunication carriers should work together to construct common towers. Mr.
Kersteen stated volunteering information regarding siting towers is considered collusion
and is prohibited under the Federal Trade Act. Each carrier must do its research where
tower locations are proposed. In response to a question regarding the likelihood of four
more carriers coming forward with tower proposals, Mr. Giacomo discussed the
differences in technology, coverage, equipment, and types of services among carriers. He
estimated two or three 50 foot towers would be needed to provide the same coverage as
one 100 foot tower at the preferred location.
The Chair called a recess from 2:30 to 2:41 p.m. to allow the applicants an
opportunity to review the letters in opposition.
Mr. Kersteen said the surrounding properties are, commercial, not residential, and
telecommunication towers have not been shown to negatively impact property values. In
summary, he said they are constrained by the FCC assigned frequency and the need to find
appropriate sites where the traffic is. He addressed the narrow commercial zoning district
along Gulf to Bay Boulevard, stating it is impossible to get a buffer around a commercial
site that is buffered by other commercial. He detailed at length how other sites exist in
harmony with surrounding single family residential uses in many areas throughout the
state. He noted high priced homes are frequently built near towers or antenna farms. If a
telecommunication facility had ever disturbed a neighborhood, he said the media would
make a big deal of it. He contrasted the proposal with photographs of a typical residential
street with above ground utilities.
One member noted it appears federal law has addressed and endorsed the need for
mobile telephone services A question was raised if topography is a special circumstance
that could be considered grounds for approving a 100 foot antenna tower. Ms. Dougall-
Sides responded by reiterating the law does not prohibit the local zoning authority from
regulating site and placement, but does require evidence to support the decision. She
affirmed the code mentions shape and topography as special circumstances. One member
questioned the applicants' assertion the request is not for financial gain, and noted no one
appeared to speak in opposition. One member stated he uses wireless technology for
business and personal reasons and strongly encouraged the City to work with the School
Board to allow another antenna on the Clearwater High School property. He felt many
local residents would benefit from enhanced service.
mdc10b,96 4 10/24/96
'. .'" . ~. . . " ~ . ~ ~ .
t1
In response to a question, Mr. Kersteen reiterated AT&T and GTE would bear all costs
associated with replacing the existing tower with a more substantial tower. No costs
would be incurred by the School Board.
The Chair cautioned board members to base their decision on the four standards for
approval, regardless of what happens with the School Board property, He questioned jf a
continuance to pursue the School Board location would violate the requirement for a timely
decision. Ms. Dougall-Sides advised asking the applicants if they want to request a
continuance, taking into account the fact the law says the decision must be timely.
One member expressed concern he did not support the variances as presented, but felt
denial will just postpone the issue. He felt political pressure on the School Board is
needed. Another member agreed, stating the pressure should be between elected officials.
In response to a question, Mr. Kersteen did not object to a continuance, and suggested a
condition the applicants must appear before the school board to get their decision in
writing. Consensus was board members agreed with the importance of getting this issue
before the School Board. Discussion ensued regarding a realistic time frame. Ms. Dougall-
Sides said taking the issue before the School Board will likely require more than the three
weeks and suggested a continuance to the board's second meeting on December 12,
1996.
1:1<<"'')
'~;l"l'f"
Member Johnson moved to continue Item C3, VR 96-69, to December 12, 1996, to
enable the applicant to contact the City Commissioners and/or the Mayor and/or the City
Manager to further explore the possibility of any additional action, with such action to be
reported to the Development Code Adjustment Board at their regular meeting of
December 12, 1996. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
In response to a question, Ms. Dougall-Sides said written findings are not required for
continuances, General discussion ensued regarding how the board can communicate its
recommendation through staff to the City Commission and the City Manager. Mr. Richter
will convey the information through Central Permitting Director Scott Shuford.
Member Johnson left the meeting at 3:08 p.m.
Minutes Approval - October 10, 1996
Member Schwob moved to approve the minutes as submitted in writing to each
member by the Board Reporter. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
Board and Staff Comments
Brief discussion ensued regarding the possible need to reschedule some meetings
during City Hall renovations. Consensus was to approve the board's 1997 meeting
schedule as submitted,
~
mdc10b.96
5
10/24/96
'\ ' .. I
,1.,
, ; , ~
cr,'
. . <,
i.' '.
~!rr'I'~~~,:'" 'J:~ .:"'.J;~:I,~"':~ 'T" ~.' '. : <\i- ~ . ";~' ,
'..~ .. '
',' .'
I ' '.', t '." 0;: u.;~.. .+....,
o
Member Schwob commented on the minimal visual impact of telecommunication
towers and above ground utility wires. He pointed to several large, expensive houses built
under large power lines near Soule Road.
In response to a question from Mr. Gans, it was indicated the public is not
automaticaUy notified of continuances. Readvertising is required if the public hearing
occurs more than 45 days from the originally advertised meeting date.
Member Schwab questioned the presence of an oversized dumpster along Virginia
Lane on the drive~in Walgreens property. Staff will review the certified site plan to ensure
correct dumpster placement.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 3:15 p:m.
Chair
Development
Board
~
'.' C}.
Attest:
_~~:t~
o
mdc1 Db.96
6
10/24/96