08/10/1995 (2)
(:~:~ ~:.~{.~:~~:~ " ~. ",!' .
, ,
. .. . .
.' ,
... .
~ "': '
~j
. . ~ ~. . .
>' "' ~I: . .
I ,
~ 1.. .~
. ';,-' .' , . . ~
';, '
~,\
,'\'.., .
, '
"J,'. J
,~, '
" '
$". "," .
\ '. '0 >' c, ~.
>'\,." \~.:;. '
.,r. .
~~ "p" .
. '
( ". I
.' .....'~:..... ''''.....~ ,....\..,.........',~.,."."..t-I..'N.. >~~ .
,. . -+ , '.~ ... L' " ",
~ "
. 1"., 1..1
;, , .......~ 41'-
DCAB
Developme~t Code Adjustment Board
Minutes
Date
I
1
!
;
, ,
,
,
..
I '
~"' - .'
) ,
,-0
"4~/ 2/0
...~
, . I . '''''' 1"- "" . " I". > .
t':::.,\' ,,I. .
r~i}.? ~~ ',~
,'\'~. . -
~
. .. t
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD M ACTION AGENDA
August 10, 1995
Call to Order, Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
A. VARIANCE REQUESTS:
1. (cont from 7/27/95) City of Clearwater (GTE Mobilnet of Tampa, lnc) for a variance of 111
(1. in height to permit a communications antenna 171 f1. high where a maximum height of
60 ft. is permitted at 3290 S.R. 580, Sec 21-28-16, M&B 31.00, zoned P!SP
(PublidSemipublic). V 95.40
ACTION: Granted as requested sub;ect to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based
on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps,
plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the appJ;cant's request for a
variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request
for a variance regarding the work to be dO,ne ~ith regard to the site or any physical structure
located on the site, will result ill this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the requisite
building permit(s) shall be obtained within six months From the date of this public hearing;
3) the installation shall strictly conform to FCC regulations regarding interference with other
electronic uses; and 4) should the use of the tower be terminated, the tower shall be
removed.
()
2. Bruce G. & Barbara M. Tyndall (Obrentz Design Group) for variances of (1) 4 ft. to permit
1 ft. of perimeter landscaping along the west property line where 5 ft. is required; (2) 3 f1. to
permit 2 ft. of perimeter landscaping along the east property line where 5 ft. is required; and
(3) 3 parking spaces to permit 4 parking spaces where 7 parking spaces are required to allow
a conversion to professional office at 215 Turner St., A.C. Turner Sub. No.3, Blk, 4, Lot 2,
zoned OL (Limited Office). V 9541
ACTION: Granted #1 for a variance of 2 feet to permit 3 feet of perimeter landscaping along
the west property line where 5 feet is required; Granted #2 and #3 as requested subject to
the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the application for a variance and
documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans, surveys, and other documents
submitted in support of the applicant's request (or a variance. Deviation from any of the
above documents submitted in support of the request for a variance regarding the work to
be done with regard to the site or any physical structure located on the site, will result in this
variance being null and Df no effect; 2) the requisite building permit(s) sha/J be obtained
within six months from the date of this public hearing; 3) prior to the issuance of a building
permit, the applicant shalf submit a landscape plan to the Environmental Management Group
for review and approval; 4) prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant sha{{
submit a parking plan to Traffic Engineering (or review and approval; 5) the requirements
of the Pinellas County Transportation Impact Fee ordinance shall be satisfied; and 6)
handicapped access requirements Df the Building Code shall be satisfied.
B. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS - None
DCA8 ACTION
Pagll1 Df 2
oal,0/95
"~~::.:.,. ~ "'~....'" 'I!,""' " "
;/~<"J :~~;~."~';"
,
'ell' ,
',.. v. ':: ~"t,...' " r~:
:"
"!";.. ,
',::. '.
". .
",.'
f: :' " .
", ' .
..... "
~ " " .
/:;',', '
t.:~.:,' '
tll'
l'" '
::::':;,:, ,",
t~',;; ,.. . ,.,,,,,: "';:;~"';' J; ~""~:' "C,!.,:,:.:'::'/ /.\. ~ .;,;, , "... .
~1."r(.'llt.f1",~,..,_"",L'I' 'c' """ "" q, ' " ,. :' ".'
&-n~~lFff~r:},':'~{"~''',,:,j:t'':,:' "'.'1 ",C '~'~ ". 1" '.,' ',' '
~ I .
O.C', "'...
: I' . ~ : ....~
t "~. , '. . ~ . ~ ., .
. . , : " .{J .
.' . l:-~ c'",; :...", Ic".",,;~l,q 10 "": c'" -'""'t~,., ,..,.~...+~
"
i
.\,
~:,~'~,Q
~ ! .'
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 27~ 1995 - Approved as amended
D. CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS - None
. "
E. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - None
F. BOARD AND STAFF COMMENTS - Discussion
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2: 19 p.m.
,'.. '.
;,:,., ,
to., . :.,t.'
. ',.'
~: .
;.. "
, i
t
, '
.
:>'0
'0;,
(:. . .fl>
"
,\
",
,1
~. l 'T C
"
(."
, "
'.;
o
DCAB ACTION
Page 2 of 2
08/10/95
" .' . ,~" " I.' I . ~ " ." . I I. '.' I
I
~~'tl,,~,,/, " .",
,~
DEVELOPMENT CODE ADJUSTMENT BOARD
August 10, 1995
, Members present: Otto Gans. Vice Chair
Joyce Martin
William Johnson
William Schwob
Members absent: Alex Plisko. Chair
Also present: John Richter, Senior Planner, Central Permitting Department
Gwen Legters, Board Reporter
The meeti,ng was called to order by the Vice Chair at 1 :00 p.m. in the Commission
Chambers of City Hall, followed by the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. He outlined
procedures and advised anyone adversely affected by any decision of the Development
Code Adjustment Board may appeal through the City Clerk Department within two weeks.
He noted Florida law requires any applicant appealing a decision of this Board to have a
record of the proceedings to support the appeal.
In order to provide continuity, the items will be listed' in agenda order although not
necessarily discussed in that order.
<) A. The following variance requests were considered:
1. (cont from 7/27/95) City of Clearwater (GTE Mobilnet of Tampa, Inc) for a
variance of 111 ft. in height to permit a communications antenna 171 ft. high
where a maximum height of 60 ft. is permitted at 3290 S.R. 580, Sec 21-28-
16, M&B 31.00, zoned P/SP (Public/Semipublic). V 95~40
This item was continued to allow time to readvertise a change in the variance request. Mr.
Richter stated the original request did not take into account the additional 21, feet in height
needed for the antenna.
Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, the staff
recommendation. He stated the applicant proposes to build a communications tower on
City-owned property near an existing City radio tower. He detailed conditions existing on the
surrounding property, stating the tower will be consistent with the character of the area and
is to be more than 800 feet from residential uses to the north and east. He said staff
recommends approval with four conditions. The fourth condition was requested by a
resident of an adjoining subdivision.
In response to a question. Mr. Richter stated the 60 foot height restriction is the maximum
allowed under the zoning.
mdc08a.95
Page 1 of 4
08110/95
< ' . .... . I I, '. ~ . .. +'''' . / . . .. .
I~
Robert Kersteen. representing the applicant, compared this request to the exiRting City
owned tower in terms of height and surface area. He highlighted the configuration of the
tower, antenna and associated equipment shed. Quoting FCC regulations, he said the
antenna height was not chosen by the applicant; height is determined by the assigned
frequencies, which follow line of sight. He said the operation will be neighborhood friendly
and will serve the public welfare. He said many law enforcement and medical services
utilize cellular communications, especially during emergencies. He stressed that good
communications at the scene of a disaster are important, especially in a congested area
such as Pinellas County.
A question was raised why the proposal cannot be incorporated with the existing tower.
Mr. Kersteen stated the City's 320 foot tower is not structurally capable of bearing the
additional antenna load. He indicated the proposal will accommodate City antennas in the
future at no additional cost.
Mary Morzend. representing the Country Villas of Safety Harbor Homeowners Association,
expressed concern the City's tower is very visible from her neighborhood and they do not
want additional flashing lights at night. She questioned if any electromagnetic fields or
other hazards are associated with the new tower. She also expressed concern the adjacent
water treatment plant is more visible due to removal of trees for widening State Road 580.
She wished to discourage the City from building any more facilities on this site. Staff
agreed to pass along her concerns.
t'.;:;:ih
f,~~;::3'
It was indicated one Jetter expressing concern with additional lighting had been previously
copied to the Board.
In response, Mr. Kersteen stated neither flashing lights nor painting is required for structures
under 199 feet not in close proximity to airports. Regarding any potential hazard, he
compared the exposure to that of a 100 watt light bulb from a distance of 100 feet.
Based upon the information furnished by the applicant. Member Schwob moved to grant the
variance as requested because the applicant has substantially met all of the standards for
approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code, more specifically,
because the variance arises from a condition unique to the property and was not caused by
the owner or applicant subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is based on the
application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including maps, plans,
surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant1s request for a variance.
Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for a
variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure
located on the site. will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the requisite
building permit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing;
3) the installation shall strictly conform to FCC regulations regarding interference with other
electronic uses; and 4) should the use of the tower be terminated, the tower shall be
removed. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
u
mdcOBa.95
Page 2 at 4
08/10/95
~ \ . < ' . ',' " . .',. ~ ~ . ."J . . " . ~. .. t. :. .. ,'. . + . <.. _
~"
,
2. Bruca..G..o-&J3arbaraM_TyndaU (Obrentz Design Group) for variances of (1) 4 ft. to
permit 1 ft. of perimeter landscaping along the west property line where 5 ft. is
required; (2) 3 ft. to permit 2 ft. of perimeter landscaping along the east property
line where 5 ft. is required; and (3) 3 parking spaces to permit 4 parking spaces
where 7 parking spaces are required to allow a conversion to professional office at
215 Turner St., A.C. Turner Sub. No.3, elk. 4, Lot 2, zoned OL (Limited Office).
V 95-41
Mr. Richter gave the background of the case and presented, in writing, the staff
recommendation. He stated the applicants wish to convert a two family residential building at
the front of the site to an office. An existing single family dwelling will remain at the rear of the
site. Mr. Richter detailed parking and landscaping buffer requirements, indicating the proposed
office will complete the conversion of homes to offices in this blackface. He noted
Environmental Management staff requested a landscape plan prior to issuance of any building
pennits. They also suggested increasing the landscaping buffer along the west property line to
thre'3 feet. Traffic Engineering staff concurred. Staff felt the request appears to comply with
the standards for approval.
Attorney Mark Marquardt spoke on behalf of Christine Stevens, prospective purchaser of the
property. He stated the Obrentz Design Group has been in Clearwater for a number of years
and wishes to remain. They are having to move from their present location because the space
they are leasing is needed by the property owner for other uses. He said the proposed use is
consistent with the area and will be an improvement over the present use. The structure is in
keeping with other wooden structures in the area. He said screening is to be removed from the
,'" i porch and the tin roof will remain.
~.I;oo;.,1
Mr. Marquardt displayed a rendering comparing the existing building to the plans for
improvement. He referred to a letter from an adjacent property owner applauding this
enhancement of the area. He felt the parking variance is appropriate as very little traffic goes
into the property. The design staff usually visits the customer.s location.
In response to a question. Mr. Marquardt submitted a letter authorizing him to represent the
applicant.
Discussion ensued regarding staff's recommendation to increase the landscaping buffer from one
to three feet. Mr. Marquardt agreed, stating the change is already being addressed. Concern
was expressed with the narrow drive on the west side.
Based upon the information fumished by the applicant, Member Johnson moved to grant #1 for
a variance of 2 feet to pennit 3 feet of perimeter landscaping along the west property line where
5 feet is required: and to grant #2 and #3 as requested because the applicant has substantially
met aU of the standards for approval as listed in Section 45.24 of the Land Development Code,
more specifically, because the variance arises from a condition ~nique to the property and was
not caused by the owner or applicant subject to the following conditions: 1) This variance is
based on the application for a variance and documents submitted by the applicant, including
maps, plans, surveys, and other documents submitted in support of the applicant's request for
a variance. Deviation from any of the above documents submitted in support of the request for
a variance regarding the work to be done with regard to the site or any physical structure
"-...' located on the site, will result in this variance being null and of no effect; 2) the requisite
mdcOBa.95
Page 3 01 4
08/10/95
I:
:t::\::'h ./ '-.' .
~
building permit(s) shall be obtained within six months from the date of this public hearing; 3)
prior to the issuance of a building permit. the applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the
Environmental Management Group for review and approval; 4) prior to the issuance of a
building permit. the applicant shall submit a parking plan to Traffic Engineering for review and
approval; 5) the requirements of the Pinellas County Transportation Impact Fee ordinance shall
be satisfied; and 6) handicapped access requirements of the Building Code shall be satisfied.
The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
B. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS - None
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - July 27, 1995
Member Schwab, referring to the last sentence on page 5, indicated it was premature to convey
support of the Downtown Redevelopment Plan to the City Commission. He requested the
statement be changed to indicate the Board had no objections to the plan.
Member Schwab moved to approve the minutes of July 27, 1995. as amended. The motion
was duly seconded and carried unanimously.
D. CHAIRMAN'S ITEMS - None
E. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS - None
F. BOARD AND STAFF COMMENTS
,...-,
,.-)
Ms. Martin expressed concern the building in the Obrentz proposal is very large for the area.
Staff was asked to track the project and ensure the code and all conditions are met.
.'
Ms. Martin noted, for small boards and meetings, it is not necessary to second motions under
Robert's Rules of Order. She wondered how this rule affects the Development Code Adjustment
Board (DCAB.) It was felt these proceedings have a tendency to be more formal than, for
example, a condominium association meeting. Consensus was to follow the more formal rule
when there is a choice.
Concem was expressed a Legal Department representative no longer attends DCAB meetings.
It was not known when or if this practice will resume. Mr. Richter stated it was his
understanding a Board attorney will be provided when a replacement Assistant City Attorney
is hired.
Ms. Martin indicated she will not be present for the meeting of August 24.
G. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 2: 19 p.m.
,
.'""'---~
Att~st: j ,
, ' (J-;'tY/JI/
Boord Reporter
mdc08a.95
'~,'~_cJ/
.""'-----'" ,....--------....
/ ~ r 'Lj~Y;
\.. A_---.. \ / -C:_j ~
Chair r J/
Page 4 of 4
08/10/95